Kurgan

Exposed

First principle: Kal va' homer (“light and consistent”)

Kal Vah' omer (or Qal va' Homer) is the equivalent of the principle scholastic of a fortiori (with stronger reason). He deduces a law nonknown in an important situation, starting from a principle stated in a situation of less importance. He can apply to restrict as to widen the range of this principle

Rabbi 'Hanina bar Papa explains: when D. ordered with the trees to appear according to distinct species, the grasses deduced Qal Va' homer from it in what relates to them: if God asked the trees, which do not push in an inseparable mixture, to preserve distinct species, with stronger reason the grasses which push completely mixed, must make some in the same way. At once, they appeared each one according to its species. Then the angel of the world entonné: 'That the glory of God is everywhere, that God is delighted by his works -- T.B Houlin 60a

Second principle: Gzera Shava (“even sentence”)

Shava is a inference by analogy will gzera: he is deduced from the presence of two similar terms, generally rare, in two places distinct from the biblical text that the rules applied in the first verse can the being applicable in the other.

Talmud interprets starting from the use of the term zkhr in the Deutéronome and the Livre of Esther that the Meguila of Esther must be not only read but also aloud.

The rabbis reduce the use of this principle to received analogies of a Master per oral tradition. However, the Karaïte Annan Ben David, rejecting the authority of the rabbis but preserving the use of these principles hermeneutics to which he recognizes a logical value, made of this principle a free use, creating new interpretations.

Third principle: Binyan AV vekatouv e' had oshnei ktouvim (“construction according to a principle and one or two verses”)

The applications deductible from the principle ( front ) stated in one or two verses congruent are extended by this rule with a field of similar situations.

Talmud deduced from a verse of Deutéronome on the disability of a testimony isolated in a criminal case that everywhere where the Torah speaks about “a witness,” “two witnesses should be heard,” except precision of the opposite.

the Mekhilta deduces from two verses of the Livre of the Exodus relating to the stamping from a slave following physical injuries that if the damage caused by the loss of an eye and that caused by the loss of a tooth are different as regards damage, they present the character of irrevocable, visible and intentionally caused wounds jointly. Consequently, “any irrevocable wound, visible and intentionally inflicted with a slave canaan éen oblige its Master to free it. ”

Fourth principle: Klal oufrat (“general rule and particular case”)

When a general assertion is followed of a particular assertion, this one restricts the rule at first sight general with this specific case.

the Torah, at the time of exposed laws on the sacrificial offerings starts by laying down a general rule (contribution of an offering), before restricting the aforementioned offering with the large one or smaller live-stock.

Fifth principle: Prat oukhlal (“particular case and general rule”)

When a particular case, or a series of particular cases, is followed of a general assertion, the rule generalizes the principle stated in the cases.

when the Torah exposes the obligation of restitution of an object lost to its owner, it commonce by particular cases (the ass, the ox), before exposing the general rule.

Sixth principle: Klal ouFrat ouKhlal (“Rule, case and rule”)

In the verses where a list of particular case is preceded and followed general rules, the rabbis seek the principle subjacent with the particular cases and extend it to the general rule, including for cases not-cities; the purpose of one of the rules is to extend the principle, the other comes to restrict it.

Of the verse of the Book of the treating Exodus of the not-restitution of a lost good, where a series of examples (“an ox, an ass, a lamb, a clothing”) is preceded by a rule (“Any business fraudulent”) and followed by a rule (“or any lost object on the subject of which one will say: It is that! ”), the rabbis deduce that “any lost object” must resemble the cases so that one can carry oath on him owe a court. As these cases have jointly to be personal properties having a money value, one can deposit oath on any personal property having money value, but not on real estate values nor on goods not having a money value (acts or the moral value, for example)

Seventh principle: Klal shehou tsarikh lifrat, prat shehou tsarikh likhlal (“a rule requiring a case, a case requiring a rule”)

When a stated rule requires a particular example to be understandable or conversely, one cannot limit the general information to the particular case, nor to extend the particular case to the general information, and the law is resulting from the superposition of both.

When God prescribes in Moïse to count elder the male Jews, the general information “theborn ones” requires a particular precision (“males”) and conversely, the particular case requires a general information so that one deduces a rule from it.

Eighth principle

“All that held of the general rule, and from of was extracted in order to teach us a rule, one should not regard it as applicable to the extracted case, but to the whole of the cases. ”

the verse instituting the abstention from any work the day of the Shabbat seems rather clear so that the verse prohibiting the lighting of a fire the day of the Shabbat appears redundant. Such a case of figure being improbable in the rabbinical tradition, the Wise ones deduces some according to the eighth principle from Rabbi d' Ishmaël who “any work is punishable” means “each work is punishable. ” Into consequent, the transgressor will have to bring a offering in repurchase of each transgression, and not a collective offering.

Ninth principle

“All that was included in a general rule and from of was extracted to be applicable to another rule which belongs to its context ', was extracted to only soften, not to reinforce. ”

as a whole connects It redundancy of the verse on the cutaneous ulcers cured compared to a preceding verse dealing with skin troubles is solved by deducing that a cutaneous ulcer, although deeper of the skin, does not require a period of insulation longer than that necessary for the surface skin troubles.

Tenth principle

“All that was included in a general rule and from of was excluded to be applicable to a rule which does not form part of its context ', was it in order to be softened certain cases and reinforced others. ”

When it is made mention in the same chapter of one wound to the head and the chin, whereas it was previously discussed of the affections “of the skin and the flesh,” it should be deduced from it that these affections do not arise any more of the skin troubles but of the '' tinea capitis ''. And, in this particular context, a white hair will not be as serious as a white spot on the skin, on the other hand, a yellow hair will be impure.

Eleventh principle

“All that was included in a general rule, which was extracted from it to be treated by a new rule, one cannot attach it to the general rule, except if the Torah does it itself (explicitly). ”

The Torah makes here modifications to particular cases of a rule previously laid down.

Thus, in the case of the Terouma, reserved for the sacerdotal class, the Torah says that a person born in the house of the cohen can consume some. However, the girl of a cohen married to a layman in is excluded.

Twelfth principle: Davar haLamed me' inyano vedavar halamed misoufo (“a teaching learned from its context, a teaching learned from its end”)

In the Ten Commands, it is question of the “flight” whereas this one was already evoked before. The Wise ones however deduce from the context this to pour, placed between the homicide and adultery, that if these crimes are liable to the capital punishment, it is that the flight in question here is liable to the capital punishment because being caught some not with objects but people. The “flight” is thus included/understood by the Wise ones like a sequestration.

In the chapter 14 of Lévitique, it is discussed of the laws on the “leprosy of the walls. ” This passage is rather obscure until its conclusion, where it is understood that a house can receive the impurity if it contains stones, wood and mortar (which retain the agents responsible for the impurity).

Thirteenth principle

“Two verses which are contradicted can be solved that at the time when a third verse comes to solve their apparent contradiction. ”

The example the best known one is that of the two verses inaugurating the two accounts of the Genesis: in the opening of the first account, the skies precede the ground in creation, whereas in the second, the ground precedes the skies. A verse of Isaïe solves the difficulty. : skies and ground were created simultaneously.

Correspondence with the seven rules of Hillel

When Hillel Old the was established with the head of Sanhédrin, he taught in front of wire of Bathyra seven rules of hermeneutics from which to deduce the Torah. These rules are:

Qal va' homer
Guezera shava
front Binyan semi-katouv e' had
front Binyan mishnei ketouvim
Klal oufraṭ ve Praṭ oukhlal
Ka-yotze bo semi-maqom a' her (similarity of contents with another biblical passage).
Davar ha-lamed me 'inyano.

By comparing the two systems of hermeneutics,

the first two principles are identical to the first two rules of Hillel Old the
“Binyan AV” is a combination of the third and fourth rule of Hillel
rules 7 to 11 are formed by the subdivision of the fifth rule of Hillel
“a thing learned from its context” is identical to the seventh rule of Hillel. However, “a thing learned from its end” is specific to the classification of Rabbi Ishmaël
the thirteenth principle is specific to Baraïta deRabbi Ishmaël. On the other hand, the sixth rule of Hillel is omitted in the comput of Rabbi Ishmaël.

Notes and references of the article

Random links: