32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer

From idontknownuthin

Contents 1 The Thirty-two Rules 1.1 R32:1 1.2 R32:2 1.3 R32:3 1.4 R32:4 1.5 R32:5 1.6 R32:6 1.7 R32:7 1.8 R32:8 1.9 R32:9 1.10 R32:10 1.11 R32:11 1.12 R32:12 1.13 R32:13 1.14 R32:14 1.15 R32:15 1.16 R32:16 1.17 R32:17 1.18 R32:18 1.19 R32.19 1.20 R32:20 1.21 R32:21 1.22 R32:22 1.23 R32.23 1.24 R32:24 1.25 R32:25 1.26 R32:26 1.27 R32:27 1.28 R32:28 1.29 R32:29 1.30 R32:30 1.31 R32:31 1.32 R32:32

The Thirty-two Rules

of Eliezer B. Jose Ha-Ge-lili[2]

Rules laid down by R. Eliezer b. Jose Ha-Gelili for haggadic exegesis, many of them being applied also to halakic interpretation.

R32:1

Extension: The particles “et”, “gam”, and “af”, which are superfluous indicate that something which is not explicitly stated must be regarded as included in the passage under consideration, or that some teaching is implied thereby.

This rule is used by Rashi to derive that Cain had a twin sister and Abel has two twin sisters (triplets).

RCJ - I have not used this myself in interpretation.

R32:2

Limitation: The particles “ak”, “rak”, and “min”, indicate that something implied by the concept under consideration must be excluded in a specific case.

R32:3

Extension after extension: When one extension follows another it indicates that more must be regarded as implied.

R32:4

Limitation after limitation: A double limitation indicates that more is to be omitted.

R32:5

Express Resizing. Minor to major, or vice versa, and expressly so characterized in the text.

R32:5{ obey =>-> sacrifice } Obedience is better than sacrifice, therefore the context of obedience can be applied to sacrifice}

R32:6

Implied Resizing. Minor to major, or vice versa, but only implied, not explicitly declared to be one in the text. This and the preceding rule are contained in the Rules of Hillel number 1.

RCJ - I use this all the time: a sinner (Zacchaeus) becomes "sin incarnate". see rule 32:7

R32:6{Zacchaeus =< sin incarnate}
R32:6{evidence of hate => "Why do you treat us this way?"}

R32:7

Argument from analogy. Biblical passages containing synonyms or homonyms are subject, however much they differ in other respects, to identical definitions and applications.

RCJ- I use this all the time. 'Stone' and 'rock' are synonyms so I equate them. When words share a root, they sound alike, so I will replace the word with the meaning of its root. The 'tree' becomes 'the cross', so when Jesus saw a tax collector sitting in the tree, he saw himself as sin incarnate hanging on the cross.

R32:7{stone =S-> rock} Since'stone is a synonym of 'rock', the context of the stone is applied to the rock.

R32:7{leaf =H-> tribe} Since the 'leaf' is a homonym of 'tribe', the context of the leaf is applied to the tribe.

R32:8

Application by association: Application of a provision found in one passage only, to passages which are related to the first in content but do not contain the provision in question.

R32:8{Mannaseh =A-> Jesus, (12 years old, sod:"second son")} Manasseh is related to Jesus by association of 12 years old and being the second son, therefore the context of Manasseh applies to Jesus.

R32:9

Abbreviation: is sometimes used in the text when the subject of discussion is self-explanatory.

This is classic "Remez", where Jesus quotes a single verse and brings the whole context of the quoted scripture to bear.

R32:9{ [address of quoted passage] =R-> [address of reference]} The context of the first passage is applied to the second because of the Reference (or Remez).

R32:10

Repetition: Repetition implies a special meaning.

The boys repeat their taunt of Samuel, "You bald head, You bald head". The head always represents authority, so they were saying he had no authority.

We have seen that whenever there are two of something, one is the earthly and one the heavenly.

So they were taunting him saying he had no authority on heaven or on earth. Can you decrypt his response?

R32:11

Order reshuffle: Where in the text a clause or sentence not logically divisible is divided by the punctuation, the proper order and the division of the verses must be restored according to the logical connection.

R32:12

Mutual benefit. Anything introduced as a comparison to illustrate and explain something else itself receives in this way a better explanation and elucidation.

R32:13

Trailing detail clarifies general. When the general is followed by the particular, the latter is specific to the former and merely defines it more exactly. (compare with Hillel #5)

R32:14

Spiritual made plain by mundane. Something important is compared with something unimportant to elucidate it and render it more readily intelligible.

R32:14{"clean animal" =^-> "child of God" }

• {ruminate =^-> meditate}
The context of 'ruminate' is applied to 'meditate' to get 'day and night' or all the time.
• {grain =< bread =^ the Word}
• {split hoof =^ walk}

A clean animal is one that ruminates and has a split hoof. The spiritual meaning is that a child of God meditates on His word day and night, and it affects his walk.

R32:15

Three witnesses. When two Biblical passages contradict each other the contradiction in question must be solved by reference to a third passage.

R32:15{A x [-1-] =-> B} Passage A and the unifier passage (1) reconcile with B, therefore the context of A applies to B.

A= { R32:8(Aaron =A-> Jesus) went into the wilderness, met R32:8(Moses =A-> God), and R32:7(kissed =H burned =S sacrifice)
[-1-] (unifier)= "To obey is better than to sacrifice" R32:5{obey =>-> sacrifice}
C= Jesus went into the wilderness, met Satan, {was tempted (obedience implied in the context) =S obeyed}.

R32:16

Solo context: An expression which occurs in only one passage can be explained only by the context. This must have been the original meaning of the rule, although another explanation is given in the examples cited in the baraita.

R32:17

Scattered details. A point which is not clearly explained in the main passage may be better elucidated in another passage.

See The Keys to the Kingdom: Chapter 2#Identity for an example discovering when Jesus knew that He was God.

R32:18

Part to Whole. A statement with regard to a part may imply the whole.

R32.19

Inferred superset. A statement concerning one thing may hold good with regard to another as well.

R32:20

Shift by absurdity. A statement concerning one thing may apply only to something else.

R32:21

Condensed analogy. If one object is compared to two other objects the best part of both the latter forms the common idea for comparison.

R32:22

Parallel explanation. A passage may be supplemented and explained by a parallel passage.

R32.23

Reverse parallel. A passage serves to elucidate and supplement its parallel passage.

R32:24

Focus on exception. When the specific implied in the general is especially excepted from the general, it serves to emphasize some property characterizing the specific.

R32:25

Focus off exception. The specific implied in the general is frequently excepted from the general to elucidate some other specific property, and to develop some special teaching concerning it.

R32:26

Parable.

R32:27

Preceding. Interpretation through the preceding.

R32:28

Opposite. Interpretation through the opposite.

R32:29

Numeric. Interpretation according to the numerical value of the letters.

R32:30

Shared root. Interpretation by dividing a word into two or more parts.

R32:31

Reverse order. Many phrases which follow must be regarded as properly preceding, and must be interpreted accordingly in exegesis.

R32:32

Anachronism. Many portions of the Bible refer to an earlier period than to the sections which precede them, and vice versa.

These thirty-two rules are united in the so-called Baraita of R. Eliezer b. Jose HaGelili. In the introduction to the Midrash ha-Gadole, where this baraita is given, it contains thirty-three rules. Rule 29 being divided into three, and rule 27 being omitted.

English names were given by Bob Jones for personal reference only.