Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) defines the rules and methods for investigation and exact determination of meaning of the scriptures in the Hebrew Bible, within the framework of Rabbinic Judaism. This includes, among others, the rules by which the requirements of the Oral Law and the Halakha are derived from and established by the written law.
These rules relate to: grammar and exegesis the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see Gematria) the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see Notarikon) the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels the logical deduction of a halakhah from a Scriptural text or from another law
Classes of rules
Compilations of such hermeneutic rules were made in the earliest times. The tannaitic tradition recognizes three such collections, namely: the 7 Rules of Hillel (baraita at the beginning of Sifra; Avot of Rabbi Natan 37) the 13 Rules of Rabbi Ishmael (Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael at the beginning of Sifra; this collection is merely an amplification of that of Hillel) the 32 Rules of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose. These last-mentioned rules are contained in an independent baraita (Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules) which has been incorporated and preserved only in later works. They are intended for haggadic interpretation, but many of them are valid for the Halakah as well, coinciding with the rules of Hillel and Ishmael. For list of rules see List of Talmudic principles. For exhaustive list and examples from the Talmud, see Hillel Bakis (2013f).
It must be borne in mind, however, that neither Hillel, Ishmael, nor Eliezer ben Jose sought to give a complete enumeration of the rules of interpretation current in his day. For some reason they restricted themselves to a compilation of the principal methods of logical deduction, which they called "middot" (measures), although the other rules also were known by that term.
Those rules are traditionally studied and applied to the religious texts of some biblical canon, which were commonly believed to be inspired by God himself, through the words and the actions of human people. Therefore, those rules were related in coordination with the four independent level of biblical reading, as in the acronym pardes ().
Dates of the rules
All the hermeneutic rules scattered through the Talmudim and Midrashim have been collected by Malbim in Ayyelet HaShachar, the introduction to his commentary on the Sifra, and have been reckoned at 613, to correspond with the 613 commandments. The antiquity of the rules can be determined only by the dates of the authorities who quote them, meaning that they cannot safely be declared older than the tanna to whom they are first ascribed. It is certain, however, that the seven middot of Hillel and the 13 of Rabbi Ishmael are earlier than the time of Hillel himself, who was the first to transmit them. At all events, he did not invent them, but merely collected them as current in his day, though he possibly amplified them. They were not immediately recognized by all as valid and binding. Different schools interpreted and modified them, restricting or expanding them, in various ways.
The Talmud itself gives no information concerning the origin of the middot, although the Geonim regarded them as Sinaitic (הלכה למשה מסיני, "Law given to Moses at Mount Sinai"; comp. Rabbi Samson of Chinon in his Sefer HaKeritot).
Rules of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael
Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael and their scholars especially contributed to the development or establishment of these rules. Rabbi Akiva devoted his attention particularly to the grammatical and exegetical rules, while Rabbi Ishmael developed the logical. The rules laid down by one school were frequently rejected by another because the principles which guided them in their respective formulations were essentially different.