Halacha, A User’s Guide II: Chazal’s Toolkit

The laws of releasing vows float in the air, and do not have anything [in the verses] upon which to rely. The laws of Shabbat, festival sacrifices, and misappropriation of sacred property, are like mountains hanging by a hair—they have few verses and many halachot. [Not explicitly written monetary] laws, sacrifices, [laws of] purity and impurity and forbidden relationships—they have something [in the verses] upon which to rely. These [and] these [categories] are essential to the Torah.

All the mitzvot in the Torah, both positive and negative, are not revealed and known and explicit except through the Oral Torah. Such as the negative mitzva stated with regard to Shabbat, “You shall not do any work,” which does not explain what is work [that is prohibited]. And in the Oral Torah, it explains that they are the thirty-nine defined [categories of creative] work [that are prohibited], and not [strenuous labor such as] carrying rocks and heavy beams. And all mitzvot, whether positive or negative, are similarly ambiguous and undefined, and are revealed and known only by means of the Oral Torah. Therefore, it is written about the Oral Torah, ‘do not spurn the teachings of your mother,’ as it is stated in the Zohar, because by way of analogy, it is like all body parts of a child are encapsulated in the drop [of semen] of the father in a greatly concealed manner, and the mother brings it into revelation by birthing a child complete with 248 limbs and 365 sinews; so too, exactly, all of the 248 positive mitzvot and the 365 negative mitzvot emerge from concealment into revelation through the Oral Torah.

There are a number of ways to derive laws from the Torah. (1) The first is [reading] what is written explicitly in the Torah, like the freeing of a Hebrew bondsman in the seventh year…and similarly, matters that are explained explicitly in the Torah and are according to their literal meaning, and do not require received tradition [to be understood]. (2) The second is what is learned from inferences from the verse. For example, “[And on the first day, it shall be a holy gathering for you, and on the seventh day it shall be a holy gathering for you. You shall not do any work] except for that which shall be eaten for any person, that alone shall be done for you” (Shemot 12:16). The implication of “for you” is “for all your needs.” …And most derashot [expoundings] of the verses are in that vein, from the implications of Scripture…. (3) The third is [interpreting] superfluous words in the text, like… “also you” as ‘to include your agents.’ [Bava Metzia 22a]. [Here, the] superfluous “also” (gam), is added to include [other cases within the law], and similarly, any [word expounded] in the Talmud to include [cases in the scope of the law] or to bring in [more applications], come on the strength of an extra word in the verse…And so, too, every “but” (ach) and “only” (rak) and the like, that are superfluous to exclude [cases from the law]. (4) The fourth is [applying] logic [to the text]. For example, [the prohibition against] carrying something into a private domain on Shabbat, which is derived by logic, for “what is the difference between bringing something in [explicit in the Torah] and taking it out [not mentioned]” [Shabbat 96b], and there are many like this…. (5) The fifth is [interpreting] juxtapositions… (6) …The sixth is [using one] of the Thirteen Principles by which the Torah is interpreted (shelosh esrei middot she-haTorah nidreshet bahem)…

Why do I need a verse? It is a logical inference…

(7) The seventh is [applying] the words of the Prophets (divrei kabbala), that merely reveal the meaning of [verses in] the Torah…. [For example, from the directive of] afflicting oneself on Yom Kippur, we learn from the words of the Prophets that washing, anointing, wearing [leather] shoes, and sexual relations are called affliction. And this is merely revealing the meaning of the language of affliction used in the Pentateuch…(8) The eighth is [applying] Halacha [transmitted] to Moshe at Sinai, for [the laws of] “measurements, interpositions, and partitions are all Halacha [transmitted] to Moshe at Sinai” (Eiruvin 4a)…and some of them we learn in this way as “Halacha to Moshe at Sinai” and later [the sages] connected them to Scripture. (9) The ninth is the rest of the Oral Torah that was given to Moshe at Sinai, for which there is support in the text, but would not be derived from the meaning of the verse if the [law] had not been stated to him orally.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I received it [a halacha] from Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who heard it from his rabbi, and his rabbi from his rabbi—a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.

For the baraita teaches: “And he [a king] shall not have many wives” (Devarim 17:17). Rabbi Yehuda says, he may have many wives, provided that they do not lead his heart astray…. Certainly, Rabbi Yehuda [generally] does not expound the reason behind a verse. But here, it is different, because the verse explicitly states, “and he shall not have many wives lest [his heart] be led astray.” [The verse is explicating] what is the reason he may not have many wives, because [of the danger that] he will be led astray.

You shall not muzzle an ox as it threshes.

The [sages] asked Rav Sheshet: If [the animal] was eating from the produce and getting diarrhea, what is [the halacha]? Is [the reason for not muzzling an animal] for its benefit, and this [eating] is not providing benefit? Or perhaps the reason [for the prohibition] is because [the animal] sees [food] and is distressed [when it cannot eat it], and this one [also] sees [food] and will be distressed [if it is muzzled]

Even according to those who don’t expound the reason behind the verse…here it is obvious that the verse prohibited only for the good of the animal, either because it will benefit, or so that it will not be distressed [by being muzzled].

Hillel expounded seven rules before the elders of Beteira: (1) kal va-chomer [a fortiori reasoning; i.e., drawing an inference from a more lenient case to a stricter one] (2) and gezeira shava [deriving a law from one case to another due to the same word root being used in both verses] (3) and binyan av ve-katuv echad [inferring a global principle from one verse] (4) and binyan av u-shnei ketuvim [inferring a global principle from two verses] (5) and kelal u-frat u-chlal: [a general statement followed by a particular case and then by another general statement] (6) and kayotzei bo mi-makom acher [something similar in a different place] (7) and davar ha-lameid me-inyano [something learned from its context]. These are the seven rules that Hillel the Elder expounded before the elders of Beteira.

And God said to Moshe: If her father had just spit in her face, would she not be shamed for seven days? Let her be quarantined outside the camp for seven days, and afterwards she shall be brought in.

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: It says here [with regard to Sukkot] “the fifteenth” and it says “the fifteenth” [with regard to] Pesach. Just as over there, it is an obligation on the first night [of Pesach to eat matza], so too, here, it is an obligation on the first night [of Sukkot to eat a meal in the sukka]; from then on, it is optional.

An item for lying down (mishkav) differs from an item for sitting (moshav), and an item for sitting differs from an item for lying down. The common denominator between them: that they are implements made only for a person’s comfort …so too, [only] implements that are made only for a person’s comfort are rendered impure should a zav [use the implement to support] most of his [weight]…this excludes a tarkav [a large measuring instrument], which is made for carrying something else [for measuring, rather than for carrying a person in comfort].

Command the children of Israel, and they shall bring you pure olive oil, crushed, for lighting, to light a lamp continually. Outside the curtain of testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, Aharon shall set it up, from evening until morning, before God continually, an everlasting statute for all your generations.

Command the children of Israel, and they shall send out from the camp any tzarua [person with tzara’at]or zav [man with bloody emissions] or anyone impure from contact with the dead. Male or female, you shall send them out, outside the camp you shall send them, and they shall not defile your camp, in which I dwell in their midst.

And a man that becomes impure and does not purify himself [before entering the Sanctuary], that soul shall be cut off from within the congregation, because he has defiled the Sanctuary of God, for the sprinkling waters were not sprinkled upon him, he is impure. And it shall be for them an everlasting statute…

The passage [in the Torah] on the lamps is not like the passage on sending out the impure, and the passage on sending out the impure is not like the passage on the lamps. The common denominator [between these two passages] is that they have [the word] “Command,” and [the laws in them apply] immediately and for all generations; so too, any passage which has [the word] “command” [applies] immediately and for all generations.

And you shall use the money for whatever your soul desires, for cattle and for sheep and for wine and strong drink, and for whatever your soul requires. And you shall eat [it] there, before the Lord your God, and rejoice, you and your household.

“And you shall use the money for whatever your soul desires”—a general statement. “For cattle and for sheep, for wine and for strong drink”—particulars. “And for whatever your soul requires”—again, a general statement. [When there is such a pattern of] “general statement, particulars, [and again a] general statement”—the rule is in accordance with the particulars. To teach you—just as the particulars stated are products—products of the ground, or things that are brought forth from products of the ground [i.e., plants, or animals that eat plants], so too I can [use for ma’aser sheni] only anything that is a product—a product of the ground, or something brought forth from the products of the ground. This excludes truffles and mushrooms [which are neither animals nor plants].

Because it says, “And God spoke to him [Moshe] from the ohel mo’ed, saying” (Vayikra 1:1), I would infer that [God spoke to Moshe] from the ohel mo’ed itself. A[nother] verse teaches, “And I [God] will be known to you [Moshe] there, and speak to you from atop the ark-covering [kaporet],” (Shemot 25:22). How can we uphold both these verses? This is a rule of [interpreting] the Torah: Two corresponding verses, this opposed to that, and behold, they contradict one another, they can only be upheld locally [within the text] until a third verse comes and reconciles between them. What does the verse teach? “And when Moshe came to the ohel moed to speak with Him, [he would hear the voice speaking to him from above the kaporet that was on the ark of testimony from between the two keruvim]…” (Bemidbar 7:89). The verse tells us that Moshe would enter and stand in the ohel mo’ed, and the voice [of God] would descend from highest heaven to between the two keruvim, and [Moshe] would hear the voice speaking to him from within [the Holy of Holies].

A certain Sadducee said to Beruria: “It is written, ‘rejoice, o barren one, who has not given birth.’ Because she has not given birth, should she rejoice?” She said to him: “Foolish one, look further to the end of the verse, as it says, ‘for the children of the desolate are more numerous than children of the married woman, says God.’ Rather, what does [the verse mean when it says] ‘o barren one, who has not given birth’? [It means to say:] Rejoice, congregation of Israel, which resembles a barren woman in that it did not birth children destined for Gehinnom like you.”

The derashot from the beit midrash of Rabbi Yishmael are closer to the simple meaning of the verse in accordance with the principle, “The Torah spoke in human language.” In general, these are constructed by means of the middot through which the Torah is expounded, and they are based on comparison between different verses. In contrast, the derashot from the beit midrash of Rabbi Akiva focus on the meaning of the individual verse through examination of every detail in the verse, including special wording and letters. From this fundamental difference, additional differences emerge between the systems of derasha of these two batei midrash. The differences in the methods of derasha between the different batei midrash don’t necessarily entail debate about the halacha itself, but rather about the way to learn the halacha from the verse.

A person can derive a kal va-chomer on his own, and a person may not derive a gezeira shava on his own.

One is not allowed to interpret on one’s own using any of the thirteen middot by which the Torah is expounded except for kal va-chomer.

It is explained in Rashi… One is not allowed to interpret on one’s own using any of the thirteen middot by which the Torah is expounded except for kal va-chomer, and this is very puzzling…rather, a person may apply all of the middot on his own aside from gezeira shava, which a person may not apply except if he learned it from his teacher.

The first category are those interpretations received from Moshe, and they have a hint in the text, and it is possible to derive them by way of logic…The third category are the laws derived by logic [alone]

Behold, in clarifying the mitzvot and the principles from which all of their laws that were clarified through Talmudic wisdom emerge, it will not be our practice in every place to have those principles rely on the same place [in the text of the Torah] that the Talmudic sages had them rely, as was their custom, via one of the thirteen middot. That which they had these true matters that they had received regarding mitzvot of the Torah rely on these verses, was to be as a type of hint or mnemonic for their words, not that their view was that the source of these laws would be from these places. For a person could turn all of the laws of the Torah on their head with juxtapositions like these, until it would be possible through them ‘to purify a creeping animal,’ as our Sages mentioned.…They [these laws] were received, one man from another going back to Moshe Rabbeinu, and they searched for a hint from Scripture.

…If we should inquire about the earlier generations and consider our elders—what did they respond to this? We saw that they brought out words from their hearts, [saying] that the verses brought as proofs for halachot are merely hints and supports created to jog the memory, and that the actual halachot were received orally. This is very far-fetched, for we see that [the Talmudic sages] constantly ask “Mena lach”—“how do you know?” and the response is “from such and such a verse.” And they raise a difficulty: “but this verse is needed for another purpose, as it is taught [in a baraita]!” And so they offer solutions and raise difficulties and argue back and forth. It is inconceivable that they would probe thus about something which is merely a hint and a symbol alone. And when there is a dispute, each one brings proof for his view from the verses, and refutes the proof of his fellow. And the Talmud goes back and forth constantly with regard to the verses, and is exacting to the point of a hair; it dismantles and builds and reconciles, all from the verses. Until it is clear that their proofs are fundamentally from the text. That is where the halachot were planted, and rooted; they did not come like a root from a barren land…that which is expounded from the text is also its plain meaning, as it is established according to the clear and true rules of language. Any place our sages expounded in a certain way, there is some exception to linguistic principles. And through the exposition, the verse is returned to its essence in accordance with the rules and principles of language.

Rabbi Chiya bar Ashi said that Rav said: halachic measurements, barriers to immersion, and partitions are laws transmitted from Moshe at Sinai [without any hint in the text]. [The Gemara asks:] Halachic measurements [are not derived from the text]!? They are derived from the Torah itself! As it is written, “A land of wheat and barley,” etc. And Rav Chanan said: This entire verse is written about halachic measurements. “Wheat” corresponds to the teaching that one who enters a house that is impure due to a nega with his clothes on his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hands—he and they are impure immediately. If he was wearing his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers—he is impure immediately, and they are pure until he stays there for the amount of time it takes to eat a half [a loaf of bread]. Bread of wheat , not bread of barley, while reclining and along with relish [which makes the eating process faster]. “Barley” corresponds to the teaching: a bone the size of a barleycorn transmits impurity through touch and being carried, but it does not transmit impurity via being under the same tent [or roof]….Rather, these are halachot [transmitted from Moshe at Sinai], and the rabbis supported them with a verse.

Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time that Moshe ascended above [to receive the Torah] he found the Holy One, blessed be He, sitting and attaching crowns to the letters. [Moshe] said before Him: “Master of the world, who is holding you back [from giving the Torah without these crowns]?” [God] said to him: “There is a man who is destined to be at the end of several generations, Akiva the son of Yosef is his name, who is destined to expound from every spike [of the crowns] piles upon piles of halachot. [Moshe] said before Him: “Master of the world, show him to me.” [He] said to him: “Turn around.” [Moshe] went, [and found himself in Rabbi Akiva’s lecture hall. He] sat in the eighth row [of the lecture] and couldn’t understand what they were saying. His strength weakened [and he got discouraged]. When [Rabbi Akiva] got to one matter, his students asked him, “Rebbi, where [do you know this halacha] from?” [Rabbi Akiva] said to them: “It is a halacha [given] to Moshe at Sinai.” [When Moshe heard this], his mind became settled.

The second luchot were more esteemed than the first…and the intent in all of this is that with the first luchot, the power of innovation was not given. Rather, Moshe received the meaning of the details in the verses and halachot and the like, but not [the power] to innovate halachot through the thirteen middot, and similarly Talmudic discourse…but with the second luchot, the power was given to every distinguished scholar to innovate halachot through the middot and learning…And for this very reason the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that the second luchot be carved by Moshe, not because they did not merit to have it made by God [as the first luchot were], but rather to teach as that the halacha created with the power of these luchot is a partnership between human toil and Divine assistance—just as the luchot themselves were carved by Moshe and engraved by the Holy One, blessed be He…And this is what the Sages said, that whatever a distinguished scholar is destined innovate in the future was in the luchot; the intent is that with the power of the second luchot everything was included.

It was taught: The daughters of Tzelofchad—they were wise, they were expounders of the text (darshaniyot), they were righteous, they were wise…

Beruria, Rabbi Meir’s wife, daughter of Rabbi Chananya ben Teradyon, who learned three hundred teachings in a day from three hundred Rabbis…

A door bolt: Rabbi Tarfon says it is [susceptible to becoming] impure, the Sages say it is [always] pure, and Beruria says that one can remove it from one door and hang it on another on Shabbat. When these words were said before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said ‘Beruria said well’…

…Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said in the name of Rabbi Shila: if [an oven] was plastered in a state of purity, and then it became impure, from when can it become pure? Rabbi Chalafta from Kfar Chananya said: I asked Shimon ben Chananya who asked the son of Rabbi Chananya ben Teradyon, who said it is when [the oven] is removed from its place. His daughter said it is when its coating (lit. its garment) is removed. When these words were said before Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, he said “his daughter spoke better than he [did].”

“These and these [all differing halachic opinions] are the words of the living God.” The rabbis in France asked: “How is it possible that these and these are the words of the living God while one prohibits and the other permits? And they answered, that when Moshe ascended above to receive the Torah, they showed him regarding every single [halachic matter] forty-nine perspectives [that would lead] to prohibition and forty-nine perspectives [that would lead to] permission. And he asked the Holy One, Blessed be He, about this. And He said: this will be given over to the sages in every generation, and the decision will be according to them.