ABSTRACT
T h e assertion that every “ g e n e r a l statement which is added to a specific statement includes e v e r y t h i n g ” (ללכב לכה טרפה לע ף יס ומ א והש ללכה לכ) clearly invokes the argument from the particular instance(s) to the general state ment . I n this case, the bibl ical phrases at issue do not have the character o f a general statement qua l i f i ed by exceptions and specifications, but ra ther the character o f a list fo l lowed by its heading . T h e real purpose o f this use of peraṭ ukhelal appears not to be to ex tend the discourse o f Scr ip ture to new halakhic circumstances, bu t r a the r to wa rd o f f the false conclusion that the phrase “ a l l beas t s” is r edundan t . T h e in te rp re te r undertakes to show that every component of the list, whether peraṭ or kelal, has an indi v idua l func t ion separable f r o m the components w i t h wh ich i t is listed. By jud ic ious use o f the middah the perfect consistency o f the d iv ine draf tsman can be disclosed to the satisfaction o f the rabbinic darshan, and the dependably correct assessment o f the func t ion o f each componen t o f the text can be m a d e . 3 9
6. Kayoṣeʾ bo mimaqom ʾaḥer (רחא םוקממ וב אצו יכ) . T h i s ru le m i g h t l i t e ra l ly be translated “ l i k e that wh ich passes wi th i t ( in
the same class) i n ano the r p l a c e ” ( f o l l o w i n g Jastrow). I t is based on the very na tura l and p r o p e r assumpt ion that an exegetical p r o b l e m which arises w i t h a text may legi t imately be c la r i f ied by compar i son w i t h another text affected by the same question but which has received adequate exe getical exp lana t ion . This middah seems to be less fixed i n the t r ad i t iona l list o f seven than the others . T h i s is the on ly one o f the middot o f H i l l e l which is no t i nco rpora ted i n t o the t r ad i t i ona l list o f 13 rules o f R. Ishmael ; f u r t h e r m o r e , apar t f r o m its m e n t i o n i n the three comple te texts o f the seven middot, the f u l l t i t le by w h i c h i t is fo rma l ly k n o w n is rare ly i f ever given i n the T a n n a i t i c texts. Nevertheless, the p r inc ip l e to which this middah points is c o m m o n l y employed by the T a n n a i m f o r exegetical purposes, f requent ly w i t h the var iant f o r m u l a רמוא התא (רבדב) וב אצ ו יכ . 4 0
(38) Mek. Neziqin xv i : 5-12 (vol. i i i , p. 121). The formulation here is that o f the fifth rule o f R. Ishmael, which is the second o f the eight variations o f the principle o f kelal uferaṭ which are included in that list.
