The Thirteen Rules — How Ancient Rabbis Read Scripture (and Why It Matters for Latter-day Saints)

Introduction

Every morning, observant Jews recite thirteen rules of scripture interpretation before they pray. Not after. Before. To them, the rules come first because without these rules, you cannot read Torah correctly — and if you cannot read Torah correctly, you cannot pray correctly, because you won’t understand what God is saying.

These thirteen rules — the middot (מִדּוֹת, “measures” or “principles”) of Rabbi Ishmael — were codified in the 2nd century CE but reflect reasoning patterns far older than their formal articulation. They appear in the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael, which serves as the introduction to the Sifra (the halachic midrash on Leviticus) and is recited daily in the Shacharit (morning) service.

Why should Latter-day Saints care about rabbinic interpretive rules? Because Jesus used them. Paul built his theology with them. And Book of Mormon prophets — writing in a Hebraic tradition centuries before Rabbi Ishmael formalized the list — employed the same reasoning patterns without naming them. Understanding the thirteen middot doesn’t just illuminate how Jews read the Torah. It illuminates how your scriptures work.

If you’ve read our article on PaRDeS — The Four Levels of Scripture, you already have half the picture. PaRDeS describes the levels at which scripture can be read — plain meaning, hinted meaning, interpreted meaning, hidden meaning. The thirteen middot describe the logical rules governing how you move between texts, draw inferences, and resolve apparent contradictions. PaRDeS tells you what to look for. The middot tell you how to reason about what you find. They work together as complementary systems.

Part 1: The Thirteen Rules — In Plain English

The formal text of the Baraita opens: “Rabbi Ishmael says: The Torah is interpreted by thirteen middot.” What follows is not mystical or esoteric. It is logic — the grammar of reasoning that governs how one passage of scripture illuminates another. Think of them as the rules of evidence for a divine courtroom: how you may argue, what constitutes proof, and how contradictions are resolved.

Below is each rule with its Hebrew name, a plain-English explanation, and a biblical example. The goal is not to memorize all thirteen — it is to recognize the patterns when they appear in scripture, because they appear constantly.

Rule 1: Kal Va-Chomer (קַל וָחֹמֶר) — “Light and Heavy” | concept →

Plain English: If something is true in a lesser case, it is certainly true in a greater case. The English equivalent is “how much more so.”

The Logic: If A is true in the smaller situation, then A is certainly true in the bigger situation.

Biblical Example: God told Moses to speak to the children of Israel, and Moses protested: “Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me?” (Exodus 6:12). If Israel — who should be receptive — won’t listen, how much more will Pharaoh — who has no reason to listen — refuse? This is kal va-chomer: light (Israel’s refusal) to heavy (Pharaoh’s certain refusal).

Why It Matters: This is the most common of the thirteen rules and the easiest to spot. Once you recognize it, you’ll see it everywhere — in the Psalms, in the Prophets, in Jesus’ teaching, in Paul’s letters, and in the Book of Mormon.

Rule 2: Gezerah Shavah (גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה) — “Equal Decree” / Verbal Analogy | concept →

Plain English: When the same word or phrase appears in two different passages, the passages are linked — what is true of one applies to the other.

The Logic: Shared vocabulary = shared meaning. If God uses the same word in two laws, those laws illuminate each other.

Biblical Example: The word ot (אוֹת, “sign”) appears in both the rainbow covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:12) and the circumcision covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:11). The rabbis link these two covenants through the shared word: both are divine signs marking a permanent covenant relationship. The rainbow is the cosmic sign; circumcision is the personal sign. Same word, same theology.

Why It Matters: Gezerah shavah is how typology works in scripture. When a New Testament author points out that a word in the Old Testament matches a word in Christ’s experience, he is performing gezerah shavah — linking two moments through shared vocabulary. Paul does this constantly.

Rule 3: Binyan Av Mi-Katuv Echad (בִּנְיַן אָב מִכָּתוּב אֶחָד) — “A Standard From One Verse”

Plain English: A principle established in one verse can be applied broadly to other cases.

The Logic: One clear case creates the rule; the rule governs all similar cases.

Biblical Example: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25:4). Paul extends this principle to human laborers: “Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?” (1 Corinthians 9:9-10). If God ensures the ox can eat while it works, the principle — that a laborer deserves sustenance from his labor — applies universally.

Rule 4: Binyan Av Mi-Shnei Ketuvim (בִּנְיַן אָב מִשְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים) — “A Standard From Two Verses”

Plain English: When two separate verses establish the same principle independently, the principle is confirmed and generalized.

The Logic: Two independent witnesses prove the rule (compare Deuteronomy 19:15 — “at the mouth of two witnesses… shall the matter be established”).

Biblical Example: Both Exodus 21:26-27 (injury to a slave’s eye or tooth requires the slave’s freedom) and Leviticus 24:19-20 (injury requires proportional compensation) establish the principle that bodily harm requires restitution. The two passages, read together, create a generalized rule of justice.

Rules 5-7: Kelal u-Ferat, Ferat u-Khelal, Kelal u-Ferat u-Khelal — The General and the Specific

Plain English: These three rules address the relationship between broad categories and specific examples in Torah legislation.

• Rule 5 (Kelal u-Ferat): A general statement followed by a specific list — the specific limits the general. Only what is listed applies.
• Rule 6 (Ferat u-Khelal): A specific list followed by a general statement — the general expands the specific. More than what is listed applies.
• Rule 7 (Kelal u-Ferat u-Khelal): General → specific → general — interpret by the character of the specific examples, not by the broadest possible meaning of the general.

Biblical Example (Rule 7): Deuteronomy 14:26 says you may spend your tithe money on “oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatsoever thy soul desireth.” General (“whatsoever”) → specific (oxen, sheep, wine) → general (“whatsoever thy soul desireth”). The middle term controls: “whatsoever thy soul desireth” is limited to things like the examples given — food and drink products, not houses or land. The specific cases define the category.

Why They Matter: These rules explain why scriptural law sometimes feels simultaneously broad and narrow. The Torah gives both principles and cases, and these rules govern how they interact.

Rules 8-11: Special Cases — When Something Is Singled Out

These four rules address a specific pattern: when something that belongs to a general category is singled out for special treatment in the text. Each rule explains a different reason for the separation.

• Rule 8 (Kelal she-hu tzarikh li-ferat): The general statement NEEDS the specific to clarify it — the general is incomplete without the detail.
• Rule 9 (Davar she-hayah bi-khlal v’yatza liton to’ano): Something included in a general rule is singled out to teach about the whole category, not just itself.
• Rule 10 (Davar she-hayah bi-khlal v’yatza liton to’an acher): Something singled out for a NEW matter — the new teaching applies only to the singled-out case.
• Rule 11 (Davar she-hayah bi-khlal v’yatza lidon ba-davar ha-chadash): Something singled out for a case LIKE itself — the teaching transfers to analogous situations.

Biblical Example (Rule 9): The Sabbath is part of the general category of “commandments.” But it is singled out repeatedly — in the Ten Commandments, in specific legislation, in prophetic discourse — not because the Sabbath is the only commandment that matters, but because understanding the Sabbath teaches you something about all commandments: that obedience involves rest, trust, and relationship with God, not just performance.

Why They Matter: These rules explain why the Torah sometimes seems to repeat itself or single out specific cases unnecessarily. The repetition is not redundancy — it is pedagogy. The specific case is a lens through which the entire category becomes clearer.

Rule 12: Davar Ha-Lamed Me-Inyano (דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ) — “A Matter Learned From Its Context”

Plain English: When a word or passage is ambiguous, its meaning is determined by the surrounding context.

The Logic: Scripture interprets scripture. A verse is never read in isolation.

Biblical Example: The commandment “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15) appears in the Ten Commandments between “Thou shalt not murder” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness” — both of which carry the death penalty. The rabbis reason: if the surrounding commandments are capital offenses, “Thou shalt not steal” in this context must also refer to a capital offense — specifically, the kidnapping (stealing) of a person, not the theft of property. Property theft is addressed separately in Exodus 22. Context determines the severity.

Why It Matters: This rule prevents proof-texting — pulling a verse out of context to make it say something it doesn’t mean in its setting. The rabbis institutionalized what careful readers already know: context is everything.

Rule 13: Shnei Ketuvim Ha-Makhchishim Zeh Et Zeh (שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַמַּכְחִישִׁים זֶה אֶת זֶה) — “Two Verses That Contradict Each Other Are Resolved by a Third”

Plain English: When two passages of scripture appear to contradict each other, the contradiction is resolved by finding a third passage that reconciles them.

The Logic: Scripture does not contradict itself. Apparent contradictions are invitations to dig deeper.

Biblical Example: Exodus 13:6 says the Passover festival lasts seven days. Deuteronomy 16:8 says it lasts six days. Contradiction? A third verse resolves it: Deuteronomy 16:8 specifies six days of eating matzah from the new grain, while the seventh day uses matzah from the old grain. Both passages are true; the third verse reveals that they refer to different types of matzah, not different festival lengths.

Why It Matters: This is arguably the most important rule for Latter-day Saints. More on this below.

Part 2: Jesus and the Thirteen Rules

Jesus was not a Greek philosopher. He was a Jewish teacher operating within the interpretive tradition of His people. When He debated the Pharisees, He used their own rules — and He used them better than they did.

Matthew L. Bowen (BYU Religious Studies Center) documents this pattern in “Jewish Hermeneutics in the New Testament Period” (New Testament History, Culture, and Society, ed. Blumell, Deseret Book/RSC, 2019, 84-106). Richard Longenecker provides the comprehensive academic treatment in Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1999).

Jesus Uses Kal Va-Chomer (Rule 1)

This is Jesus’ most frequently used middah. He returns to it again and again:

• Matthew 6:26, 30 — “Behold the fowls of the air… Are ye not much better than they? … If God so clothe the grass of the field… shall he not much more clothe you?” Birds and grass are the light case; you are the heavy case. If God provides for the lesser, how much more for you.
• Matthew 7:11 — “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” Evil parents are the light case; the perfect Father is the heavy case.
• Matthew 10:25 — “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?” The master’s treatment is the light case; the disciples’ treatment is the heavy case.
• Matthew 12:11-12 — “What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much more then is a man better than a sheep?” A sheep is the light case; a human being is the heavy case. Jesus uses the Pharisees’ own hermeneutical method to defeat their Sabbath argument.
• John 7:23 — “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?” Circumcision (healing one part of the body) is the light case; healing the whole body is the heavy case.

The pattern is unmistakable. Jesus’ ethical reasoning is not abstract philosophy — it is kal va-chomer, the first and most fundamental of the thirteen rules.

Jesus Uses Gezerah Shavah (Rule 2)

When Jesus responds to the Pharisees’ criticism of His disciples gleaning on the Sabbath, He invokes David eating the showbread (Matthew 12:3-4, citing 1 Samuel 21:6). The link is not random — it is gezerah shavah: the word “lawful” (exestin in Greek, translating a Hebrew legal concept) connects the two cases. What was “not lawful” in both situations was overridden by a higher principle. Jesus links the texts through shared legal vocabulary.

Jesus Uses Rule 12 — Context Determines Meaning

When the Sadducees challenge Him on resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33), Jesus reads Exodus 3:6 (“I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”) and draws a conclusion from the tense: “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” The Sadducees denied the resurrection entirely — they believed death was final. Jesus’ argument turns on a grammatical detail: God says “I am” (present tense), not “I was” the God of Abraham. If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were simply extinct, God would not describe Himself in an ongoing relationship with them. The present tense implies that God’s covenant with the patriarchs is still active — which means they must still exist in some form, and resurrection (the restoration of the whole person) is therefore real. Jesus is not necessarily making a claim about what the patriarchs are doing right now — He is making a claim about the nature of God’s covenants: they do not expire at death. A God who identifies Himself by the names of dead men whose existence is over would be, in Jesus’ logic, “the God of the dead” — a contradiction in terms. This is Rule 12 — the meaning is derived from the grammatical context of the passage, not just its surface content. A single verb tense carries the weight of the entire resurrection doctrine.

For Latter-day Saints, who understand the spirit world as a real, active realm where the dead continue to exist and serve (D&C 138), Jesus’ argument resonates at a deeper level: the patriarchs are not merely “not extinct” — they are engaged, ministering, and covenantally active. The present tense of “I am” is not a grammatical technicality. It is a description of living reality.

Part 3: Paul’s Hermeneutical Toolkit

Paul was trained as a Pharisee under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), one of the leading teachers of the middot. His letters are dense with rabbinic reasoning that his Jewish readers would have recognized immediately. Dan Cohn-Sherbok traces this systematically in “Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis” (Scottish Journal of Theology 35:2, 1982, 117-132).

Paul’s Kal Va-Chomer in Romans 5:12-21

This is the greatest kal va-chomer in the New Testament — and arguably in all of scripture. Paul’s argument:

• Light case: Adam’s sin brought death to all humanity. One man’s transgression condemned everyone.
• Heavy case: “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many” (Romans 5:15).

If one man’s sin was powerful enough to condemn everyone (the lesser power), then how much more is one man’s grace powerful enough to save everyone (the greater power). The Atonement is greater than the Fall. Grace is heavier than sin. Paul structures the entire Adam/Christ typology as a formal kal va-chomer — and any reader trained in the middot would have recognized it instantly.

Paul’s Gezerah Shavah in Romans 4

Paul links Abraham’s justification by faith (Genesis 15:6: “he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness”) to David’s declaration of forgiveness (Psalm 32:1-2: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven”). The connecting word is logizomai / chashav (חָשַׁב, “to reckon/count/impute”). Because both passages use the same word for God’s reckoning, Paul argues that both passages teach the same doctrine: righteousness comes by faith, not by works of the law. This is textbook gezerah shavah — two passages linked by shared vocabulary, each illuminating the other.

Paul’s Binyan Av in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10

Paul cites the muzzled ox (Deuteronomy 25:4) and extends the principle: if God ensures an animal can eat while it works, then ministers of the gospel deserve sustenance from their ministry. One verse establishes the principle (binyan av mi-katuv echad, Rule 3); Paul generalizes it.

Hebrews — A Middot Masterclass

The book of Hebrews (whether written by Paul or another Jewish-Christian author) employs kal va-chomer as its structural backbone. The entire argument of Hebrews 1-10 is: if the Levitical priesthood, the earthly tabernacle, and animal sacrifices accomplished certain things (the lesser), how much more does Christ’s priesthood, the heavenly sanctuary, and His self-sacrifice accomplish (the greater)? Every “how much more” in Hebrews is a kal va-chomer:

• Hebrews 2:2-3 — “If the word spoken by angels was stedfast… how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?”
• Hebrews 9:13-14 — “If the blood of bulls and of goats… sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ… purge your conscience?”
• Hebrews 10:28-29 — “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy… of how much sorer punishment… shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God?”
• Hebrews 12:25 — “If they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven?”

The author of Hebrews uses kal va-chomer so systematically that the entire letter can be read as a sustained application of Rule 1 to the question of Christ’s superiority.

Part 4: The Book of Mormon Connection

No published study has systematically catalogued the thirteen middot in the Book of Mormon. What follows is exploratory — these are patterns we observe in the text, offered for further study rather than as settled scholarship. The Book of Mormon was written by prophets operating in a Hebrew literary tradition, and it would be surprising if these reasoning patterns were absent.

Kal Va-Chomer in the Book of Mormon

The “how much more so” pattern appears throughout:

Alma 12:13-15 — Alma reasons about the judgment: “Then if our hearts have been hardened… against the word, insomuch that it has not been found in us, then will our state be awful… Now how much more will our state be awful if…” The escalation from hardened hearts to outright rebellion follows the kal va-chomer structure: if the lesser offense brings judgment, the greater offense brings more judgment.

Moroni 7:12-17 — Mormon’s discourse on good and evil employs systematic lesser-to-greater reasoning: “Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil… and now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge… see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.” The argument moves from the clear case (recognizing obvious good and evil) to the harder case (applying discernment to ambiguous situations). If you can recognize light in the easy cases, you should certainly be able to apply the same standard in the harder ones.

Alma 32:28-43 — The seed experiment is a sustained kal va-chomer: if a seed that merely swells and sprouts is enough to tell you something is real (the lesser evidence), then a tree that bears fruit should certainly confirm your faith (the greater evidence). Each stage of growth is the “light” case for the next, heavier stage.

Jacob 4:8-12 — Jacob argues that if the Jews — who had the law, the prophets, and the presence of God — could still stumble and reject their Redeemer, how much more must the Gentiles be careful not to make the same mistake from a position of even less knowledge. The reasoning is kal va-chomer: Israel’s failure with greater light is the warning; Gentile vulnerability with lesser light is the “how much more.”

Gezerah Shavah in the Book of Mormon

Nephi and the Exodus — Shared Vocabulary as Intentional Link. Benjamin McGuire demonstrated that Nephi’s account of slaying Laban follows the David/Goliath narrative with approximately thirty shared plot points, tracking the Septuagint text tradition rather than the Masoretic (“Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 18:1, 2009, 16-31). This is gezerah shavah at the narrative level — shared vocabulary and plot structure linking two passages to show they carry the same theological meaning: God delivers His people through unlikely agents using unconventional means.

“Knit Together” — 1 Samuel 18:1 and Mosiah 18:21. The Hebrew niqshrah (from qashar, to bind/knit) in 1 Samuel 18:1 describes Jonathan’s soul bound to David’s. The same word appears in Mosiah 18:21 at the Waters of Mormon: the baptized are “knit together in unity and in love.” In both cases, individuals transfer covenantal loyalty from a fallen king (Saul / King Noah) to God’s chosen leader (David / Alma) at great personal risk. Whether the Book of Mormon author was consciously echoing qashar or the Spirit guided the parallel, the verbal link creates the same gezerah shavah effect: shared vocabulary signals shared theology.

“Lamb of God” across 1 Nephi. Nephi’s vision uses “Lamb of God” as a unifying phrase that links the Passover lamb (Exodus 12), Isaiah’s suffering servant (“as a lamb before her shearers is dumb,” Isaiah 53:7), and the atoning Christ — building a gezerah shavah chain across the entire scriptural tradition through a single title.

Rule 13 in the Book of Mormon — and the Restoration

Two contradictory passages resolved by a third may be the most important middah for Latter-day Saints to understand, because it describes the hermeneutical structure of the Restoration itself.

2 Nephi 29:3-10 addresses the problem directly. The Gentiles say “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there is no need for any more Bible” (29:3). But other scriptures say God speaks to all nations: “I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it” (29:12). Two seemingly contradictory principles — (1) the Bible is God’s word and (2) God speaks beyond the Bible — are resolved by the third text: the Book of Mormon itself, which demonstrates that God’s word is not limited to one volume, one people, or one era. The apparent contradiction between biblical sufficiency and ongoing revelation is resolved by the existence of additional scripture.

The broader Restoration pattern: The Bible presents apparent contradictions about the nature of God (is He one or three?), the necessity of baptism (by what authority? at what age? by what mode?), the fate of the dead (are they saved or lost?), and the structure of Christ’s church (apostles or not?). In each case, Latter-day Saints believe that modern revelation — the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the temple — serves as the “third verse” that reconciles what appeared irreconcilable. This is Rule 13 operating at the dispensational level: two scriptural traditions that seem to contradict each other are resolved by a third body of revelation.

Rabbi Ishmael would recognize the structure. He might not accept the conclusion — but he would recognize the method.

Part 5: PaRDeS and the Middot — How They Work Together

If you’ve read the PaRDeS article, you know the four levels of Jewish interpretation:

The thirteen middot are the tools of the Derash level. When a rabbi “searches” (doresh) the text for meaning beyond the plain sense, the middot are the rules governing how that search is conducted. They prevent interpretation from becoming invention by establishing logical constraints: you may reason from light to heavy, link texts by shared vocabulary, resolve contradictions by finding a third passage — but you may not simply impose meaning from outside the text.

PaRDeS tells you where to look. The middot tell you how to reason about what you find. A Latter-day Saint who understands both systems has a reading toolkit that spans the entire depth of the scriptural tradition — from the plain meaning of a verse to the prophetic reasoning that connects it to every other verse in the canon.

Part 6: Why This Matters for Latter-day Saints

1. It Reveals How Jesus Thought

When we read the Gospels through the lens of the middot, Jesus’ debates with the Pharisees transform from abstract theological disputes into displays of hermeneutical mastery. He wasn’t arguing from a different system — He was using their system more skillfully than they could. Understanding the rules He used helps us understand not just what He said but how He thought about scripture.

2. It Makes Paul Accessible

Paul’s letters are notoriously dense. Much of the difficulty evaporates when you recognize his rabbinic methods. The “therefore… how much more” pattern in Romans is not arbitrary rhetoric — it is kal va-chomer, the first rule of the thirteen, applied systematically. Seeing the structure makes the argument clear.

3. It Illuminates the Book of Mormon’s Hebraic Roots

The Book of Mormon claims to be a record written by Hebrew-speaking prophets. If that claim is true, we should expect to find Hebrew reasoning patterns in the text — not because the authors read Rabbi Ishmael (who lived centuries later) but because the middot reflect reasoning patterns embedded in Hebrew culture long before they were formally codified. The kal va-chomer pattern in Alma, the gezerah shavah links in Nephi, and the Rule 13 structure of the Restoration itself are all consistent with a text rooted in Hebraic thought.

4. It Explains the Restoration’s Own Hermeneutic

Rule 13 — “two contradictory passages resolved by a third” — is the engine that drives Restoration theology. Every time Joseph Smith received a revelation that resolved a biblical ambiguity (the nature of God in D&C 130; the fate of the dead in D&C 138; the mode of baptism in D&C 20; the structure of the Church in D&C 107), he was — whether he knew it or not — applying the thirteenth rule of Rabbi Ishmael at a dispensational scale. The Restoration is, in a very real sense, God’s own gezerah shavah: He linked the ancient text to the modern text through shared vocabulary (priesthood, covenant, temple, Zion) and revealed that they teach the same doctrine.

5. It Changes How You Study

Once you know these rules, you read differently. When you encounter “how much more” in scripture, you recognize kal va-chomer. When you notice the same word in two passages, you look for gezerah shavah. When two scriptures seem to contradict, you search for a third that reconciles them instead of choosing one over the other. The middot don’t replace the Spirit — they give you a framework for the kind of close, careful reading that the Spirit rewards.

The Thirteen Rules — Quick Reference

Cross-References

• PaRDeS — The Four Levels of Scripture — companion article on the levels of interpretation
• Music and the Spirit of Prophecy — Rule 1 (kal va-chomer) appears in the Uzzah/Ark discussion (Week 25 Jewish Perspective, Section 4)
• Week 25 Study Guide, Jewish Perspective — kal va-chomer explained with the Uzzah example and Jesus’ Matthew 6:30 parallel
• Matthew L. Bowen, “Jewish Hermeneutics in the New Testament Period” (RSC BYU, 2019) — the key LDS-aware academic source
• Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Eerdmans, 1999) — the comprehensive NT treatment
• David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (1956/Wipf & Stock) — the foundational classic
• Dan Cohn-Sherbok, “Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis” (SJT 35:2, 1982) — Paul’s use of gezerah shavah and kal va-chomer
• Benjamin L. McGuire, “Nephi and Goliath” (JBMRS 18:1, 2009) — the Septuagint-dependent literary allusion as gezerah shavah
• Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael — Sefaria — the primary text, Hebrew + English
• COJS: The Thirteen Hermeneutical Rules — accessible English introduction

Sources and Citations

The Primary Text — The Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael

• Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael — Sefaria (Hebrew + English) — the text as recited in the daily Shacharit morning service
• COJS: “Sifra — The Thirteen Hermeneutical Rules of Rabbi Ishmael” — accessible English introduction (the Open Siddur Project translation is no longer publicly accessible)
• Center for Online Judaic Studies (COJS): “Sifra — The Thirteen Hermeneutical Rules” — introductory framing with English text
• Jewish Encyclopedia: “Middot, The Thirteen of R. Ishmael” — encyclopedic overview
• Jewish Encyclopedia: “Rules of R. Ishmael, The Thirteen” — detailed treatment with examples
• Wikipedia: Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael — solid overview with bibliography
• “The Formation of the Baraita of 13 Middot and its Affinity to the Sifra” — Academia.edu PDF — academic study of the text’s composition

Biblical Passages Cited

• Exodus 6:12 — Moses’ kal va-chomer argument (if Israel won’t listen, how much more Pharaoh)
• Exodus 3:6 — “I am the God of Abraham” (present tense, Jesus’ resurrection argument)
• Exodus 20:15 — “Thou shalt not steal” (meaning determined by context — Rule 12)
• Exodus 13:6; Deuteronomy 16:8 — Passover length resolved by a third verse (Rule 13)
• Genesis 9:12; 17:11 — ot (sign) linking Noah and Abraham covenants (gezerah shavah)
• Deuteronomy 14:26 — tithe spending: general → specific → general (Rule 7)
• Deuteronomy 19:15 — “at the mouth of two witnesses” (Rule 4 principle)
• Deuteronomy 25:4 — “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox” (Rule 3, extended by Paul)
• 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 — Paul’s binyan av from the muzzled ox
• Romans 5:12-21 — Paul’s Adam/Christ kal va-chomer (the greatest in the NT)
• Romans 4 — Paul’s gezerah shavah linking Abraham (Genesis 15:6) and David (Psalm 32:1-2)
• Matthew 6:26, 30 — Jesus’ kal va-chomer: birds and grass → you
• Matthew 7:11 — Jesus’ kal va-chomer: evil parents → heavenly Father
• Matthew 10:25 — Jesus’ kal va-chomer: if they called the master Beelzebub…
• Matthew 12:3-4, 11-12 — Jesus’ gezerah shavah (showbread) and kal va-chomer (sheep on Sabbath)
• Matthew 22:23-33 — Jesus uses Rule 12 (context/tense) against the Sadducees
• John 7:23 — Jesus’ kal va-chomer: circumcision on Sabbath → healing on Sabbath
• Hebrews 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 10:28-29; 12:25 — sustained kal va-chomer throughout the letter

Book of Mormon Passages Cited (Exploratory)

• 1 Nephi 4:10-13 — Nephi/Laban narrative as gezerah shavah with David/Goliath (McGuire)
• 1 Nephi (throughout) — “Lamb of God” as gezerah shavah chain linking Passover, Isaiah 53, and Christ
• 2 Nephi 9:7-10 — Jacob’s escalating “O how great” arguments (potential kal va-chomer)
• 2 Nephi 29:3-10 — Rule 13 at the dispensational level: Bible + Book of Mormon resolving the apparent contradiction of scriptural sufficiency
• Mosiah 18:21 — “knit together” as gezerah shavah with 1 Samuel 18:1 (Jonathan/David)
• Alma 12:13-15 — Alma’s “how much more” reasoning (potential kal va-chomer)
• Alma 32:28-43 — the seed experiment as progressive kal va-chomer
• Moroni 7:12-17 — Mormon’s lesser/greater reasoning on good and evil
• Jacob 4:8-12 — if Israel stumbled with greater light, how much more the Gentiles

Latter-day Saint Scripture

• D&C 130 — the nature of God (Rule 13: resolving apparent biblical contradictions)
• D&C 138 — the spirit world as a real, active realm (context for Jesus’ Sadducees argument)
• D&C 20 — the mode of baptism (Rule 13: resolving biblical ambiguity)
• D&C 107 — the structure of the Church (Rule 13: resolving competing NT models)

Modern Scholarship

• Matthew L. Bowen, “Jewish Hermeneutics in the New Testament Period,” ch. 6 in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, ed. Lincoln Blumell, Deseret Book/RSC, 2019, pp. 84-106 — the key LDS-aware source on Hillel’s middot and NT applications
• Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1999 — the comprehensive academic treatment of Jesus, Paul, and Hebrews through rabbinic hermeneutical lens
• David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, University of London/Athlone Press, 1956; reprinted Wipf & Stock (ISBN 9781610975100) — the foundational classic
• David Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, TSAJ 30, Mohr Siebeck, 1992 — catalogues 195 exegeses from 93 rabbinic texts, relates to 21 exegetical techniques
• Dan Cohn-Sherbok, “Paul and Rabbinic Exegesis,” Scottish Journal of Theology 35, no. 2 (April 1982): 117-132 — Paul’s gezerah shavah and kal va-chomer in Romans
• Benjamin L. McGuire, “Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 18, no. 1 (2009): 16-31 — ~30 shared plot points following the Septuagint text tradition
• John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 10, no. 1 (1969): 69-84 — establishing Hebraic literary patterning (chiasm) in the Book of Mormon
• Hakirah vol. 16 (Klein), “Rabbi Ishmael, Meet Jaimini” — comparative logic framework connecting rabbinic and Indian hermeneutical traditions

Draft | CFM Corner Study Library | For review before Hugo deployment This article presents exploratory analysis of the Book of Mormon material. The NT applications are well-established in scholarship; the BoM applications are original observations offered for further study.