7. When, however, for the sake of clearness, a generalization necessarily requires a specification, or when a specification requires a generalization, rules 4 and 5 do not apply.[1]
8. Whatever is first implied in a generalization and afterwards specified to teach us something new, is expressly stated not only for its own sake, but to teach something additional concerning all the instances implied in the generalization.[2]
9. Whatever is first implied in a general law and afterwards specified to add another provision similar to the general law, is specified in order to alleviate, and not to increase, the severity of that particular provision.[3]
10. Whatever is first implied in a general law and afterwards specified to add another provision which is not similar to the general law, is specified in order to alleviate in some respects, and in others to increase the severity of that particular provision.[4]
11. Whatever is first implied in a general law and is afterwards specified to determine a new matter, the terms of the general law can no longer apply to it, unless Scripture expressly declares that they do apply.[5]
12. A dubious word or passage is explained from its context or from a subsequent expression.[6]
- ↑ 7. In Leviticus 17:13 we read: “He shall pour out its blood, and cover it with dust.” The verb “to cover” is a general term, since there are various ways of covering a thing; “with dust” is specific. If we were to apply rule 4 to this passage, the law would be that the blood of the slaughtered animal must be covered with nothing except dust. Since, however, the general term “to cover” may also mean “to hide,” our present passage necessarily requires the specific expression “with dust”; otherwise, the law might be interpreted to mean that the blood is to be concealed in a closed vessel. On the other hand, the specification “with dust” without the general expression “to cover” would have been meaningless.
- ↑ 8. In Deuteronomy 22:1 we are told that the finder of lost property must return it to its owner. In a next verse the Torah adds: “You shall do the same... with his garment and with anything lost by your brother... which you have found...” Garment, though included in the general expression “anything lost,” is specifically mentioned in order to indicate that the duty to announce the finding of lost articles applies only to such objects which are likely to have an owner, and which have, as in the case of clothing, some marks by which they can be identified.
- ↑ 9. In Exodus 35:2-3 we read: “Whoever does any work on the Sabbath shall be put to death; you shall not light a fire on the sabbath day.” The law against lighting a fire on the Sabbath, though already implied in “any work”, is mentioned separately in order to indicate that the penalty for lighting a fire on the Sabbath is not as drastic.
- ↑ 10. According to Exodus 21:29-30, the proprietor of a vicious animal which has killed a man or woman must pay such compensation as may be imposed on him by the court. In a succeeding verse the Torah adds: “If the ox gores a slave, male or female, he must pay the master thirty shekels of silver.” The case of a slave, though already included in the preceding general law of the slain man or woman, contains a different provision, the fixed amount of compensation, with the result that whether the slave was valued at more than thirty shekels or less than thirty shekels, the proprietor of the animal must invariably pay thirty shekels.
- ↑ 11. The guilt-offering which a cured leper had to bring was unlike all other guilt-offerings in this, that some of its blood was sprinkled on the person who offered it (Leviticus 14:13-14). On account of this peculiarity none of the rules connected with other offerings would apply to that brought by a cured leper, had not the Torah expressly added: “As the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering.”
- ↑ 12. (a) The noun tinshemeth occurs in Leviticus 11:18 among the unclean birds, and again (verse 30) among the reptiles. Hence, it becomes certain that tinshemeth is the name of a certain bird as well as of a certain reptile. (b) In Deuteronomy 19:6, with regard to the cities of refuge where the man- slayer is to flee, We read: “So that the avenger of blood may not pursue the manslayer... and slay him, and he is not deserving of death.” That the last clause refers to the slayer, and not to the blood avenger, is made clear by the subsequent clause: “inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.”
