CAN INFERENCES UNRELATED TO THE CONTEXT OF THE VERSE OR PARASHAH BE MADE FROM THE PROPHETS AND HAGIOGRAPHA? SINCE SCRIPTURE is written in a [deliberately] ambiguous manner, it led our rabbis in many instances to make inferences regarding the intent [of Scripture], some related to the context of the parasha and others unrelated to the context. Derivations related to the context are, for example, those of the sages, of blessed memory, found in the Toras Kohanim, Mechilta, Sifrei and Midrashim¹. that add flavor to the contextual exegesis. On the other hand, [the sages also] expounded [verses] in a manner that was not related to the context of that section of Scripture at all. For example, our sages concluded in Tractate Kiddushin 68a, that we derive a major principle that the marriage of a Jew to a Canaanite slave is ineffective,², “with the donkey,” can also be read as am ha-hamor, meaning they are “a nation similar to a donkey” in respect to legal status for marriage. from a verse [in the narrative of the Binding of Isaac], “[And Abraham said to his young men], you stay here with the donkey,” [since, like a donkey, the Canaanite slave is a chattel of his master]. [Another example is the way the sages derived a law pertaining to the halachic definition of bread and matzah from a verse in a passage discussing the punishments God will inflict on the Jewish people if they do not follow His commandments]. The verse states, “Ten women will bake your bread in one oven”³ [because people will be so destitute]. Pesahim 37b states that R. Yehuda derives from this verse that only dough baked in one oven is considered bread, meaning that [halachically] it is not considered to be bread if it has [first been fried] and then baked.⁴ is that once dough has been fried, it cannot become bread by being baked in an oven. [Since] it is not considered bread, it is exempt from the requirement that hallah⁵ is a portion that was separated from the dough and given to the kohen. must be taken. Many other examples of derivations of laws not related to the context could also be cited.

footnotes: ¹ Plural of midrash ² Gen. 22:5. Gen. 22 pertains to the Binding of Isaac at Mount Moriah. When Abraham saw the mountain from a distance, he ordered the two young men with him, “Stay here by yourselves with the donkey.” The two superfluous words, im ha-hamor ³ Lev. 26:26. ⁴ The conclusion in Pesahim ⁵ Hallah

One can also find more extensive applications of this method of derivation external to the context of a passage in the *Aggadah.*⁶ means “narrative” – a rabbinic teaching which expounds Biblical narrative, history, ethics and prophecy. The aggadah developed in Israel from the Second Temple period to approximately 500 C.E. It includes parables, allegories, prayers, laments, polemics, stories, homilies, theology, ethics and letter symbolism. The material is found in midrashic literature with scattered traces throughout the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds. Aggadah does not have the same authority as Halachah. There, deductions and exegesis relate to ethics and rules of proper conduct. This approach of inferring [concepts and laws] both related and unrelated to the context of a passage, is equally applicable to the Prophets and Hagiographa, because they were written through prophecy or Divine inspiration. Contextual inferences permit many possible interpretations of a particular verse, and this is the essential value of something being written through holy inspiration.⁷, Divine inspiration, the inferences are mainly related to context. In Ha’amek She’elah 8:10, the Netziv writes that while the Kesuvim are written mainly by means of ruah ha-kodesh because they are written in ordinary human language, the Prophets are written in a language that differs from ordinary speech. Awkward language in a particular verse is believed to indicate a hidden meaning that does not relate to the context. See the Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 14, where it states pertaining to the verse, “‘I will proffer my opinion from afar, etc.’ (Job 36:3) If this verse was said by Elihu of his own accord, he is entitled to praise; if through Divine inspiration, [he is entitled] to supreme praise.” [If the verse originated through Divine inspiration], it [can provide us with many insights] through the various interpretations [pertaining to the context that may be found in this midrash].⁸ is saying that if this statement was uttered by Elihu, the friend of Job, without Divine inspiration, we could derive limited significant Torah knowledge from it. However, if it is uttered with Divine Inspiration, many Torah insights can be derived from his words. Examples of [inferences from the Prophets and Hagiographa] not related to the context of the passage can be found in [the mishnah in Tractate Shabbos] 83b: “From where do we know that a ship is not susceptible [to tumah contamination?⁹ From a verse [Proverbs 30:19, 20], ‘Four things I do not know… when a ship in the heart of the sea [has passed].’”¹⁰ [Another example can be found] in Tractate Eruvin 73a, in which R. Yehuda ben Bava allows slaves who live in separate houses in a courtyard shared with their master to be considered as a single household. [His ruling is] based on the verse, “Daniel [a servant in the royal household] was in the gate of the king.”¹¹ [Further] see Tractate Hagigah 26a, where it states, “During the festival, ammei ha-aretz¹² are trusted regarding even the spiritual purity of Terumah. Whence is this [law] known? R. Yehoshua ben Levi, said, ‘A verse states: All the men of Israel gathered to the city like one man, haverim, comrades.’”¹³ [We see from this verse that when Jews gather in one place] during the Festivals, Scripture considers them all haverim.¹⁴

footnotes: ⁶ Aggadah ⁷ The Netziv appears to be saying that regarding verses written in Scripture by means of ruah ha-kodesh ⁸ To the Netziv, this midrash ⁹ Ritual impurity transmitted through contact. ¹⁰ The Gemara explains, “It is obvious that a ship is in the midst of the sea, but we are informed explicitly that just as the sea is ritually pure, so is a ship ritually pure.” ¹¹ Dan 2:49. ¹² An ignorant person who may not be scrupulous in his observance of mitzvos. ¹³ Judges 20:11. ¹⁴ A Torah scholar who is meticulous in his observance of mitzvos.

We also find this method [of making unrelated inferences from the Prophets and Hagiographa] in the Aggadah. See Tractate Berachos 10b,¹⁵ where it states [pertaining to what the Shunammite woman said to her husband regarding the prophet Elisha’s holiness, “She said to her husband, ‘See now, I know that he is a holy man of God], who passes by us tamid, regularly.’”¹⁶ R Yose ben R. Hanina said in the name of R. Eliezer ben Yaakov: [the word tamid in this verse teaches] that if anyone hosts a Torah scholar in his house and gives him benefit from his belongings, Scripture looks upon him as though he brought tamid offerings¹⁷ or continual offering, is a communal sacrifice that is offered daily. to the Altar.” Certainly the Shunammite woman did not intend [to teach this ethical concept], but since the prophet, [under Divine inspiration], articulated her words [in a particular way], they invited homiletical interpretation. All of Scripture is “like a hammer that breaks the rock into pieces,”¹⁸ [having numerous interpretations] that [emanate from the verses], just as sparks shoot forth [from the anvil of the mason]. Some sparks land where he [the mason] stands, while others land in outlying locations that he never anticipated they would reach. Similarly, Scripture hints of many matters and secrets, even those that do not relate in way to the context of the passage.

footnotes: ¹⁵ The text cites 9b. ¹⁶ II Kings 4:9. ¹⁷ The tamid, ¹⁸ See Part 1, chapter 1, to see how the Talmud explains Jer. 23:2.

[This concept] can be used to interpret Tractate Megillah 7a, where there is a disagreement as to whether the Book of Esther was composed for the purpose of reading [on Purim], or for being written down and included in the Holy Scriptures. [According to the understanding of Tosafos, Shemuel is of the opinion that the Megillah is not to be written down but to be taught verbally and on Purim recited from memory]. Tosafos then questions [this ruling of Shemuel], as [the mishnah in Megillah 17a] rules that the Megillah must be read from a written text, not from memory. [Based on his interpretation of Shemuel], Tosafos is pressed to answer that it was the rabbis who ruled that it should be written [and read on Purim from a text]. However, my understanding is that [both opinions agree that the Book of Esther must be written]. Their disagreement is whether or not it was composed under Divine inspiration for the sole purpose of being read on Purim to publicize the miracle. If it was not written for any other purpose [than Purim] it would not be worthy of being included among the Holy Scriptures, even though it was written under Divine inspiration. It would be similar to the words of the other prophets that were not [allowed] to be written, because they did not contain any other subject matter hinted [at in their words], which were applicable only to a particular time [or circumstance]. Similarly, if the Book of Esther was written only in order to publicize the miracle of Purim for subsequent generations, it should not be considered conducive to interpretations other than those that relate to the particular context. [If however, the Book of Esther] was written [under Divine inspiration] to be included in Holy Scripture, like the Book of Daniel, etc., one therefore might derive from it [concepts and laws] that are unrelated to the context.

It appears to me that [that this difference between Shemuel and the other rabbis] is echoed in the disagreement regarding how to explain the verse [in the Book of Esther], “They confirmed and took upon themselves….”¹⁹ Shemuel, consistent with his argument [that the Book of Esther was written only to be read in order to publicize the miracle of Purim], concludes that this verse relates solely to Purim. [According to Shemuel] the verse indicates that they confirmed above [in the Heavenly court] that which [the Jews] undertook below [in the earthly court].²⁰ 7a. Shemuel cites this verse to prove that the Book of Esther was written with Divine inspiration. Without this inspiration, the authors of the Megillah could not have been aware of the Heavenly Court’s proceedings. According to Rava, the verse is positing that [the Jews] affirmed in the days of Ahashverosh that which [Israel] had already accepted in the days of Moses.²¹ 88a. It is from this verse that it is derived that “they established in the days of Ahashverosh that which they had already accepted in the days of Moses.” There are strong grounds for believing [that at Mount Sinai] the people were coerced into accepting the Torah,²²[there is basis] for a strong protest against the Torah” (since the Torah was forced upon the Jewish people under duress). but “[nevertheless they accepted the Torah again willingly in the days of Ahashverosh].” [We therefore see] that Rava proclaimed [a principle] pertaining to the Torah,²³” is written by the Netziv as Rava, which is the name of the great amora. This play on words changes this phrase to mean “Rava proclaimed an understanding pertaining to the Torah (or Torah law).” [based on the Book of Esther], which demonstrates [that the Book] was composed to be included in the Holy Scripture [since concepts and laws] can be derived from it, even though they do not specifically pertain to the context of the [story of Purim].

footnotes: ¹⁹ Esth. 9:27. ²⁰ Tractate Megillah ²¹ Tractate Shabbos ²² Since Ex. 19:17 states, “They stood at the foot of the mountain.” R. Avdimi, the son of Hama ben Hasa, said, “This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, held the mountain over them like a barrel. He said to them, ‘If you accept the Torah, well and good. If not, this shall be your burial place.” R. Aha the son of Jacob stated, “From here we see that moda’ah rabbah le-oraisa ²³ The second word in the phrase “moda’ah rabbah le-oraisa