And there are many ways in which the sages interpret the Scripture. And most are through superfluous language or modified language, etc. And most can be found in the rules that we have written.

Also, they use Rabbi Ishmael’s 13 rules of Biblical Exegesis⁵³⁸:

footnotes: ⁵³⁸ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hermeneutics

And the matters ofגזירה שוה(verbal analogy) and בנין אב (inductive inference) are not as compelling as the rules that are mentioned here, since they are founded in the language of the Scripture itself; thus, Maimonides calls them דברי סופרים (words of the scribes). Nevertheless, we have always tried to also bring גזירה שוה and בנין אב closer to common sense.

And moreover, the matter of כלל ופרט (general and particular) is never distant from the plain meaning.

And aבכלל המוסף על הפרט (general adds to the particular).

And ושני כללות הסמוכים זה לזה (two generalizations that are adjacent to one another).

And if the particulars are known from the general alone, it will be superfluous and will come for a homiletical interpretation. As when it says מן הצאן מן הכבשים ומן העזים (And if his offering be of the flock, whether of the sheep, or of the goats)⁵³⁹.

footnotes: ⁵³⁹ Leviticus 1:10.

And moreover, after it mentions the particulars – a general rule will be superfluous, and there will be a homiletical interpretation.

And for a specific that is after a general, it is not the custom for it to come with a connecting ו.

And moreover, whenever something is learned from its context, it is logical that an ambiguous text is to be understood from an unambiguous text that is adjacent to it. As when it teaches not to steal in the Ten Commandments, it means kidnapping, since “do not murder” is adjacent to it and since in Leviticus 19-20, it talks about stealing money, etc.