Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T05:09:41.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Qal Va-Ḥomer Argument in the Old Testament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Louis Jacobs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Every student of Rabbinic literature is aware of the formal argument known as qal va-ḥomer ‘the argument from the minor to the major’. There are numerous instances of the argument in Rabbinic literature, dating from pre-Tannaitic times down to the close of the Talmud. The argument runs: if A is so then B must surely be so; if the ‘minor’ has this or that property then the ‘major’ must undoubtedly have it. It is of interest to Old Testament scholars that the Rabbis purported to detect many examples of the use of this argument in Scripture. The Rabbis use the argument as one of their hermeneutical principles by means of which they expand and elaborate on the Biblical teachings. However, they rightly contend that they did not invent the argument but that it is found in the Bible itself. The purpose of this paper is to examine this contention more fully and to note possible implications for Old Testament studies.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 1972 , pp. 221 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 v. Schwarz, Adolf, Der hermeneutische Syllogismus in der talmudischen Litteratur: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Logik im Morgenlande, Karlsruhe, 1901Google Scholar . Cf. Jacobs, L., Studies in Talmudic logic and methodology, London, 1961, 3–8Google Scholar . The correct reading is in all probability qol va-ḥomer, v. Schwarz, , 8–14Google Scholar , and the Theodor–Albeck ed. of Gen. Rabbah, p. 474, n. 3, but the conventional form is qal, perhaps in order to avoid any association with qol ‘a voice’. Schwarz's identification of the qal va-ḥomer with the Aristotelian syllogism is untenable. In the syllogism the inference concerns the relationship between genus and species; since e.g. Socrates belongs to the class man he must share the characteristics of that class. In the qal va-ḥomer, on the other hand, it is not suggested that the ‘major’ belongs to the class of the ‘minor’ but that what is true of the ‘minor’ is true of the ‘major’. There does not appear to be, in fact, any real parallel to the qal va-ḥomer in Greek thought. But, in an important article, Kunst, Arnold (‘An overlooked type of inference’, BSOAS, x, 4, 1942, 976–91)CrossRefGoogle Scholar has pointed to a striking parallel in the Indian form of inference known as kimpunar. Kunst remarks: ‘Whether the similarity of this inferential procedure between the Jews and the Indians was a result of mutual influence, or whether it was only an expression of a common human tendency to eulogize great things by comparing them with smaller, or to raise the value of small things by juxtaposing them with greater—this problem may be left to further historical researches. The author would rather vote for the latter alternative’ (p. 991).

2 Gen. Rabbah 92:7, ed. Theodor–Albeck, pp. 1145–6; Yalkut, 1 Sam. 132 (which refers to ten but lists only nine). See Theodor's lengthy note in which it is suggested that the actual list is a gloss.

3 Avot de-Rabbi Nathan (version B) 44; Gen. Rabbah 4:24 (ed. Theodor–Albeck, p. 225) and Talmud, JerusalemSanh. 10: 1 (27d) mention Gen. iv, 24Google Scholaras a qal va-ḥomer.

4 Gen. Rabbah 17: 20–1 (ed. Theodor–Albeck, p. 225).

5 Sections 5 and 6. A number of editions of this Baraita have been published e.g. in the introduction of Wolf Einhorn of Grodno at the beginning of the Vilna edition of Midrash Rabbah.

6 Schwarz, op. cit.; Hirschensohn, H., Berure ha-Middot, Jerusalem, 1929, 39–60Google Scholar; Ashkenazi, Samuel Jofe, Yephe toar, comment to Gen. Rabbah 92: 7Google Scholar in the Vilna edition. Cf. Strack, H., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Philadelphia, 1945, p. 285Google Scholar, n. 3.

7 Hirschensohn, , op. cit., 40–5Google Scholar, adds the following examples (but these are extremely doubtful): Gen. iii, 22; Gen. xi, 6; Gen. xvii, 17.

8 v. Daube, in HUCA, XXII, 1949, 239 fGoogle Scholar.

9 v. the literature cited by Eissfeldt, O., The Old Testament: an introduction, Oxford, 1965, 12Google Scholar, and Eissfeldt's general remarks, 12–15.

10 Eissfeldt, op. oit., loc. cit.

11 NEB renders Num. xxvii, 7, as ‘The claim of the daughters of Zelophehad is good’ and Num. xxxvi, 5, as ‘The tribe of the sons of Joseph is right’. But this overlooks entirely that the same terms—ken and dbr—are used in both passages.

12 cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: demalel keyvanta.