ISHMAEL B. ELISA (in: 3,u4N 5N3n:v4 ,21.)). This renowned Rabbi, who is one of the principal interpreters of the Pentateuch or Law (rinn) mentioned in the Mishna, was the son of the high-priest Elisha b. Fabi, whom Josephus xx. 7) erroneously calls Ishmael b. Fabi. He was born about A.D. 6o, carried away a captive to Rome during the destruction of Jerusalem, when a child, and was afterwards redeemed by R. Joshua, who, when at the Eternal city, with R. Eliezer b. Azzariah and R. Gamaliel II., as deputation to in tercede with the emperor Domitian in behalf of their suffering brethren (circa A.D. 83), heard of the imprisonment of this far-famed beautiful boy. He at once went to the prison and exclaimed at the dcor—' Who gave Jacob for a spoil and Israel to the robbers !' (Is. xlii. 24) ; and whcn the captive boy touchingly replied, The Lord, against whom we have sinned, and would not walk in his ways, nor be obedient unto his law ' (ibid.), the rabbi vowed that he would not quit Rome till he had re deemed this remarkable youth (Gittitt, 58, a). R. Ishmael afterwards lived in southern Judxa, not far from the Iduman boundaries (Hethuboth, 64, b), at a place called Xephar-Aziz ne:) where lie occu pied himself with the cultivation of the vine (11Iishna Xilaini, 4), and spent a large portion of his wealth in maintaining and fitting out young women .who had been impoverished by the desolations of the war (Nedarim, 66, a). The remarkable part of his life to las is the system of interpretation which he laid down, and which, as the head of a large school in the apostolic age, he propounded to his disciples. As his exegetical canons were avowedly opposed to those of his contemporary R. Akiba, the head of an equally numerous and influential school, and as the mode in which the Scriptures were explained in the apostolic age will be better understood by setting forth the two systems, we shall notice R. Akiba's principles of interpretation before stating the rules which R. Ishmael laid down. According to some ancient notions which R. Akiba systematized, every repetition, figure, parallelism, synonym, word, letter, particle, ple onasm, nay the very shape, and every ornament of a letter or title, has a recondite meaning in the Scripture, 'just as every fibre of a fly's wing or an ant's foot has its peculiar significance.' Hence
he maintained that the particles 1-1N, M, 1N, and as well as the construction of the finite verb with the infinitive, ex. gr., 1:V21M LZ3171, Z'Ull mull> have a dogmatic significance, and he, therefore, de duced points of law from them. Philo was of the same opinion (comp. craoWs 8Tc rept:Tray 8poi.tcc 068b 74,377aLV, i;r6 TI)S T011 7rpayi.taroXo-ydp eckw%-irrov OpCis, De profugis, ed. Mangey, p. 45S), only that he deduced from them ethical and philo sophical maxims ; and this was also the opinion of the Greek translator of Ecclesiastes in the Septua gint, as may be seen from his anxiety to indicate the Hebrew particle nt: by the Greek aim, which has greatly perplexed the commentators who, being unacquainted with this fact, have been unable to account for this barbarism and violation of gram matical propricty (comp. Ginsburg, Comment. an Ecclesiastes, p. 496). Now R. Ishmael opposed this mode of interpretation, and maintained that the Bible, being written in human language, uses expressions in their common acceptation, that many of the repetitions and parallelisms are simply designed to render the style more rhetorical and powerful, and cannot, therefore, without violation of the laws of language be adduced in support of legal deductions. Accordingly he laid down thirteen exegetical rules which are called min mityr L!bv, the thirteen rules of R. Ishmael, by which alone the Scriptures are to be interpreted (Ciz nerri andwhich are as follows :— I. Inference from Minor to Major, inrn As this law has been laid down by Hillel I., and as it is illustrated by examples in its proper place [HRLEL], we shall only add that the object of inference (i.e., the major) must never be treated more rigorously than the subject from vthich the inference is made (z: e., the minor), as is evident from Num. xii. z4, 15, where the argument a'e minore ad majorem is employed by God htmself, and where, as the Talmud rightly remarks (Baba Kama, 28, a), Miriam, who offended her hea venly Father, is not treated more rigorously than a daughter who offends her earthly parent (comp. also Illishna, Baba Kama, ii. 5).