One of the constant concerns of the experts of legal methodology and methodological hermeneutics is to obtain certain criteria with which to assess the validity of interpretations of the text concerning the author's intended purpose and meaning. Eric Donald Hersh, the most important scholar of hermeneutics of contemporary methodology, has tried to provide a criterion for assessing the interpretations of textual commentators by providing a definition of meaning and dividing it into literal and practical. Relying on the internal genre of the text and the definition it offers, he believes that the most important criterion for assessing the validity of different interpretations is their relevance to the internal genre of the text, provided that the rules and presuppositions of the language are upheld. This article seeks to explain, examine and critically assess Eric Hersh's views from the perspective of the principles of jurisprudence.