x-mailing-list: daf-disc...@shemayisrael.com(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
d...@dafyomi.co.il
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
GENERAL: Binyan Av
Moshe Tarko asked:
>>In the Sifra, Parashah d'Nedavah, Parashah 1, it wants to say that since situation #1 had "cause" x and in situation 2 it had "cause" y then we can infer: sit 1 did not have y and sit. 2 did not have x so you don't need either. That is not a correct inference... you need either 1 but not both to get Keriah, no?<<
The Kollel replied:
>>There is a Midah with which the Chachamim are Doreish the Torah, called Mah haTsad. This is an extension of another Midah called Mah Matsinu. In order to understand Mah haTsad we must first understand Mah Matsinu.
In a Mah Matsinu we say that if we have found a certain individual characteristic in one place and this causes a certain result, then we may assume that in another similar place where we find the same individual characteristic the same result must be produced. This is because we may reasonably assume that the result found is caused by the individual characteristic present, which is common in both places.
A Mah haTsad is used where we cannot learn from a Mah Matsinu. For example if we have a Pirchah, i.e. we cannot learn from the Mah Matsinu because there is a Chumrah (if we are trying to learn out a Kulah) or a Kulah (if we are trying to learn out a Chumrah) in the Melameid (the place we are learning from) relative to the place we are learning to. As in the case you refer to, we cannot learn from the Dibur of Sneh because it was the first time Hashem spoke to Moshe. We cannot learn from here because it is possible that only in this case a Kriyah must follow a Dibur because it was the first time, whereas generally a Dibur may not mean that a Kriyah must follow. In this case we may bring a different place where we have found the same result (a Kriyah following a Dibur but where the Chumrah (or Kulah)) is not present. This will prove that the Chumrah is not the cause of the result, rather the individual characteristic which is present, and we can learn a Mah Matsinu. However, if there is a different Chumrah in the second place we bring, we cannot learn from the second place because perhaps the second Chumrah is the cause of the result we have found, and not the individual characteristic.
In this case, if the Chumrah is not common to both places we may learn a Mah haTsad. This means that since both places have a common individual characteristic, but do not have a common Chumrah, it is reasonable to assume that the cause of the common factor that is found in both places is the individual characteristic common in both places, and not the Chumrah that is specific to each place and not common to both. To say that the Chumrah cause the result found in both cases would mean that there are two different causes for the result we find, something that is less reasonable than assuming that there is just one cause.
So, in your example, to say that the Chumrah of being the first time Hashem spoke to Moshe and the Chumrah of being a Dibur to all of Yisrael, both cause the fact that a Dibur precedes a Kriyah is less reasonable than to say that every Dibur is preceded by a Kriyah, because then we are assuming that only one common factor causes the observed result in both places.<<
Moshe Tarko asked:
>>First, I did not see this right away since Google put it in another "folder".
Second, please be careful when writing, the Kriah preceded the dibur not followed it. I get confused easily.
Most important, third, you have made up a rule that the GEMARA explicitly does not hold. After thinking of this problem, I saw a gemara that asks my very question and "destroys" an attempted limud along the same line of logic as this medrash.
See Kesuvos 32 A.
And see Tosfos [there] who says that that question is "devastating" to our whole way of learning. Their 1st ans is not really convincing to me and many Rishonim struggle with this problem and give different answers. I don't remember if any of the ones that I saw give your answer. See if someone does and please get back to me. I do remember that some Rishonim do restrict this limud to only certain situations because of this problem that I asked.<<
The Kollel replied:
>>1 I apologize for the confusion. I will try to be clearer this time.
2 The Gemara in Kesuvos that you refer to asks a slightly different question than the one you posed, and is therefore not a contradiction to the answer that I gave. You asked how can we learn from a Mah haTsad to a place which does not have the Chumrah of either of the Melamdim. This is a question on the basic logic of a Mah haTsad, and the answer to this question is correct as I answered.
The Gemara in Kesuvos does not ask on the basic logic of learning from a Mah haTsad, rather that there is a Pirchah on the Mah haTsad, that both of the Melamdim have a common factor that they have a Chumrah (albeit a different Chumrah in each case) compared to the Melamed. This Pirchah is called a Tsad Chamur.
Tosfos asks that if we are to ask such a question on a Mah haTsad, we can never learn a Mah haTsad because we always have a Tsad Chamur (or Kal). Tosfos answers in the name of the Ri that the Gemara means to say that there is in the case of the Gemara in Kesuvos a Chomer Meshuneh i.e. an unusual Chumrah in each of the Melamdim, which is a Pirchah on the Mah haTsad. If we would have a usual Chumrah in each of the Melamdim, Tosfos says that we cannot ask a Pirchah that there is a Tsad Chamur, due to the reasoning I explained in my original answer.
Alternatively, Tosfos answers in the name of Rabeinu Tam, that the Gemara simply means to ask a regular Pirchah, i.e. that there is a common Chumrah to both Eidim Zomemim and Chovel in which case we cannot learn a Mah haTsad.<<
---
Moshe Tarko asks:
I'm writing in bold so that you can find this easily; I hope you don't mind.
1) YOU WROTE "MELAMED" INSTEAD "LAMED" OR "NILMAD" IN THE END OF THIS PARAGRAH.
2) THIS IS WHERE I DISAGREE WITH YOU. THE CHUMRA [IN QUOTE: YAISH BAHEM TZAD CHUMRA]. TO ME THE GEMARA MEANS ARE THE CHUMRAS THAT EXIST AND WERE DISCUSSED. NOT SOME THIRD CHUMRA - WHICH IS COMMON TO BOTH ... ALSO PROBLEMATIC SINCE IT NEVER GETS MENTIONED . AND THAT WOULD CAUSE US TO NEVER HAVE A TZAD HASHAVEH.
IF YOU WERE RIGHT THEN TOSEFOS - AND THE OTHER RISHONIM - WOULD NOT SAY THAT WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WHICH CAUSES US TO NOT HAVE "MIN HATZAD"Â OR "TZAD HASHAVEH" EVER!
WHY? NOT EVERY LIMUD HAS THIS PROBLEM.
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
When you write some third Chumrah, I presume that you refer to the answer of Rabeinu Tam. I did not write that Tosfos held like this in his question, only in his answer. In his question he certainly did not hold that the Gemara meant a third Pirchah, hence he asked that we could always ask a Tsad Chamur.
However, this is indeed the answer of Rabeinu Tam as explained in Tosfos, and Tosfos indeed brings up your point (third last line in Tosfos) that the Gemara does not mention the third Pirchah.
Dov Freedman
_______________________________________________ Daf-discuss mailing list Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il http://mail.shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
