(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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Menachos 028: Ribuy Miut Ribuy or Klal Perat u'Klal
Gary Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
The gemara notes a machlokes between Rebbi and R' Yosi B"R Yehudah regarding
the materials appropriate for the menora (and by extension other kli
shares). The essence of the machlokes revolves around how similar the
analogy resulting from a ribui-miut-vribui vs. klall-prat-klall is. As I
understand it a ribui-miut-ribui is more inclusive but does exclude things
which are "far afield". In this instance kli cheres is excluded but etz is OK.
What disturbs me is I lack an understanding of the paramaters which are
used to define the categtory. ie why say cheres is excluded, perhaps it
should be included and only something like kli glalim is meant to be
excluded. How does one know where to "draw the line"? (I suspect one can
ask a similar question re klal uprat) To answer that there is a mesora as
to what is included or excluded doesn't seem acceptable as my understanding
of these drashos is that one need not have a specific mesora to make a limud
of this sort.
Gary Schreiber, Chicago
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
Gary,
You are asking a general question on the rule of Klal Perat u'Kelal as well
as a specific question on this Sugya.
(a) To answer your general question, I found and important Tosfos in Eruvin
(15b DH Mah), which touches on this point. He explains that the Klal Perat
u'Kelal written with regard to a Get is explained as excluding a living
being or food from being used; the Klal Perat u'Kelal of Ma'aser Sheni
teaches that it must be an item that multiplies and grows from the gournd,
and with regard to Chagigah we exclude what is Mekabel Tum'ah and does not
grow from the ground. Why didn't we use the same criteria in all three
cases (since they would seem to apply by all of them)?
Tosfos answers that it all depends on "what the chachamim saw fit," as the
case may be. That is, the Torah relies on us to use logic to explain every
single Mi'ut or Ribuy in the Torah. When it comes to Klal Perat u'Kelal, it
is necessary to define *logical* paramaters for what kind of thing ought to
limit the Halachah under discussion, and only after that to decide how much
to limit the Halachah, based on the 13 Midos.
In our case, that means that Chachamim decided that there are three
categories: wood, metal, and precious metals.
(b) As for your specific question on our Sugya (why isn't Kli Gelalim a
fourth category), perhaps the answer is what we say in Pitum ha'Ketores
(Krisus 6a); urine was not allowed in the Mikdash out of respect. Since the
same applies to excrement, it is not necessary for a verse to exclude using
it for Klei Shares.
Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
