- This topic has 29 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
So in Avos 6:3 we are told that even if someone teaches you one letter ???? ????? ?? ???? based on a kal vachomer – if Dovid who learned only two things from Achitofel, referred to him as ???
????? ?????? then surely someone who learns from his friend ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? surely must ????? ?? ????. The problem is that this violates the principle of ??? since the most we can learn from Dovid is that you have to honor someone who taught you two things. The Medrash Shmuel attempts to deal with this issue. One of his suggestions (which in fact he rejects because it’s dochek) is that this braisa is (in accordance with) R’ Tarfon who doesn’t hold of ???. The problem is that we know from Bava Kamma 25a that what R’ Tarfon actually holds is ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? and in our case it is not ????? ??? because you can still make a kal vachomer that you have to honor someone who taught you two things.
My wife apologizes.
I forgive her.
PAA: Tosfosim all over Shas point out that there is a Shittah that doesn’t hold of Dayo even when the Kal V’chomer is Muphrach.
BTW: it’s dayo “l’bah min hadin”–it is enough for the matter which comes from a “din” (din means kal vchomer)–lihiyos knidon–to be like the matter being judged
Took me very many years in yeshiva before I thought two seconds about this phrase and realized that “dayo lavoh min hadin” is nonsense
Sam, where? The Gemara says dayo is d’Oraisah.
Possible mehalech? –
???? ?????? ??? means for a given case, not in its entirety. True, the ?”? would apply to the case of someone who taught two halachos, but it would be ????? for one who taught ??? ???.
???”? the ???? of ????, where for the case in question, the ?”? is still used.
The Rav Mibartenura explains the Kal Vachomer that Achisofel was a Rasha. One thing or two doesn’t make a difference Misvara. The point we are learning is that although he is not actually his Rebbe, since he learned a drop from him he called him his Rebbe.
PAA, why would the MS not have an issue if he originally assumed the B’raisa was the Rabbonon? The kal vachomer as applied to the case of someone who was taught one halacha doesn’t work (because of dayo) according to the Rabbonon, but according to R’ Tarfon it does work, because the alternative would be to discard the k”v (for that case).
HaLeiVi, there’s a pirush from the Rav on Avos D’R’ Nosson? The pshat you mentioned is found (more elaborately) in the pirush of the Gaon’s brother, but as PAA said, the MS doesn’t agree.
It’s not a chilluk in types of pircha, it’s a chilluk as to whether we see one or two separate k”v.
If the k”v is in severity of punishment (as in hesger Miriam; the equivalent here would have been level of kavod required), that would be one k”v, and R’ Tarfon would also hold of dayo.
However, the k”v is in what causes the requirement for kavod, hence, we can consider it as two separate k”v; one, to learn the requirement for someone who taught two halachos, which even the Rabanan would agree to, and the second, to learn the requirement for kavod for less than two halachos, which only R’ Tarfon would hold of (because that k”v would be mufrach if we applied dayo).
Of course it doesn’t make sense to use a pircha as a k”v! But, that was never the k”v. The k”v was from a rasha to an equal. The two halachos was the dayo, not the k”v.
Dayo is an entirely different type of pircha; I probably shouldn’t have even called it a pircha.
Dayo limits the extent (or possibly, as in this case, the applicible cases) of a k”v. IOW, it doesn’t challenge which is the kal and which is the chamur, it limits what we can learn from the k”v.
A pircha shows that which has a tzad chsmur also has a tzad kal, so meiheicha teisi to follow the tzad chamur; maybe we should view it as a kal.
Again, the kal and chamur here is the rasha (Achitofel) vs. an ordinary, non rasha, equal who taught Torah. A standard pircha would be to show how there’s an opoksiree aspect to Achitofel, but that’s not what the dayo does; it merely limits the effects of the k”v.
OK, so you’re asking a different question on the Medrash Shmuel, but I don’t think it has anything to do with what I said.
You’re asking a kashya, then, based on assumptions which are quite questionable. According to your assumptions, the chilluk between cases where R’ Tarfon holds of dayo or doesn’t should have nothing to do with heicha d’mifrach kal vachomer.
It actually does make sense that something which is more chamur should also be more chamur elsewhere, and it also makes sense to never say a kal vachomer because of a possible unknown pircha (a reason given for ein onshin min hadin) but the bottom line is that the Torah gives guidelines as to when to say and how far to say a k”v. R’ Tarfon and the Rabbanan disagree about the guidelines.
Where I though you had a valid question was in categorizing the two halachos vs. os achas as dayo, as opposed to calling the two halachos a tzad chamur and therefore a pircha (I think this can be answered, but it’s a good heoroh).
They are arguing over whether we say dayo heicha d’mifrach kal vachomer, not over how much “sense” a k”v has to make.
It’s possible to express R’ Tarfon’s view as being that the existence of a k”v is a mandate to learn out a halacha, and if something can be learned from the k”v without violating dayo, we do so and stop there, but if necessary, we even violate dayo in order to make sure the k”v is used.
I’m not sure that’s necessary, though.
No, as I said (and you agreed), it does make sense to go beyond the ????, although it’s “safer” to stay within it. The bottom line of where we disagree, possibly, is that I hold that at at the end of the day, despite the fact that kal vachomer seems to simply be a logical device, it’s much more than that; it’s a means of HKB”H teaching us halachos, much as the other twelve middos are. There is logic to it, but it’s not iron clad in that way, and the degree of logical proof doesn’t have to be consistent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.