Thursday, July 20, 2006

Daf Yomi - Yoma 43 - Torah Says it Anyway

The Gemora brings a rule - מילתא דאתיא בקל וחמר טרח וכתב לה קרא - something that can be learned from a kal v'chomer, the Torah will write it anyways. What is the rationale behind this? The Bnei Yisoschor explains that all droshos that are learned out are halacha l'Moshe misinai and they might not have any logical reason behind them and they are accepted. A kal v'chomer could be understood. It makes logical sense. One might mistakenly think that the halacha is true when learned with a kal v'chomer because he understands it. The Torah shows us that this is not the case. Even though it makes perfect sense and self explanatory without the Torah explicitly expressing it, nevertheless, the Torah writes the halacha down to illustrate to us that it is because of the Torah that this halacha is true.

There are Rishonim however, that apply this concept by a gzeira shova, as well. Tosfos in Shabbos applies it by a ma hatzadand there are others that relate it to a binyon av. All of these methods of droshos are not understood with logic, but yet the Torah finds it necessary to state those halochos.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ma HaTzad / Binyan Av are not logical? I thought they were.

Avromi said...

Binyon av are as follows: just like we find this halacha by another case, so too it applies here. There is no actal logic in it. Tzad hashaveh is also a common denominator, but basically the same.

ben said...

seems to me that all these are 13 middos that the torah is nidereshes bahen, and they're all the same status. i bleive the only time it's one's own logic is sevara, and even then we say that's deoiraisa.

Avromi said...

The question is not if its deoiraisa or not, the issue is if it's a logic or not.
What do you mean when you say that sevara is min hatorah? Whose sevara?

Avromi said...

Ben: Isn't it clear that a kal v'chomer is logic?

Anonymous said...

Binyan Av is logical then. If "A" has a certain quality to it and has such-and-such a halacha, then "B", which shares that quality, should also have that halacha. It's a logical comparison. Gezeiras Shava is the non-logical one.

Avromi said...

I hear.
Look in Sdei Chemed chelek daled p.237 - 239 where he discusses when the concept applies and when not. Ii seems though that he is working with a sevara different than the one we said from the Bnei Yissoschar.

ben said...

let's look at kal vachomer like this: Chazal say that there are ten kal vachomer's in the Torah. If it's just logic, why do they need to tell us that? Every time Moshe said something we should say, this is a binyan av, this a meh matzinu?! certainly not. must be that traditional kal vachomer is used in a logical way but is more powerful than one's own sevara. See Gur Aryeh to Shemos 6:12 where he writes as follows:
שהוא אחד מן עשרה קל וחומר וכו'. פירוש מה ישראל שהוא לטובתם לא שמעו לי, פרעה שהוא לרעתו לא כל שכן. ואם תאמר והלא קל וחומר פריכא, שהרי כתיב בפירוש (פסוק ט) "ולא שמעו אל משה מקוצר רוח" (קושית הרא"ם), ויראה לי דלא קשה מידי, שהרי כל סברא יכול אדם לשקול בעצמו, וכך היה משה שוקל; דהן ישראל לא שמעו אלי אף על גב שהוא לטובתן, ואף על גב שיש כאן מניעה "מקוצר רוח", אין קוצר רוח כל כך סברא גדולה כמו מי שהוא לרעתו. וגבי דיני קל וחומר של תורה, אין לך למילף קל וחומר כשיש חומרא במלמד שאין בלמד, אף על גב דאיכא חומרא גדולה בלמד שאין במלמד. וטעמא דמילתא דכיון דמצינו דבר אחד קטון שיש במלמד מה שאינו בלמד, שמא כמו דאיכא חומרא זאת במלמד יש בו גם כן חומרא אחרת, אף על גב שהחומרא שהיא בלמד ואינו במלמד יותר גדולה מאד, אין אנו יודעין טעמיה של תורה, כי התורה מפי הגבורה נתנה. אבל הך מילתא ניתן למשה לשקול מסברת עצמו, והוא היה שוקל החומרא - דמה ישראל שהוא לטובתן לא שמעו אלי, אף על גב ד"מקוצר רוח" היה זה, סוף סוף הייתי סובר שישכחו העבודה וישמעו אלי, פרעה שהוא לרעתו, שזה אין חדוש כל כך, כל שכן. ומכיון שכתבה התורה קל וחומר זה, הסכימה התורה שהוא קל וחומר אמת:

Avromi said...

The Maharal seems to be saying that a regular k"v is logical and has to be understood - this particular one has a problem and by being in the Torah it is clear that the k"v is correct and the logic makes sense, even though we might not have figured it out by ourself.