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.

7 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.

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.

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.