Q&A: A Particular Case That Was Included in a General Rule and Then Excluded from It
A Particular Case That Was Included in a General Rule and Then Excluded from It
Question
Hello Rabbi!
I think it is written 9 times that there is a commandment to eat matzah for 7 days, except for one time where it says six days.
Following the hermeneutic rule of “a particular case that was included in a general rule and then excluded from it,” the Sages conclude that all seven days are optional, and from the verse “in the evening you shall eat matzot” they learn that the obligation is only on the first night.
My questions are:
1. The verse “in the evening you shall eat matzot” refers to the obligation of “for seven days you shall eat matzot.”
2. There is no logic at all in this rule.
3. If possible, I would like a rational answer. For example, that this is a later text, say.
Answer
I do not usually give answers by special order. If my answer does not appeal to you, you can of course disagree and challenge it, or simply not accept it.
And especially if you yourself have already supplied the answer (that this is a later verse), I do not see why I need to follow along behind you and endorse it. If that is your answer—then what are you asking?
Let me begin by saying that, in principle, the hermeneutic rules were given as rules of exposition, so they do not have to contain ordinary interpretive logic. The Torah is written in such a way that it can be expounded through these rules. Therefore, when there is something that was excluded from the general rule, it teaches according to the guidelines of those hermeneutic rules. This is not a tool for uncovering the plain meaning, but for creating a parallel plane of reference: exposition.
In my “Good Measure” piece on Vayakhel-Pekudei, I discussed this type of exposition (and this very exposition as well), and here it is:
יש ללחוץ כדי לגשת אל 224_vayakhel.pdf