Q&A: Analogy and Induction
Analogy and Induction
Question
Hello. A. You attributed induction to Nachmanides in a general way, and therefore exegesis is included within the text and is of Torah-level origin. And to Maimonides you attributed analogy in a general way, and therefore it is outside the text and rabbinic.
B. According to the Nazir, mah matzinu (which comes before the thirteen hermeneutical principles) is analogy, while binyan av is induction (Koveitz He’arot on Nazir, pp. 87–88).
C. If we follow your approach, we would conclude that mah matzinu is rabbinic even according to Nachmanides, and binyan av is Torah-level even according to Maimonides. Where is the mistake?
Answer
Why do you assume I agree with him? The distinction between analogy and induction also is not sharp. Analogy is often based on a hidden induction, and induction is sometimes based on a collection of analogies. The important question is whether the inference reveals or expands.
Discussion on Answer
I claim that the general distinction between analogy and induction will not succeed in dividing up the principles, because there are revealing analogies and expanding analogies, and likewise with inductions. What exactly distinguishes between mah matzinu and binyan av? That requires examination. I only remember that I did not agree with Rabbi Nazir’s division, which was too coarse and overly general.
After all, Nachmanides also uses analogies, and yet from his perspective they are revealing; and Maimonides also uses inductions, and for him they are expanding.
Thank you, and happy holiday
Thank you.
It is still not clear to me.
I understood that in your view, according to Nachmanides all thirteen hermeneutical principles are revealing (like induction), while according to Maimonides all thirteen are expanding (like analogies).
But that generalization does not withstand criticism when one goes down to distinctions between the different principles. One cannot ignore the Nazir’s brilliant distinction
between the analogical mah matzinu [one from one = a detail from a detail]
and the inductive binyan av [one from two = the common side].
Even though according to your approach there is a hidden analogy at the base of induction, and vice versa. For if both principles contain both elements together, then what is the distinction between mah matzinu and binyan av from two texts?
So there must be explicit induction separate from explicit analogy.
So how would each approach deal with the opposite principle?
All the best