Q&A: The Logic Behind Derashot
The Logic Behind Derashot.
Question
Hello and blessings!
1. What is the logic behind the give-and-take at the beginning of the chapter Merubeh, according to which we derive from the rule of general term, specific term, and general term that double payment applies only to something that is subject to sanctification of the firstborn, and likewise the other suggestions raised there by the Talmud?
2. What is the logic behind the rule that land, slaves, and documents cannot be stolen?
3. What is the logic behind the rule that land, slaves, and documents were excluded from the laws of safeguarding / that a watchman is exempt from paying for them?
Answer
These are difficult questions, and I don’t currently have the time to get into them (to think about them, not only to answer). I’ll write briefly, off the cuff:
1. Each possibility has to be discussed on its own merits. Separate thought is required about each one, and this is not the place.
2. In the case of land, the logic is clear. As for slaves, it also seems that we are dealing with human beings, and theft does not apply to them. Documents have no intrinsic monetary value, and therefore this is basically indirect causation of theft (except for using it to stopper the mouth of his flask), since the debt itself still stands.
3. The explanations in section 2 are also relevant regarding a watchman (with respect to damage to land, Maimonides and the Raavad disagree whether it is considered land or monetary loss).