Q&A: Between General-and-Specific-and-General and an Archetypal Derivation
Between General-and-Specific-and-General and an Archetypal Derivation
Question
Hello,
Is there a distinction between general-and-specific-and-general and an archetypal derivation?
I had thought that an archetypal derivation applies only across different commandments, whereas general-and-specific-and-general applies to details within the same commandment.
But from Rabbi Yosef Karo’s words in Halikhot Olam, it seems he does not hold that way.
What do you think?
Thank you very much
Answer
In the book on general rules and particulars (the second in the Talmudic Logic series), I explained the difference. An archetypal derivation is a certain level of similarity between the source case and the derived case. In general rules and particulars there are three levels of similarity: one aspect, two, or three. An archetypal derivation is a level of similarity that is not one of those three. Moreover, in an archetypal derivation, if there is a refutation of the similarity, we do not derive from it. In general-and-specific, by definition there are no refutations, because full similarity is not required there (only the defined number of aspects). It is hard to elaborate here.