The boundaries of the field of study
The issue in the Menachot that begins on page 7b discusses which laws can be learned from these laws. Whether a certain law regarding blood, which is not half-holy, meaning that if he received less blood in a syringe than the required amount of blood, the blood is not holy, can also be learned from a Menach that requires a certain amount, can the amount be brought in parts. For example, the High Priest’s Minchat is a tithe, half of which is offered in the morning and half between evenings, can one bring half a tithe for the morning offering and half a tithe for the evening offering, or must one bring the whole offering and then divide it? The Gemara discusses whether it is possible to learn from blood that just as blood is not holy for halves, so a Menchat is not holy for halves, and the Gemara raises the question of whether it is possible to learn a Milta from a Milta, and so is the rest of the issue there.
From what I have seen, this is a unique issue in Shas that discusses whether it is possible to learn a Milta from a Milta. In the rest of Shas, to my knowledge, one topic is learned from another topic almost without hesitation. For example, Mishnah Tractate Minachot Chapter 12 Mishnah 5:
Volunteers offer wine, but no volunteers offer oil. The words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says, Volunteers offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said, What do we find in wine, which comes as a duty and comes as a freewill offering? Even oil comes as a duty and comes as a freewill offering.
Or the issue in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sota, page 16, page 2
So that it may appear on the water. Our rabbis gave three requirements for it to appear: Sota dust, cow ashes, and the saliva of a camel.
And the Gemara teaches that deviant dust is derived from cow ashes.
And perhaps also in Baba Kama, page 17, page 2.
Rava said: Whoever steals an impure thing – the one who steals it pays the full damage, whoever steals it pays half the damage. And Rava, shall I bring bundles to my accuser? No, Rava – a cart pulled by a cart means a len.
And it seems that we are studying tort law, the laws of impurity and purity.
And perhaps related to the issue is also the law of the rabbinical court regarding the Sabbath, which is an exception to the sukkah.
The issue with the offerings seems unusual. What is the explanation for the issue with the offerings?
On the contrary. In the Sugiya there, it is assumed that it is certainly possible to learn a milta from a milta, the question is only whether to learn from a dem or from something else. And what they wrote there that the milta will not be discriminated against refers only to the Halacha. And we find this in several places where they do not study the kicha from the Halacha, etc. The dimensions of the sermon are stated on verses and not on the Halacha. And in the Halacha, perhaps they do not even study the logical dimensions because the Halacha is a novelty and you have nothing in it except its novelty.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
