Two scriptures that follow as one
It is customary to explain the opinion of the M.D. that two scriptures that come together do not teach that one should not learn the construction of a father, because the Torah has specified these two specific cases. I wanted to ask based on this, what is the M.D.’s opinion that two scriptures together teach? How does it answer the M.D.’s claim that they do not teach?
The Rabbis already said that the Torah spoke like the language of humans. Sometimes the Torah uses unnecessary language for the sake of exaggeration and style, and therefore it should not be precise with any exceptions or labels.
In addition, there are situations in which it is possible to include a more narrow circle because of the same consideration. That is, the Torah specified two cases in order to teach us not to include everything but a limited plurality. Like a plurality of general and particular and general that is multiplied in a partial circle (see the second book in the Talmudic Logic series).
Dear N, can you give an example of the second case you brought up?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
