Especially compared to Benin Ab
Is there a difference between a simple matter and a fundamental building, because any KV can seemingly work as a fundamental building, and just as one decomposes a fundamental building into a stage… one also decomposes a simple matter.
I didn’t understand. So what if you interpret it as similar, why does that mean the argument is similar?
My point is whether the argument is necessary, let alone the place where it is used, or is it really sufficient in the ab construction. After all, let alone the ab construction says that if law x belongs in a, in b, which is an easier situation (according to the law in question), it is clear that it also belongs there. In the ab construction, we see that we do not need to find a serious side to say that a law belongs in another place, but rather it is enough to say that if a has law x, and b is equal to it, then that law will belong to it.
It is clear that it is a similar verb. But when there is a קוה, it is stronger because there is a hierarchy (I wrote in the past that a קוה is a type of parent building, unlike those who believed that it was a deduction, like Adolf Schwartz). See the issue of Chulin Keto Eb – Ketez Eb אב regarding differences in the פרכות קול דהו.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
