Two scriptures that come together do not teach
Hello Rabbi, I'm having a bit of trouble getting a certain topic sorted out in my head:
On the one hand, there is a construction based on one or two scriptures. On the other hand, there is a dispute as to whether two scriptures that come together do not teach or do.
I can't figure out the methods:
1. Is someone who says that two scriptures that follow as one teach that this is actually building a father from two scriptures?
2. What does "coming together" even mean?
3. Would someone who says that two scriptures that come together do not teach anything disagree, for example, with the study of the Gemara in Kiddushin that is being studied?
The laws of temple missions and divorce because these are two scriptures?
I would appreciate help.
Two scriptures that come together mean two scriptures that teach the same law in two different contexts. In such a situation, the halakhic ruling (this is a disagreement in the Gemara) is that they do not teach about other contexts (except for the two). The accepted explanation is that if the law were true in all contexts, it would be sufficient to write one of them, and the other would be unnecessary. From this we conclude that the Torah probably wrote this because the law is true only in these two contexts.
Therefore, when there is a necessity between these two contexts (that it is impossible to learn one from the other and the other from the first), then both are considered as one scripture (because there is no exception here), and therefore in such a situation they do teach. This is a construction of a father from two scriptures. Note that the construction of a father from two scriptures is always done in the way of the equal side, which is based on a necessity between the two teachers. This is also the situation in the issue of kiddushin that you mentioned.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer