line
I once heard Rabbi Hillel Sachs say that there are all kinds of qu’un that should not be said, and he gave these examples:
1. If fish that is not eaten with a spoon is eaten with a fork, then soup that is eaten with a spoon is not to be eaten with a fork.
2. If my pocket, which you are not allowed to put your hand in, is permissible for me to put my hand in, then your pocket, which you are allowed to put your hand in, is not permissible for me to put my hand in.
What is really the fallacy here? It is very similar to many of the verses that appear in the Bible.
Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience.
You need Rabbi Hillel Sachs for this. If it weren’t for his words, would you have made such a report? There is common sense and every person understands how to use it.
This is not similar to the Talmudic code, and I have already stated this in several places. There is an assumption in the code that the laws are related to the same field of meaning, and only because of this can the code be made. The authorities already bring a code to require a crossbar to be covered with a tzitzit: And what is a garment of four wings that is exempt from a mezuzah that is covered with a tzitzit, a crossbar that is covered with a mezuzah is not a law that requires a tzitzit?
I think I wrote about this to a good extent in 5656-6, p. 8:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwJAdMjYRm7IRmM4RGd0dG9zWU0
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
