On the law of ink in the first instance

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › On the law of ink in the first instance

asked 9 years ago

Today we studied the Gemara in Baba Kama, the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Hamachim: All the law is equal – and I have a few questions (to which I have not found an answer): 1. What about the rule that there is no punishment of the kind of law regarding the prophetess Miriam? How did God punish her in the Bible if He does not want us to do it? 2. I do not understand Rabbi Tarfon. Why, if he has (according to Rashi) the AH that means that half the damage is whether in the public domain or in the private domain, then what is the point? If this is how the story ends and there is a written ruling that such is the law, and if it only comes to the public domain, then there is still a law of equal value as in the case of Miriam?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

A. There are no punishments from the law, he included in the sermons on the verses. But if God, blessed be He, punishes Miriam and explains this through the Korah, there is nothing wrong with that. He did not punish her because of the Korah, but because He decided that this was right. For us, He explains it in Korah terms. Beyond that, according to some recent scholars, punishments from the law are not due to fear that there is a conflict. With God, He knows that there is none. on. I did not understand the question. This is the very question of the Gemara regarding the R”T that the Magi see the law of ‘ink’. To this he answers that there is a difference between ink that is a demi-imprecation and other ink. And hence your second question also falls. The R”T believes that the law of חנן is also stated regarding the permission to cause damage, but if we were to learn from the verse, we would only require חנן there. After all, that is what is written in the verse. But in addition, there is an חנן from the R”R to the court of damage, and it adds another half to us. What is not limited to יע is that יע here refutes יע (from יע it follows that יע does not add anything to the verse). All of this is clearly written in the Gemara and this is the actual discussion there. That is why I did not understand your question here.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.