Something that is out of the ordinary.. to teach about the whole rule is out of the ordinary.
A. In explaining the contradiction between “You shall eat matzah for seven days” and “Six days,” the Gemara teaches according to the rule: Everything that was in the general and came out… to teach about the entire general came out. (And only “You shall eat matzah in the evening” teaches about the commandment of matzah on Seder night).
What is this strange trick, writing a rule, then partially contradicting it, and from that I understand that it is all hidden.
Don’t write at all and there will be no problems.
I thought that the intention of the Torah was to say that only matzah is permitted to be eaten, and not chametz. To explain the essence of the prohibition of chametz, and that matzah is permitted. And so that we do not understand that there is a mitzvah to eat matzah every day, it was omitted as above. And it went beyond the rule to teach.
Is this so? And yet it is difficult, to teach the law in a “crooked” way, why not state explicitly that there is no mitzvah on seven days?
on. The above study seems different from other uses of this measure, for example:
It is said: And the soul that eats flesh from the altar of peace offerings, which is the Lord’s, and his uncleanness is upon him, and that soul shall be cut off from his people (Leviticus 7:20). And were not all the holy things whole, and already the whole was cut off from all of them to eat them with the uncleanness of the body, and when they departed from the whole to teach, they did not go forth to teach about themselves, but they went forth to teach about the whole, to tell you: What special wholes are holy, whose holiness is the holiness of an altar, even everything whose holiness is the holiness of an altar, went forth to be holy in the inner sanctuary of the house.
And so with the burning of the fire, you went out to divide it: as it is said: You shall not kindle a fire in all your dwellings on the Sabbath day (Exodus 33:3), and the fire in general you shall not do any work (Isa. 20:10) was, and why did you go out to knock on it and tell you what the fire is, which is a master of work and is liable for it in itself, even if anyone is a master of work, he is liable for it in himself. And the Rabbis of Shabbat wrote, “This is the measure of everything that was in general, etc.”
In these studies, it seems like a completely different type of study, a version of ‘Benin Av’, where one learns halakha on the entire group of laws from a specific law. It’s like narrowing down the ‘Benin Av’ to the group of laws that he teaches.
And not like in the mitzvot, where the exception *cancels* the original law.
The question I asked does not apply to recent studies either. There is no strange writing here about writing a law and its cancellation.
So what does this measure mean?
Sorry, but I don’t have time to go into all of this right now.
I have dealt with this measure in several articles to a good extent. For example, on Parashat Tzo and Pinchas 5765 (found on the website). There I also deal with the relationship between the number of fathers, and when the one who leaves goes out to teach about himself and when about the whole community, and much more. In the versions of the complete books (which are also on the website here), one can find an index that refers to all the articles that deal with this measure.
Clalit says that the “crooked” way of teaching laws in the midrashim can stem from considerations of simplicity. The wording of the verse is meant to say something in a simple way, and that is how it was chosen. But in order to teach the written midrashic law, the wording is also slightly distorted, and so on.
And another note, it is common to use the same sermon in several different forms. Sometimes the sermon is detailed later in history (such as the clause and the part that was in the seven sermons of Hillel the Elder, which was detailed into three sermons by the Rish: clause and the part, the part and the part, and the clause and the part. Incidentally, in the issue of the Nazir there is also a sermon of the part and the part and the part).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
