Q&A: On the Rule of Dayyo in Bava Kamma
On the Rule of Dayyo in Bava Kamma
Question
Today we learned the Talmudic passage in Bava Kamma about the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Sages regarding the whole rule of dayyo, and I have a few questions (that I didn’t find an answer to). 1. What about the rule that we do not derive punishments through logical inference? In the case of Miriam the prophetess, how did God punish her through an a fortiori inference? If He does not want us to do that, why does He do it? 2. I don’t understand Rabbi Tarfon. Why, if he has (according to Rashi) a definite article implying that half-damages applies both in the public domain and in the private domain, what is the source of the derivation? If that is so, then the story is over, and there is a textual decree that this is the law. And if it applies only to the public domain, then in any case the rule of dayyo should apply, just like in the case of Miriam?
Answer
A. “We do not derive punishments through logical inference” is a rule for expounding verses. But if the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes Miriam and explains it by means of an a fortiori inference, there is nothing problematic about that. He did not punish her because of the a fortiori inference, but because He decided that this was the proper thing. To us, He explains it in the terms of an a fortiori inference. Beyond that, according to some later authorities (Acharonim), we do not derive punishments through logical inference because of the concern that there may be a refutation. With the Holy One, blessed be He, He knows that there is none.
B. I did not understand the question. This is exactly the Talmud’s own difficulty against Rabbi Tarfon: from Miriam we see the rule of “dayyo.” And to that he answers that there is a difference between a case where dayyo would refute the a fortiori inference and another kind of dayyo. And that also answers your second question. Rabbi Tarfon holds that the rule of half-damages was also stated regarding the injured party’s property, but if we were learning only from the verse we would obligate there only half-damages, since that is what is written in the verse. But in addition there is an a fortiori inference from the public domain to the courtyard of the injured party, and that adds another half. The reason we do not limit it here by dayyo is that in this case dayyo would refute the a fortiori inference, because applying dayyo would mean that the inference adds nothing at all to the verse. All this is stated explicitly in the Talmud, and that is exactly the discussion there. So I did not understand your question here.