Q&A: Rules of Exegesis
Rules of Exegesis
Question
Hello and blessings,
I’m looking for help understanding the logic of the Talmud in Hullin 116a:
From one source to another—an objection based on leniency and stringency we do raise; a mere slight difference we do not raise. From one source derived from two—even a slight difference we do raise. From one source derived from three, if the argument cycles back and then comes by way of the common denominator, we raise even a slight difference; but if not—an objection based on leniency and stringency we do raise, while a mere slight difference we do not raise.
Rashi writes: “These interpretive rules were transmitted to us from Sinai,” without giving us any hint of the logic behind them!
I believe that in your work on the interpretive principles you studied this Talmudic passage. I’d be happy to get some direction on how to approach these rules.
Thanks in advance
Answer
Briefly, I think the explanation is roughly this:
A regular refutation points to a stringency that exists in the derived case as compared to the source case. A slight refutation points to some difference, but it is not clear whether it has the significance of a leniency or stringency relevant to the issue at hand.
An a fortiori argument is a relatively strong argument, stronger than the analogy of a paradigm construction. Therefore, refuting it requires something significant—only a leniency or stringency, not just any slight difference. But the common denominator is an analogy (from the common denominator to the case being derived), and therefore even a slight difference can refute it. And if the argument does not cycle back, then we have two source cases that do not teach by way of a common denominator, but rather through a derivation that comes from one of them; and here this is an a fortiori argument, so only a leniency or stringency can refute it.
See the dispute of the Rosh and the leading authorities in Bava Kamma 6a: when we derive from the common denominator of two source cases, does that mean we are learning an analogy from their shared feature—as though it were one source—or are we learning from one of them, while the second only removes the refutation? Look there carefully. According to the second approach, this is an a fortiori argument and not an analogy.
However, among the authors of the methodological works there is a dispute whether a common denominator retains the character of an a fortiori argument or becomes a paradigm construction.