Q&A: “Diluted” General-and-Particular
“Diluted” General-and-Particular
Question
Good evening,
We learned in Sanhedrin 45b:
Our Rabbis taught: “And he is put to death, and you shall hang him” (Deuteronomy 21:22) — one might think that all who are put to death are hanged. Therefore Scripture says: “for a hanged one is a curse of God” (Deuteronomy 21:23). Just as this “curser” is one executed by stoning, so too all who are executed by stoning — these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Rabbis say: just as this “curser” denied the fundamental principle, so too anyone who denied the fundamental principle. What are they disagreeing about? The Rabbis expound by the method of general and particular, while Rabbi Eliezer expounds by the method of inclusions and exclusions. The Rabbis expound by general and particular: “And he is put to death, and you shall hang him” is a general statement; “for a hanged one is a curse” is a particular statement. If they were close to one another, we would say: the general includes only what is in the particular — these, yes, and nothing else. Now that they are distant from one another, this helps to include idolatry, which resembles it in every respect. And Rabbi Eliezer expounds by inclusions and exclusions: “And he is put to death, and you shall hang him” is an inclusion; “for a hanged one is a curse” is an exclusion. If they were close to one another, we would include only idolatry, which resembles it in every respect. Now that they are distant from one another, this helps to include the rest of those executed by stoning.
That is, the Rabbis interpret by general and particular: if the particular is adjacent to the general, then the rule is that the general includes only what is in the particular. But if the particular is distant from the general, they do not restrict the general all the way down to the particular; rather, they leave more of the general intact.
Have you ever written about this?
Best regards
Answer
I haven’t checked this now, and I’m answering off the top of my head.
Usually there is a dispute whether we expound general and particular when they are far apart. Simply speaking, the Talmud ties this to the question of whether “there is no earlier and later in the Torah.” See on this in Middah Tovah, Ki Tisa 5764–5 (two installments).
By contrast, here it seems they derive an interpretation that expands to a middle degree. Perhaps this is the result of doubt. If they are far apart, the Talmud says we are in doubt which came first (since the order is unclear). So in essence there is doubt whether to expound it as general and particular (which is the narrowest — only what is in the particular), or as particular and general (which is the broadest — the general becomes an addition to the particular). Therefore, when they are far apart, because of that doubt we expound it as an intermediate expansion, between the maximum and the minimum.
I haven’t checked this. I’m only suggesting a direction.
Discussion on Answer
And of course the ordinary laws of doubt do not apply here, because this is a doubt in the interpretation of the verse (like Rabbi Chaim and Birkat Shmuel at the beginning of Bava Kamma, and “Zedekiah son of Chenaanah made for himself iron horns”). The Torah wrote it this way and knew from the outset that we would be left in doubt, so clearly it itself intended a definite instruction.
What are you referring to?
Did you mean me?
Yes. In the case of a distant general and particular, there is doubt because of “there is no earlier and later in the Torah”: whether the general comes before the particular or after it. So there is a doubt here whether to expound it as general and particular or as particular and general. What I added is that this doubt is not subject to the ordinary laws of doubt, because if the Torah had wanted to say that we should expound it as general and particular, it would have written them in that order and close together, and likewise for particular and general. If it wrote it in a doubtful way, then from the outset it intended for us to do something else. The obvious solution is to make an intermediate expansion. And this is somewhat like the reasoning of Rabbi Chaim and Birkat Shmuel at the beginning of Bava Kamma regarding a doubt in the interpretation of the Torah.
Thanks very much.