Q&A: Reversing a Kal Va-Chomer
Reversing a Kal Va-Chomer
Question
Hello Rabbi,
From an article and a lecture of yours about a kal va-chomer, it came out that there is no possibility of reversing a kal va-chomer.
As I understand it, in the given kal va-chomer: “If money, which does not complete the process (= money effects betrothal but not marriage), acquires, then a bridal canopy, which does complete it (marriage), should all the more so acquire (betrothal).”
Once we refuted the basic premise that money/bridal canopy.
From your words I understood that now one also cannot learn from marriage to betrothal. (For example: “If marriage, which is not effected by money, is effected by a bridal canopy, then betrothal, which is effected by money, should all the more so be effected by a bridal canopy.”)
But I saw that one page earlier, when the Talmud tries to derive money by a kal va-chomer: “If a Hebrew maidservant, who is not acquired through intercourse, is acquired through money, then this one, who is acquired through intercourse, should all the more so be acquired through money.”
And afterward the Talmud rejects it: “A yevamah proves otherwise, for she is acquired through intercourse and is not acquired through money.”
And to my surprise, Tosafot there asks: why not reverse the kal va-chomer?! “If intercourse, which does not acquire a Hebrew maidservant, does acquire a woman, then money, which does acquire a Hebrew maidservant, should all the more so acquire a woman.”
I was unable to understand why this is a sensible question. I would be glad if the Rabbi could sharpen my point and find my mistake.
Answer
I think that is itself what Tosafot answered. Admittedly, it is not clear why specifically here they raised the difficulty more than in any other kal va-chomer in the Talmud that gets refuted.
Afterward I saw in Atzmot Yosef here that he touches on this and writes that from here we can learn for all other cases:
“And it seems to me that their words, of blessed memory, do not require explanation, and their intention is clear. Tosafot had a difficulty with this kal va-chomer made in the Talmud, from which it then makes a disproof from a yevamah, and in the end concludes that it contains a refutation from the fact that money effects release. Why, then, did it not make the kal va-chomer from the opposite direction, where no such refutation and no such disproof would apply? Namely: if intercourse, which does not apply to a maidservant, does apply to a woman, then money etc. And now one cannot say ‘a yevamah proves otherwise,’ etc. Tosafot answered that the disproof gets reversed into the ‘why,’ and from here we learn for all places that the disproof can be reversed into the ‘why.’ And this is what they mean by ‘all the more so,’ etc., referring back to the beginning of the argument. Now one can refute: ‘what is unique about intercourse…,’ and one can say: ‘a document proves otherwise.’ And in the end as well, the refutation from money effecting release remains in place. And even if you say: ‘what is unique about a document, since it effects release—would you say the same about money…,’ that is exactly the same refutation as: ‘what is unique about the maidservant, since she goes free through money…’ Tosafot’s intention is to say that we have not escaped any of the refutations in the Talmud; rather, the refutation becomes the disproof and the disproof becomes the refutation. That is their whole intention here, and there is no difficulty at all in Tosafot’s words, and the questions of Rabbi Mahar"i ibn Lev, of blessed memory, fall away. So it seems to me.”