Q&A: Incomplete Tzerikhtas in the Talmud
Incomplete Tzerikhtas in the Talmud
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In many cases in the Talmud, when there is a need for both teachings, it is not clarified all the way through— they explain why, in addition to A, B is needed, but not why, in addition to B, A is needed. This is especially common in three-way cases, where it is rare for the Talmud to cover all the possibilities.
What do you think is the meaning of this? After all, from the very fact that the Talmud raises the question of why both are needed, it is clear that the apparent duplication, which seemingly is unnecessary, is bothering it—yet it does not fully prove that it is indeed necessary.
Answer
I don’t know how to answer this in general. Each case has to be considered on its own. Sometimes perhaps one side of the need-for-both is obvious, and only the other requires elaboration. There are cases where the same distinction establishes the need for both in both directions (it has a lenient side and a stringent side).
It could also be that the Talmud’s purpose is to teach the reasoning behind why both are needed, and it only uses the question of why both are needed in order to do that in a didactic way.