Q&A: The Reason of the Verse
The Reason of the Verse
Question
Tosafot HaRosh on tractate Bava Metzia 96a
“And one of them was asked about it. And if you say: it is obvious that for this half he is exempt, since when the owner is with him he is exempt from everything, and when the owner is with him only for half, he is exempt for the half, as we find in Merubeh: five oxen, and even five half-oxen. One may answer that there it is logical, because he pays according to what he stole; but here, borrowing with the owner present is not logical at all—rather, where Scripture revealed it, it revealed it.”
How can there be a doubt about a law with no rationale at all? What would the two sides even be?
Answer
It does not need a reason. On the contrary: since we do not know the reason for the law, we have a doubt about the conclusion. The doubt is negative, not positive. It is like when there is a piece of meat before us and we do not know anything about it—we have a doubt whether it is kosher or not. But there can also be a case of doubt where there is a kosher shop and a non-kosher shop nearby, and then the doubt is positive.
Discussion on Answer
Correct, and therefore one follows the laws governing cases of doubt.
But according to Tosafot HaRosh’s words, “rather, where Scripture revealed it, it revealed it,” apparently the doubt should be resolved by saying that certainly there is no exemption when the owner is not fully with him?
If I understood correctly, he is not resolving the question; he is explaining why such a doubtful possibility exists, and why it cannot be decided against from the passage in Merubeh.
But if so, there is no way to prefer either side and decide the doubt? And if you say that we stick only to what is written, then what was the doubt in the first place?