Q&A: A Generalization, a Specification, and a Generalization — Really?
A Generalization, a Specification, and a Generalization — Really?
Question
Tosafot on Kiddushin 2a (s.v. “with a perutah”) discusses the source for the rule that something worth money is like money. Among other things, it deals with consecrated property, and suggests: “However, with regard to consecrated property as well, it is possible that we expound it as a generalization, a specification, and a generalization” (as in the case of redeeming the firstborn son at the beginning of tractate Shevuot). My question is: can one propose an exposition like that without any basis? They don’t bring any source for this exposition (because there isn’t one), and they don’t even show which verses such an exposition could be derived from. How does that work at all?
Thank you very much
Answer
You can see from the wording of Tosafot that they are suggesting that perhaps there once was such an exposition and it was lost to us. After all, they have a difficulty, and this is a possible resolution. By the way, there is a source for this exposition in other contexts.