88b
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/bmetzia/points/bm-ps-088.htm
2c
"No verse permits an ox to eat attached Peros, yet the Torah permits it to eat detached Peros. The Torah explicitly permits man to eat attached Peros, all the more so he may eat detached!"
What exactly are the mechanics of the logic? What is strict and what is lenient and why?
Same question for 3b, for ox eating from attached.
"No verse permits man to eat detached Peros, yet the Torah permits him to eats attached. The Torah commands us to let an ox eat attached Peros, all the more so it eats detached!"
Again, what is strict and what is weak and why?
How can both both Kal-VaChomers be mutually compatible? This is very confusing.
Paul Davidowitz, Long Beach, NY USA
1) In the first Kal va'Chomer the weak (Kal) is the ox and the strong (Chomer) is the man. The ox is weak because he has no verse permitting him to eat attached fruit, while the man is strong because the verse allows him to eat attached fruit. Therefore, we say that if the weak ox possesses a verse allowing him to eat detached fruit, then the strong man certainly may eat detached fruit.
2) In the second Kal va'Chomer, the weak (Kal) is the man and the strong (Chomer) is the ox. This is because the man has a weakness since he has no verse permitting him to eat detached fruit, while the ox has a strength because he does have a verse allowing him to eat detached fruit. Therefore, we say that if the weak man may eat attached fruit, the strong ox certainly may eat attached fruit.
3) Clearly, for different aspects, the ox is sometimes considered strong and sometimes considered weak. It is considered strong in as much as it may eat detached but is considered weak since it may not eat attached. Conversely, the man is considered strong because he may eat attached but is consdered weak because he may not eat detached.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom