In sifra it gives examples of each one of these (taken from sefaria):

1:

א) מקל וחומר – כיצד? ויאמר יי' אל משה: ואביה ירק ירק בפניה הלא תכלם שבעת ימים? תסגר... 'שבעת ימים' – קל וחומר לשכינה ארבעה עשר יום? אלא: דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון – תסגר מרים שבעת ימים מחוץ למחנה – ואחר תאסף.

1. kal vachomer (a fortiori): (Bamidbar 12:14): "And the L–rd said to Moses: Now if her (Miriam's) father had spat in her face, would she not be in shame for seven days!" — Kal vachomer, if the Shechinah does so, it should be fourteen days! But it suffices that a kal vachomer deduction parallel what it is deduced from; therefore, (Bamidbar 12:14): "Let her be sequestered seven days outside the camp, and then let her be gathered in."

2:

ב) מגזירה שוה כיצד? נאמ׳ בשומר חנם: אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו ונא׳ בשומ' שכר: אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו. מה בשומר חנם שנאמ' בו "אם לא שלח ידו" – פטר את היורשין אף בשומר שכר שנאמ' בו "אם לא שלח ידו" – יפטור בו את היורשים.

2. gezeirah shavah (Identity): It is stated in respect to a hired watchman (Shemoth 22:9): "The oath of the L–rd shall be between both, that he (the watcher) did not send his hand against the deposit of his neighbor," and, in respect to an unpaid watcher (Shemoth 22:7): "that he did not send his hand, etc." Just as in the instance of a shomer sachar, in which it is written "that he did not send his hand," the heirs (of the watcher) are exempt (from an oath that their father did not send his hand, etc., it being written: "The oath of the L–rd shall be between both" [the owner and the watcher — and not between the heirs]), so, in the instance of a shomer chinam, where it is written "that he did not send his hand," the heirs are exempt.

3:

ג) מבנין אב מכתוב אחד – כיצד? לא המשכב כהרי המושב – ולא המושב כהרי המשכב. הצד השוה שבהן: שהן כלים, עשויין לנוח אדם לבדו, וזב – מטמא אותו ברובו: לטמא אדם במגע וכמשא, ולטמא בגדים... אף כלים – שהן עשויין לנוח אדם לבדו – יהא הזב מטמא אותו ברובו: לטמא אדם במגע ובמשא, ולטמא כלים? יצא המרכב – שהוא עשוי לסיבלון אחד ׳

3a) a general rule implicit in one verse "Mishkav" (what is lain upon) is not like "moshav" (what is sat upon), and moshav is not like mishkav. What is common to them is that they are articles designed for man's (bodily) comfort alone, and a zav defiles them by (their supporting) most of his weight, to (in turn) defile a man by touching and by carrying, to (in turn) defile clothing. So, (all) articles which are designed for man's (bodily) comfort alone are defiled by a zav, by (supporting) most of his weight to (in turn) defile a man by maga and massa, to (in turn) defile clothing. This excludes (from such defilement) tarkav (a measuring instrument [which was employed for mishkav or moshav]), it being designed for a different purpose

3B:

ג 2) מבנין אב משני כתובי׳ – כיצד? לא פרשת הנידות כהרי פרשת שלוח טמאים ולא פרשת שלוח טמאים כהרי פרשת הנידות הצד השוה שבהן שהם ב"צו" – מיד ולדורו'. אף כל דבר שהוא ב"צו" – יהא מיד ולדורו׳

3b) binyan av mishnei kethuvim (a general rule derived from two verses). viz.: The topic of the lamps (on the menorah) is not like that of sending the unclean outside (of the encampment), and the latter is not like the former. What is common to them is that they are introduced by "Tzav" ("Command") — — and apply both immediately and for future generations. So, all commandments introduced by "Tzav" apply both immediately and for future generations.

4:

ד) מכלל ופרט – כיצד? "מן הבהמה" – כלל, "מן הבקר ומן הצאן" – פרט. 'כלל ופרט' – אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט .

4. kllal ufrat (general-specific): (Vayikra 1:2): "A man, if he offer from you an offering to the L–rd, from the beasts, from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer your offering." "from the beasts" — general (i.e., all animals); "from the cattle and from the sheep" — specific (i.e., domesticated animals) — the general subsumes only the specific (i.e., domesticated, and not non-domesticated animals).

5:

ה) מפרט וכלל – כיצד? "כי יתן איש אל רעהו – חמור או שור או שה" – פרט, "...וכל בהמה לשמור" – כלל. 'פרט וכלל'> נעש הכלל – מוסף על הפרט ׳

5. prat ukllal (specific-general): (Shemoth 22:9): "If a man give to his neighbor an ass or an ox or a lamb — specific; "or any beast to watch" — general: specific-general — the general adds to the specific.

6:

ו) מכלל ופרט וכלל – כיצד? "ונתת הכסף בכל אשר תאוה נפשך" – כלל ׳ "בבקר ובצאן ביין ובשכר" – פרט "ובכל אשר תשאלך נפשך" – חזר וכלל. 'כלל ופרט וכלל' – אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט: לומר לך – מה הפרט מפורש: דבר שהוא וולד – וולדות הארץ וגדולי קרקע, אף אין לי אלא 'כל דבר', שהוא וולד – וולדות הארץ וגדולי קרקע. יצאו כמהין ופטריות ׳

6. kllal ufrat ukllal (general-specific-general): (Devarim 14:26): "And you shall give the money for all that your soul desires" — general; "of herd, flock, wine, and strong drink" — specific; "and for all that your souls asks" — reversion to the general: general-specific-general — the rule is in accordance with the specific, viz.: Just as the specific is: one fruit from another, (e.g., wine from grapes), originating from the earth, so, everything of this nature is purchasable with ma'aser money— to exclude mushrooms and truffles (which, although they are fruit, do not come from another fruit).

7:

ז) מכלל שהוא צריך לפרט, ומפרט שהוא צריך לכלל – כיצד? "קדש לי כל בכור – יכול אף נקבה במשמע? ת"ל "זכר". אי 'זכר' – יכול אפילו יצאת לפניו? תלמוד לומר "פטר רחם". אי 'פטר רחם' – יכול אפילו לאחר יוצא דופן? תלמוד לומד "בכור". – זהו כלל הצריך לפרט, ופרט שהוא צריך לכלל.

7. kllal shehu tzarich lifrat ufrat shehu tzarich lichllal (general requiring specific and specific requiring general): (Shemoth 13:2): "Sanctify unto Me every bechor (first-born), the opener of each womb." I might think that even females are included; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:19): "the male." If "the male," (I would think that) even a Caesarian birth were a bechor. It is, therefore, written "the opener of the womb." This is an instance of "general" (bechor) requiring "specific." I might think that even if it were born after a yotze dofen it were a bechor (being the first opener of the womb); it is, therefore, written "bechor," (which connotes first in all respects; not only first opener of the womb, but also first in birth). This is an instance of "specific" ("opener of the womb") requiring "general" (bechor).

8:

ח) כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד, לא ללמד על עצמו יצא – אלא ללמד על הכלל כלו יצא – כיצד? "והנפש אשר תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים אשר ליי' – וטמאתו עליו, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא..." – והלא שלמים בכלל כל הקדשים היו? דכתיב "זאת התורה לעולה ולמנחה, לחטאת ולאשם, ולמלוא׳ ולזבח השלמים". ׳ וכשיצאו מן הכלל ללמד – לא ללמד על עצמן יצאו, אלא ללמד על הכלל כלו יצא לומ' לך: מה שלמים מיוחדין – קדשי', שקדושתן קדושת מזבח׳ אף אין לי אלא כל דבר – שקדושתו קדושת מזבח... יצאו קדשי בדק הבית

8. kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart): (Vayikra 7:20): "And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people." Now were peace-offerings not in the category of all sacrifices? viz. (Vayikra 7:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the offering of investiture (miluim), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings," and (Vayikra 22:3): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things that the children of Israel make holy unto the L–rd, with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off from before Me." (Why, then, do peace-offerings "depart" from the category for special, additional, mention?) When they depart from the category to teach, it is not to teach about themselves, but about the entire category, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that their sanctity is altar sanctity (i.e., bodily sanctity), so, all whose sanctity is altar sanctity (are included in the interdict) — to exclude those things dedicated to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance, where the sanctity is not body-related but value-related).

9:

ט) כל דבר שהיה בכלל, ויצא מן הכלל – לטעון טען אחר שהוא כענינו. יצא להקל ולא להחמיר – כיצד? "ובשר כי יהיה בו בעורו שחין – ונרפא" וכתיב "או בשר כי יהיה בעורו מכוֵת אש..." ׳ והלא השחין והמכוה בכלל כל הננעים היו? ׳ וכשיצאו מן הכלל: ליטעון טען אחד שהוא כענינו – יצאו להקל ולא להחמיר ׳ להקל עליהן – שלא ידונו במחיה, ושלא ידונו אלא בשבוע אחד ׳

9. kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shehu ke'inyano, yatza lehakel velo lehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement thereof, departed for leniency and not for stringency.): (Vayikra 13:18): "And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil, and it be healed," and (Vayikra 13:24): "Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire, etc." — Now boil and burn were in the category of all plague-spots (see Vayikra 13:2, etc.) (for apparently no distinction should be made between whether or not the plague-spot is on the site of a boil or a burn), and when they departed from that category for (special mention of) a particular requirement thereof (i.e., white hair, a sign of uncleanliness), they departed thus for leniency and not for stringency — that they not be affected by michyah (another uncleanliness sign of the general category), and that one week of quarantine suffice (in an instance of the plague-spot remaining in its place and not spreading — as opposed to the two-week requirement of the general category).

10:

י) כל דבר שהיה בכלל – ויצא מן הכלל, לטען טען אחד שלא כענינו. יצא להקל ולהחמיר – כיצד? "ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בו נגע בראש או בזקן" ...׳ והלא 'הראש והזקן' – בכלל 'עור ובשר' היו – וכשיצאו מן הכלל: ליטען טען אחד שלא כענינו – יצאו להקל ולהחמיר: להקל עליהן:שלא ידונו כשער לבן ׳ ולהחמיר עליהן: שידונו כשער צהוב

10. kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shelo ke'inyano, yatza lehakel ulehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement foreign to it, departed both for leniency and for stringency.): (Vayikra 13:29): "And a man or a woman — if there be in him a plague-spot in the head or in the beard, etc." — Now head and beard were in the general category of skin and flesh, and when they departed from that category for (special mention of) a particular requirement (for uncleanliness) foreign to that category (white hair being a sign of uncleanliness in the category, and yellow hair, in the "departure"), they departed both for leniency and for stringency. For leniency — that they not be affected by white hair; for stringency — that they be affected by yellow hair.

11:

יא) כל דבר שהיה בכלל, ויצא מן הכלל לידון בדבר חדש – ואי אתה יכל להחזירו לכללו, עד שיחזירנו הכתוב לכללו בפירוש – כיצד? "ושחט את הכבש במקום אשר ישחט את החטאת ואת העולה במקו' הקדש..." שאין תלמוד לו' "כי כחטאת האשם הוא לכהן"? אלא – לפי שיצא לידון בדבר חדש – בבוהן יד ובבוהן רגל, ובאזן ימנית – יכול לא יהא טעון מתן דמים למזבח? ת"ל: "כי כחטאת – כאשם, הוא לכהן"... הרי החזירו הכתוב לכללו בפירוש. לומר לך: מה חטאת – טעונה מתן מזבח, אף אשם – טעון מתן מזבח.

11. Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a new learning, cannot be restored to that category unless Scripture restores it explicitly: (Vayikra 14:13): "And he shall slaughter the lamb (the guilt-offering) in the place where the sin-offering is slaughtered, and the burnt-offering, in the holy place. For as the sin-offering, is the guilt-offering to the Cohein." Let this ("For as, etc.") not be stated, (for this guilt-offering is subsumed in the general category of guilt-offerings [Vayikra 7:11]). But because it (this guilt-offering of the metzora) departed (from the category) for a new learning — (the placing of the blood on) the thumb of his (the offerer's) right hand and of his right foot and on his right ear, I might think that it did not require the placing of blood and imurim (devoted portions) on the altar; it is, therefore, written: "For as the sin-offering (i.e., as all sin-offerings) is the (i.e., this) guilt-offering to the Cohein" (i.e., it is subject to all of the Cohein's services for a sin-offering.) Scripture explicitly restored it to its category to tell us that just as a sin-offering requires the placing of blood and imurim on the altar, so does this guilt-offering require it.

12:

יב) דבר הלמד מענינו – כיצד? "ואיש כי ימרט ראשו – קרח הוא: טהור הוא" ׳ יכל – יהא טהור 'מכל טומאה'? תלמוד לומד: "וכי יהיה בקרחת או בגבחת נגע לבן אדמדם"... דבר למ' מענינו – שאינו טהור מכל טומאה, אלא מטומאת נתקים בלבד.׳

12a) davar halamed me'inyano (something learned from context): (Vayikra 13:40): "And a man, if the hair of his head (from the slope of his head towards the nape [karachath]) fall out, he is kereach (bald); he is clean." I might think that he is clean of all (plague-spot) uncleanliness; it is, therefore, written (in that context, of other types of uncleanliness) (Vayikra 13:42): "And if there be on the karachath or the gabachath (temples) a reddish white plague-spot, etc." We learn from the context that he is not clean of all types, but of nethakim (scalls) alone.

12b:

יב)2 דבר למד מסופו – כיצד? "ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם" משמע – בית שיש בו אבנים ועצים ועפר מטמא... יכל – אף בית שאין אבנים ועצים ועפר, שמטמא? תלמוד לומר: "ונתץ את הבית" – את אבניו ואת עציו ואת כל עפר הבית! דבר למד מסופו – שאין הבית מטמא, עד שיהא בו אבנים ועצים ועפר.

12b) davar halamed misofo (something learned from its end): (Vayikra 14:34): "And I shall put a plague-spot of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession." This implies that a house which has stones, wood, and mortar is susceptible of such uncleanliness. — But I might think that even a house lacking these is likewise susceptible! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:45): "Then he shall break down the house — its stones, its wood, and all the mortar of the house." From the end we learn that a house is not susceptible of such uncleanliness unless it has stones, wood, and mortar.

13:

יג) שני כתובים המכחישים זה את זה, עד שיבא השלישי ויכריע ביניהם – כיצד? כתוב אחד אומר: "וירד יי על הר סיני – אל ראש ההר". וכתוב אחד אומר: "מן השמים השמיעך את קולו ליסרך ׳ הכריע השלישי: "כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם". ׳ מלמד שהרכין הקדוש ברוך הוא שמי שמים העליונים על הר סיני – ודבר עמהם׳ וכן אמר דוד בספר תהלים: "ויט שמים וירד, וערפל תחת רגליו" ׳׳

13. shnei kethuvim hamakchishim zeh eth zeh ad sheyavo hakathuv hashlishi veyachriya beneihem (two verses that contradict each other until a third verse comes and resolves the contradiction): One verse states (Shemoth 19:20): "And the L–rd descended upon Mount Sinai, upon the top of the mountain," and another (Shemoth 20:19): "… that from the heavens I spoke to you!" A third verse comes and resolves the contradiction, viz. (Devarim 4:36): "From the heavens He made you hear His voice to exhort you, and on the earth He showed you His great fire, and His words you heard from the midst of the fire." — His voice from the heavens and His speech on the earth. Another resolution: We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He bent the heavens over Mount Sinai and spoke with them. As David said (Psalms 18:10): "And He bent the heavens and came down, and thick darkness was under His feet."

posted about 4 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

4y ago

Lo Ani‭

64 reputation 2 1 7 3