[Avodah] Ben Sorer Umoreh

[Daniel Israel]

Akiva Blum wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org 
>> [mailto:avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Israel
> Akiva Blum wrote:
>>> See Sanhedrin 71a. Hagohos haBach learns that it is intrinsically 
>>> impossible.
>> The loshon in the gemara is "lo hayah, v'lo l'asid lihiyos."  It 
>> would seem to me that pshat in the gemara is that it is impossible. 
>>   If it is merely unlikely, how could the gemara know that it won't 
>> ever happen in the future?
>>
>> The Bach simply gives a sevarh why it is impossible.
> 
> But the Gemara then brings two more cases with the same "lo hayah, v'lo l'asid
> lihiyos" and both of them are cases which would be extremely unlikely, but not
> necessarily impossible.

In each of the three cases the Gemara first says "lo hayah, v'lo l'asid 
lihiyos," and then goes on "V'lama nichtava?  Darosh v'kabel s'char. 
K'man?" and proceeds to quote a tanna who gives a very unlikely criteria 
for that case.

IIUC, both you and RZS are understanding the Gemara's question, "k'man" 
as asking for a proof of the claim "lo hayah, v'lo l'asid lihiyos."  The 
proof would then be not that it is intrinsically impossible, but rather 
that it is improbably.  The only exception being that in the first case, 
you point out that the Bach shows that the stated condition actually is 
impossible.

I read the Gemara slightly differently.  I think "k'man" is used in its 
conventional sense.  The Gemara is simply asking which other tanna is 
the first tanna holding like.  And, given that the first tanna has just 
explicitly claimed that the case is impossible, it is reasonable to 
assume that he holds like the most restrictive known interpretation of 
the case.  IOW, "lo hayah, v'lo l'asid lihiyos," is an independent claim 
that the case is intrinsically impossible, and is not being proven from 
the restrictiveness of the case.

That the Bach found a sevarah why the first case is actually 
demonstrably impossible may imply that such a proof could be found for 
the other two cases, but it is not necessary for my reading.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu