[Avodah] kal ve-chomer

[Eli Turkel]

I am struggling with trying to understand a kal ve-chamor. It obviously
doesnt correspond
to rules from standard logic.

As a simple example (one of many I have) consider the gemara in Baba Metzia
3b.
In short summary

1. R. Chiya says that 2 witnesses (on a portion of the loan) can force
a "modeh bemikzat" swearing just like a partial admission.
This is based on a kal ve-chamor that witnesses are more potent than an
admission

2. The gemara asks that based on logic a partial admission shows there is a
basis
to the full claim since the debtor won't fully deny a claim. This reasoning
doesn't apply
to witnesses

3. The gemara states that this is why a kal ve-chomer is needed precisely
because pure reasoning
wouldn't demand swearing against witnesses.

4. The gemara then starts a technical discussion whether witnesses are
really more potent
than an admission - which is not relevant to my question

I have other cases where the gemara uses a kal ve-chomer even though one
could
differentiate and say that the reason behind the "chomer" doesn't apply to
the "kal"/
It seems that this is a purely formal argument without looking at root
causes.
If it is not based on logical reasoning than what is the justification?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110219/236b0381/attachment.htm>