[Avodah] TIDE, Rabbeinu Tam style

[Akiva Blum]

> [mailto:avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Micha Berger
> Sent: Thursday 07 April 2011 3:50 AM
> To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:22:14AM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
> :> The HM quotes Rabbeinu Tam that "X im Y" means "with Y, 
> the iqar, there
> :> is also X". E.g. "Yechlequ yoreshei habaal im yoreshei ha'av", and
> :> many other examples....
> ...
> :> Rabbeinu Elchanan (who I believe is another baal Tosefos) says the
> :> more obvious -- that Torah is the iqar, and relates it to 
> "harishonim
> :> asu Torasam qeva umelakhtam arai."
> 
> : I see Rabeinu Tam not as saying that DE is the ikar of 
> chaim, rather, the
> : ikar of the sentence...
> 
> But that doesn't fit the examples,

I thought it fits the examples much better.

The gemora is not telling us that yorshei habaal or yorshei ha'av are more
important. It is telling us a chidush that yorshei ha'av we already know,
have to divide with yorshei habaal.
The gemora is not telling us that YK or tshuva are more important. It is
telling us a chidush that tshuva from before YK needs YK with it.
Etc.




> nor R' Elchanan's objection.
> 

Clearly Rabeinu Elchonon didn't understand that way. But if you look in
Kovetz Maamorim, you'll see R' Elchonon Wasserman resolves the machlokes as
you wanted to, that they are referring to different types of DE, one is
work, the other is middos. So even though Rabeinu Elchonon saw a machlokes,
we can understand RT as to resolve the machlokes. As I have done.

Akiva