[Avodah] Freeing a Slave

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:26:38PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Again, "qal" means qulah, not easier (although the two concepts do overlap).
>
> Then what is Leshon Y-mi for "light" or "easy"?

I don't recall. However, I did show you a number of examples. Google for
qal and "inurl:http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/r" (limiting your search
to Mechon Mamre's copy of the Y-mi) for more cases.

In any case, the acharonim on the page clearly understand "qal" in our
original context to mean qulah, as they speak of chakhamim choosing
"lehaqeil". So aside from your "im qabbalah hi...", you would be at a
loss to explain why they read the gemara as they do if "qal" didn't mean
"qulah".

>> It's also
>> the meaning in EY in R' Yishmael's day, as in "qal vachomer".

> Huh?  Kal vachomer means "light and heavy"; nothing to do with an attitude
> of leniency or strictness.  It's the *argument* that is light or heavy,
> not the practical outcome...

Which is why "qal vachomer she'ata dan techilaso lehachmir vesofo
lehaqeil eino din"? And what about the two potential directions "min
haqal el hachomer" and "min hachomer el haqal"? It's not the outcome
or arghument that is being called light or heavy, it's the dinim being
compared. We are more meiqil in one topic than the other. And that
first topic is being called the "qal".

My take on qal vachomer, some personal guesses/chiddushim follow:

Qal vakhomer describe the relative stringencies of the two dinim. Let's
call them P and Q.

We find that the set of situations in which P implies an issur or a
chiyuv is a superset of the situations in which Q holds. We assume
there are no Black Swans that aren't discussed. This is a weak point
in inductive reasoning -- there may be the case that falsifies your
hypothesis out there waiting for you. The middah shehaTorah nidreshes
bo says that if such a case existed, HQBH would let us know -- we're
safe. And this, from
    for all x of which we know Q(x): P(x) also holds
AND
    for some y: P(y) and not Q(y)

THEN we can label P the chamur, and Q the qal, and thus
    for all z: P(z) implies Q(z)  -- min hachomer el haqal
and contrapositively:
    for all z: not Q(z) implies Q(z) -- min haqal el hachomer

Notice I'm separating the a fortiori reasoning from the rule that any
Black Swans would be recorded. If it were only the former QvC would be
a rule of sevara and wouldn't belong in a list of derashos. "Lamah li
qera, sevarah hi?" -- sevara and derashah are distinct concepts. However,
this rule about the text would justify counting QvC as a middah.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha at aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507