[Avodah] Ambiguous Proofs

[Micha Berger]

There are a few cases where I have heard someone build lomdus, or a
darsha take the same basic structure and in difference instances use it
to make opposite points:

1- Machloqes and Hava Amina

Do we look at the assumption behind a rejected opinion and ask why
would we have thought A and B were related? Or do we use the rejection
as proof that they are not?

The rejected opinion could either be a shitah we do not hold like or
a hava amina. The same logical ambiguity exists.

2- Silence

When we figure out some detail that the Torah or Chazal were silent over,
do we then use that point as the basis of a derashah, or do we use the
silence as proof that the point isn't to be treated as signficant?

How did Chazal learn that zeman Matan Toraseinu was something to bring
to the forefront of Shavuos, rather than

The example that got me started:

Do we explain Purim in relation to the return to EY, Ezra's revival of
Torah or the two stages of binyan Bayis Sheini? Do we explain the evil of
attending Achashveirosh's party in light of the wars with the Shomeronim
(who were against Jewish sovereignty and a temple in Y-m) going on in EY
at the time? Or do we say that if that were a major point, the megillah
or at least Mes Megillah would have mentioned it?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha at aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l