[Avodah] Farfetched Ukimtas

[H Lampel via Avodah]

Mon, 27 Feb 2017 Marty Bluke wrote:
> ... Sometimes the Gemara offers far fetched ukimtas where it is hard
> to believe that the Tannaic source really meant that. Here is an example
> which we learned in Daf Yomi a few weeks ago (Bava Basra 19-20).
>
> ...the Baraisa gives a list of things that block tumah.
> The Baraisa in no shape or form qualified any of the things that block
> tumah, and yet the the Gemara proceeds to attach a long list of
> qualifications to the objects which seem quite far fetched, for example do
> we really need to believe that when the Baraisa wrote a bird (with no
> qualifications) it really meant, a tied up non-kosher Kalanisa like bird?
>
> The question is when the Gemara offers these ukimtas does the Gemara really
> think that this is what the Tanna meant? Or is the Gemara just offering
> logical possibilities to avoid it looking like an Amora is arguing on a
> Tanna (this may depend on the reason why Amoraim don't argue on Tannaim)?
> How are we supposed to approach these kinds of ukimtas when learning a daf
> gemara?
See if this works:

Shmuel was taught his rule. He did not arrive at it through analysis of 
the braissa, or even the mishnah, for that matter. He knew it on the 
authority of the Tannaim who taught it to him. Once he knew his rule was 
a fact, he (as well as anyone else accepting that rule) looks at the 
tannaitic sources as taking that rule for granted as well. (Again, he is 
not depending upon the braissa for his rule.)

That being the case, the gist and chiddush of the braissa becomes: As 
opposed to the blockage of a window by snow, hail, frost, ice and water, 
which IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES are expected to disappear and not remain at 
the window permanently,

for other objects (grass, birds, etc), which commonly are also only 
temporarily placed there/destined to disappear/to be removed, THERE ARE 
SITUATIONS TO BE FOUND in which they would be left there permanently.

Again, once one assumes Shmuel's rule as fact, and as fact accepted by 
the author of the braissa, then it becomes obvious that the author of 
the braissa intended to list objects whose removal/disappearance one may 
have thought MUST ALWAYS be expected to occur, but which in reality NEED 
NOT, GIVEN SPECIAL SITUATIONS. The author of the braissa merely listed 
the exceptional objects, and left it for the reader to come up with the 
details. (This is common in note-taking of a lesson, and notes written 
for a lecture.) And/Or, having  been taught this chiddush with its 
details, the author took down notes merely listing the exceptional 
objects, leaving the details of circumstance to memory and/or oral 
transmission.

Zvi Lampel