Discussions for this daf
1. Ta'am Echad mi'Shnei Mikra'os 2. Two Disputing Judges

Ilan Weinstein asked:

The gemara on the bottom of amud alef says that 1 reason can not be learnt from 2 pesukim. It then asks 'what is an example of this?' and continues to search for an example until they reach a conclusion in the middle of amud bet. What is the point of this? If there is no such thing as this, why does the gemara attempt to find a case and the case that they arrive at is anyway not dinei nefashot?

Ilan Weinstein, Manchester, England

The Kollel replies:

The Gemara is merely bringing an example to illustrate Ta'am Echad mi'Shnei Mikra'os. The Gemara seems to say that if the Derashos are not exact -- but there is a Nafka Minah between them -- it is not considered Ta'am Echad. However, the Aruch la'Ner writes that even in such a case the Halachah will be that they are counted as one, for the Derashos are mutually exclusive in any event. The Gemara was simply looking for a case which fits the phrase "Ta'am Echad mi'Shnei Mikra'os."

D. Zupnik