1) Is R'Yochanan choosing one of the options that R'Abahu presented him with or is his choice of the Shleeba case being "A-downward-motion-for-the-sake-of-going up" a possibility that he adds (I.e. an Option C)?
2) If R'Yochanan is choosing an option C, why didn't R'Abahu think option this was a possibility?
3) Why does R'Yochanan think "A-downward-motion-for-the-sake-of-going up" is the correct choice?
4) What rule does R'Yochanan conjure to counter R'Abahu's proof from our Mishnah? Is there someplace I can look to learn more about this rule? (It seems to me that the rule goes something like: "When a Mishnah presents 2 superfluous statements, the Chidush of each takes place in the same context")
Thanks,
David Shamsi, Philadelphia, PA
1) It seems from Rashi (DH "Aliyah Hi" and "Kvar Nagata") that Rebbi Yochanan is choosing "Option C."
2) Rashi understands that Rebbi Avahu simply looked at this in terms of going after the person, who is going up, or the rung, which is being pressed downward. Rebbi Yochanan said that this is Yeridah Shehi Tzorech Aliyah. Rebbi Avahu did not think of this as an option because he probably understood Yeridah Shehi Tzorech Aliyah as Rashi explained it earlier (DH "Lehavi Yeridah"), as a case where someone swings an ax forward in order to bring it back and strike with more power. In that case, the same object is swung upwards and downwards.
3) Rebbi Yochanan here is putting forth the novel idea that even when there are two different things going upwards (person) and downwards (rung), this can contribute to a case of Yeridah Shehi Tzorech Aliyah (see also Ritva DH "Amar Ley").
4) The Ritva defines the rule as when two superflous general statements are made at the end of a Mishnah where the beginning of the Mishnah gave a specific case (the Magilah) and explained both possibilities, the superflous general statements similarly include two aspects of a specific case.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose