אנו אומרים שאם היינו לומדים למען ילמדו (בחיריק) לא היו צריכים את למען ישמעו שהרי ברור שלא ישמעו כולל בתוכו את למען ילמדו (בחיריק) ולמה בא "למען ילמדו" - בשביל מי שמלמד אחרים (בסגול(
שאלה טובה: מדוע שהגמרא לא תוותר על לא ישמעו" ותישאר רק אם "למען ילמדו" אשר יתיחס גם לאילם (למען ילמדו - בסגול) וגם לחרש (אשר ברור מעצם היותו חרש שאינו יכול ללמוד!!!!?) ז"א, הגמרא יכלה ללמוד הפוך!
(אני כותב הפעם בעברית כי זה קצת מסובך!! - אם יש בעיה אנסה לתרגם)
[TRANSLATION: The Gemara says that if we read the words in the verse as
"L'ma'an Yilmedu" ("in order that they learn"), thus teaching that one who
cannot learn (i.e. one who is deaf) is exempt from Hakhel, then we would not
need that phrase altogether, because the same thing is learned from the
words, "L'ma'an Yishme'u" ("in order that they hear [and learn]"), since
hearing means learning. It must be, asserts the Gemara, that the words are to
be read as "L'ma'an Yelamedu" ("in order that they teach ") and are coming
to exclude one who can learn but cannot teach (i.e. a mute).
Question: Why doesn't the Gemara propose to do away with the words "L'ma'an
Yishme'u" and leave only "L'ma'an Yilmedu," which could then be interpreted
in two ways: "L'ma'an Yilmedu" (they must learn) to exclude a deaf person,
and "L'ma'an Yelamedu" (they must teach) to exclude a mute person!? ]
When the Gemara asks that if it is true that an Ilem (mute) cannot learn, then exemptions of both an Ilem and a Cheresh should be derived from "L'ma'an Yishme'u," that is because both an Ilem and a Cheresh are included in the same implication of "L'ma'an Yishme'u" (i.e. neither one of them can learn).
However, the Gemara does not assume that we could derive two different exemptions from one phrase by reading that phrase in two different ways . The phrase in the Torah must be read only one way, and if so, it can only exclude one person -- either an Ilem (by being read "L'ma'an Yelamedu") or a Cheresh (by being read "L'ma'an Yilmedu"). That is why the Gemara does not ask the question the other way around.
Kol tuv,
Yisrael Shaw
i am learning bava kamma now, and the answer that you proposed perplexes me. the gemara on daf gimmel amud aleph there suggests at one point that both reggel and shain could be learned out of one word, v'sheelach, eventhough the word can really only mean one or the other. the gemara explains that we have a right to learn both out because "hai meenayhu mafkes" which one will you exclude? in the same vain, cant we just have the words lmaan yilmedu, and learn out both from the two readings, because of hai meenayhu mafkes. we dont know which way to read it! therefore we should take the limudim of both! granted that this is a different type of limud than the one from lmaan yishmeu, where both can be derived simultaneously, while keping one reading of the words, but why can we not learn out both from lman yilmedu?
while writing this i thought of an answer that may work. there is a difference between chagigah and bava kamma. in bava kamma we were learning lchumrah, to make shain and reggel's damages chayav. maybe there we have to take every possible alternate explanation of the words of a passuk into account. but, when we are making people pattur from things as we were in chagigah, then we dont say someone should be pattur based on an alternate reading.
i enjoy these publications. tizku limitzvos!
Yashar Ko'ach!