There is a Kal V'chomer at the bottom of the page (Question asked and then self answered question by Rav Sheshet to Rav Yochanan). How is this a Kal V'chomer - the base principle is Kodashim - and from here you wish to derive Chulin? Kodashim is more Chamur in many aspects than Chulin.
Simon Kahn, Jerusalem, Israel
While you would generally be correct that one cannot make a Kal va'Chomer from Kodshim to Chulin, the nature of this Kal va'Chomer allows it. Since Kodshim has more Avodos where a thought can invalidate the sacrifice, and even so only the one who performs the service can cause it to be invalid, it is understandable that Chulin which has only two "Avodos" can be invalidated only by the one doing the actions. We are basically saying that if Kodshim is Kal, then certainly Chulin is Kal (in that only the Oved can cause a Pesul).
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
Dear Yaakov;
1. I do not understand. Particularly: "it is understandable that Chulin which
has only two "Avodos" can be invalidated only by the one doing the actions."
Why is this understandable? Note: Throughout Zevahim we often reject a Kal V'chomer by saying that the "Kal" item has a certain Chumra to it.
2. Then you added: "The chamur case has the provision, so certainly the Kal case should have the provision." That is certainly not a Kal V'chomer! Maybe some other form of logic, but not a Kal Vachomer.
Simon Kahn, Yerushalayim
PYI Tech, Ltd., Licensed Patent Attorney - Israel
1. This type of question only works when there is a generally Kal item that has a stringency, and we are using the Kal v'Chomer to derive that a generally strict item should also have this stringency. We can ask (as you pointed out) that the "Kal" is not in fact "Kal," as it has a stringency that is unique to it, making it generally Chamur. However, see below that this Kal v'Chomer is a different type of Kal v'Chomer.
2. While not every Kal v'Chomer is structured in this fashion it is certainly called a Kal v'Chomer (as stated explicitly by the Halichos Olam in Shar Revi'i 2:1). For example, one of the first Kal v'Chomers in Shas (Berachos 14a) is that if we see one can interrupt during certain parts of Keri'as Shema, which is a Torah obligation, certainly one can interrupt in certain parts of Hallel, which is a Rabbinic obligation!
This Kal v'Chomer follows the same pattern as our Kal v'Chomer. If Kodshim, which is generally Chamur (as indicated by the fact that it has more Avodos that can cause it to become invalid), has a leniency (i.e. a Kal aspect) that only the one performing the service can make it invalid, in that case Chulin, which is generally Kal (as indicated by the fact that it only has two Avodos that can cause it to become invalid) should not be made invalid by anyone else besides the one doing the service.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose