Would you be so kind to explain to me how binyan av differs from hekeish. Thank you.
Frederick Stone, Red Bank, NJ USA
A Hekesh is learned by the fact that two Pesukim are written in proximity. In some cases, it is the same verse, in some cases it is the following verse, and sometimes it involves verses which are seemingly joined in other ways, such as they discuss the same topic.
In a Binyan Av, we learn from the Halachah itself to similar Halachos, such as if we see a Halachah in the case of one Korban we can learn from a Binyan Av to another Korban (provided that we find no significant differences between the two Korbanos that would prevent comparing them).
Below is what we wrote in the Background to the Daf, and Insights to the Daf.
D. Zupnik
BINYAN AV
In the Introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash to Vayikra), Rebbi Yishmael lists thirteen methods that Chazal use for extracting the Halachah from the verses of the Torah. One of them is called Binyan Av. A Binyan Av (lit. "building through a father" -- father in this sense means a Biblical source), is a rule of Biblical interpretation in which one subject is deemed a prototype in order to apply a Halachah stated in that subject to other comparable subjects.
1) "YESH EM LA'MIKRA"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses various applications of the concepts of "Yesh Em la'Mikra" and "Yesh Em la'Masores." Some words in the Torah, based on the Mesorah (the authoritative "Tradition"), are read differently from the way that they are written. There is no question how the verse is to be read when reading the Torah, since the Mesorah specifies a certain way of reading it. However, the Tana'im argue over how to learn Halachos from such verses. "Yesh Em la'Masores" means that we learn Halachos from the verse based on the way it is written; "Yesh Em la'Mikra" means that we learn Halachos from the verse based on the way it is read.
Why does the Gemara refer to the "strength" of the "Mikra" or the "Masores" with the word "Em" (literally "mother")? This is particularly perplexing when we consider that another method for deriving a Halachah is is called "Binyan Av ." A Binyan Av (lit. "building through a father" -- "father" in this sense means a Torah source) is a method in which one subject is deemed a prototype in order to apply a Halachah stated in that subject to other comparable subjects. Why is one method referred to with the word "Av," while the other is referred to with the word "Em?" Is there any significance to this difference?
ANSWERS: RAV JOSEPH PEARLMAN addresses this question (in D.A.F.'s "Questions on the Daf"). He mentions that the Talmudic Encyclopedia (Erech Binyan Av) records in the name of the Halichos Olam (Sha'ar 4) that "the manner of the Torah is to be concise and brief in its words, and its words are expanded with regard to other topics that are similar to it. This is called a 'Binyan Av' because the verse under discussion is the primary place from which other items are learned, and it is thus called the 'father' since the teacher is like a father and those who learn from him are like his children." This, though, would seem to apply to the mother as well as the father. As far as why the specific terms mother and father were used the way they were, a number of answers have been suggested:
(a) This question is the first question addressed in the She'eilos u'Teshuvos of the RIF. The Rif writes, "We have not heard a definitive answer with regard to this, but sometimes the masculine form (Lashon Zachar) is used, such as in 'Binyan Av'.... It appears that where the Torah makes a certain item the primary one from which to learn something else, it is called 'Av.' The feminine form is used in the term 'Yesh Em la'Mikra' because we do not learn anything from that item to any other item. 'Yesh Em la'Mikra' just means that we rely on the way the word is read (the Keri'ah), or on the way it is written (Masores), and it is called 'Em', since the word 'Keri'ah' is a feminine form (Nekeivah)."
(b) The annotations to the Teshuvos ha'Rif there quotes the SHE'EILOS U'TESHUVOS BE'ER ESEK (#59) who gives a reason why the term is "Yesh Em l'Mikra" and not "Yesh Av ." He writes that deep secrets which are not revealed openly are alluded to in the pronunciation and in the writing of the words of the Torah (Mikra and Masores). Covertness (or modesty, Tzeni'us) is a trait relating to the female according to the Torah.
(c) RAV REUVEN MARGOLIOS in MARGOLIOS HA'YAM here (#2) writes in the name of the Zohar (Shemos 276:2) that the verse "'Kaved Es Avicha' refers to Torah she'Bichtav, and 'Kaved Es Imecha' refers to Torah she'Ba'al Peh... [and just as the father is the one whose influence ('Shefa') affects the mother, so, too, the influence of the Torah she'Bichtav if felt on Torah she'Ba'al Peh.]"
He also makes reference to RABEINU BACHYE (Devarim 33:8) who says that there is a deep reason behind why we refer to a "Binyan Av " and not "Binyan Em ," and why we say "Yesh Em la'Mikra" and not "Yesh Av ." Rabeinu Bachye writes that "a Binyan Av is never mentioned anywhere in the Gemara except when dealing with a verse in Torah she'Bichtav" (that is, we do not learn any Halachah in Torah she'Ba'al Peh through a Binyan Av), "and thus it is appropriate to refer to it as a Binyan Av . But when the Sages said 'Yesh Em la'Mikra,' they were referring to the tradition that was passed down through Torah she'Ba'al Peh [with regard to how to read or write the word in the Torah], and thus they called it Em and not Av...." Rabeinu Bachye continues to discuss this topic at length.
(It is worth noting that ostensibly there is an inconsistency between the words of the Zohar and Rabeinu Bachye, and the words of the Vilna Ga'on and the Netziv (to Shir ha'Shirim 1:2, "Yeshakeni m'Neshikos Pihu"), who write that the letter "Heh" represents the feminine form (as words in the feminine form in Hebrew generally end with the letter Heh), which is the Torah she'Bichtav (the five (Heh) books of the Chumash), while the letter "Vav" which is a masculine letter represents Torah she'Ba'al Peh (the six (Vav) Sedarim of the Mishnah). See also Vilna Ga'on to Yeshayah 6:13, Mishlei 16:4.
One way to answer this question might be that there is a difference between male/female and mother/father. The former relates to Shev v'Al Ta'aseh/Kum va'Aseh, as the Vilna Ga'on discusses at length in our references, while the latter refers to the one who affects the other and causes the other to produce. It is clearly the Torah she'Ba'al Peh which is "Parah v'Ravah," as the Gemara says in Chagigah 3b.)
(d) The MARGOLIOS HA'YAM further cites an opinion which suggests that the letters Alef, Heh, Vav, and Yud are referred to as the "Imos ha'Keri'ah," the "mothers of reading," since they aid the pronunciation of Hebrew words without being pronounced themselves. Since this is the same theme as Keri'ah and Masores, in which the Masores reveals the proper pronunciation of the word without itself being pronounced, we call the principle "Yesh Em l'Mikra." (The Margolios ha'Yam refers also to OTZER HA'KAVOD of RABEINU TURDOS ABULEFYA (Sukah 5) who asks this question, but we do not have this Sefer available.)