In the middle of 109b there is a tanu rabbanan that says how do we know a kohen who is part of that weeks mishmar and wants to give an asham for a stolen object cant just keep the korban. Before stating the reason it gives a kal vachomer why the kohen should be able to keep it. That if the kohen gets a SMALL portion of an asham of a yisrael kal vachomer that he gets his WHOLE portion of his asham. Doesnt this violate the principle of 'Dayo la'Vo Min ha'Din' ... The same can be asked with the sdeh achuzah that it again says if the kohen gets a SMALL portion kf the sdeh achuzah kal vachomer he should get his WHOLE portion of the sdeh achuzah. Shouldnt we also say 'Dayo' here?
Joshua Edelstein, Ny, usa
Joshua, Baruch she'Kivanta! Your questions are asked by Tosfos!
1) Tosfos (DH Lo) asks that one could ask "Dayo" on the first version in the Gemara. Tosfos seems to mean that because of the challenge of "Dayo" we would have to say that the stolen item is taken away from the Kohen thief and given equally to all his fellow Kohanim.
2) Tosfos (DH Achuzaso) also asks that we should say "Dayo" about the Kal va'Chomer with Sedeh Achuzah. He answers that if not for the word "Achuzaso," we would have learned from Gezel ha'Ger that it belongs to the Kohen holding the field. This is because we would learn from the verse, "And each man should retain his holy items," that whichever Kohen is holding it is entilted to keep it.
3) The Toras Chayim asks the question of "Dayo" on the Kal va'Chomer from Sedeh Achuzah.
a) The Toras Chayim writes that in fact the Beraisa about Sedeh Achuzah conforms to the rule of "Dayo." He writes that when the Beraisa said that if I am Zocheh in the field of others then Kal va'Chomer I am Zocheh in my own, it did not mean that I would be Zocheh in the entire field myself. It meant only that I would be Zocheh in my part of the field. Accordingly, the verse "Achuzaso" teaches that if the Kohen had redeemed the field, he in fact would receive nothing of the field, not even his own portion.
b) The Toras Chayim writes that according to this approach, we gain a different understanding of the end of the Beraisa which states, "How does this work? The field goes out of the possession of the Kohen who redeemed the field and is divided between his brethren the Kohanim." Now we can say that this means that the word "Achuzaso" teaches that the Kohen who redeems does not even receive his part of the field.
c) The Toras Chayim writes that according to this idea we gain an answer to the question of Tosfos (DH Minayin). Tosfos questions the words of the Gemara above, "How do we know that he cannot say [the Kal va'Chomer]?" Tosfos points out that the words of the Gemara are surprising because usually the word "Minayin" is used in the Gemara to mean, "How do we know from a verse?" In the above case this is not appropriate, because the fact that he does receive the money stolen from the Ger is learned from logic, not from a verse.
d) However, according to what the Toras Chayim wrote, the problem is now solved. We are actually learning from the word "Achuzaso" that the Kohen redeemer receives nothing at all, not even his own portion. From this we add, using the Gezeirah Shavah of "Kohen- Kohen," that the Kohen who stole also receives absolutely nothing of what was stolen from the Ger, not even his own portion. This means that the fact that the Kohen receives nothing is in fact derived from the word "Achuzaso," together with the Gezeirah Shavah, so it is now fitting to ask "Minayin," because this Halachah is learned from verses, not from logic.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom