Hi. Did you have a chance to answer my question submitted the other day: 25b the gemorah in its kal vechomer asking to derive shein vergel from keren states that Keren bershus harabim is chayiv. Is this question posed only according to R' Tarfon of the opinion that keren pays nezek shalem bershus harabim? If one says it's posed even according to Rabanan of the opinion that keren pays chatzi nezek bershus harabim (and read "chayiv" to mean chatzi nezek and also gain that this question fits into the ensuing contect of further similar questions that appear to be generically posed and not limited to only one opinion), doesn't that burst the kal vechomer? Isn't the kal vechomer logic predicated upon jumping from a lesset chiyuv to a greater chiyuv and according to Rabanan, there is no jump because it's chatzi nezek in both ershus hanezak and bershus harabim! If asked even according to Rabanan, how is this explained other than a dachuk of saying that being chayiv chatzi nezek in both ershus hanezak and bershus harabim, by virtue of being chayiv, allows the kal vehomer to function properly as a kal vehomer?
Daniel Gray, Toronto Canada
1) The question is posed only according to the Rabanan. We learn this from the fact that the question explicitly assumes that Keren in the Reshus ha'Nizak pays only half-Nezek. This is the opinion of Rabanan against Rebbi Tarfon.
2) Everyone agrees that in Reshus ha'Rabim, Keren pays only half-Nezek. The dispute between the Rabanan and Rebbi Tarfon is whether, in Reshus ha'Nizak, Keren pays half-Nezek or full Nezek.
3) It does not ruin the Kal va'Chomer to say that the question is posed according to the Rabanan. A Kal va'Chomer does not mean that we jump from a lesser Chiyuv to a greater Chiyuv. The latter may be true according to Rebbi Tarfon but not according to the Rabanan. Rebbi Tarfons used the Kal va'Chomer to jump from half-Nezek in Reshus ha'Rabim to full Nezek in Reshus ha'Nizak. However, the Rabanan argued that "Dayo" applies. This is what the Gemara means on 25a when it says that if her father would spit on her face she would be ashamed for 7 days, but even so when the Shechinah is angry with her she does not jump up to 14 days, but remains at 7 days.
4) However, here the Kal va'Chomer was trying to say (before we refuted it merely based on the verse that Shen and Regel can be Chayav only for full Nezek in places other than Reshus ha'Rabim) that Shen and Regel would pay full Nezek in Reshus ha'Rabim. This is not considered jumping from a lesser Chiyuv to a greater Chiyuv. Rather, we progress from full Nezek for Shen and Regel in Reshus ha'Nizak to full Nezek for Shen and Regel in Reshus ha'Rabim. This is not jumping, but rather learning the same level for Shen and Regel in both domains. The Kal va'Chomer works by saying that Shen and Regel is a stronger Chiyuv than Keren (which we observe from the fact that in Reshus ha'Nizak it pays more than Keren) and, therefore, if Keren is just as Chayav in Reshus ha'Rabim as it is in Reshus ha'Nizak, then Shen and Regel must certainly be just as Chayav in Reshus ha'Rabim as they are in Reshus ha'Nizak.
According to the rules of Kal va'Chomer, this would have been successful, and the Gemara only managed to refute it because of a special verse that Shen and Regel cannot pay full Nezek in Reshus ha'Rabim.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom