- This topic has 68 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
I was thinking about this thread during the haftorah today. I decided that Popa’s original suggestion was correct – the kid wasn’t dead. The Gemara relates that when Chizkiyahu was sick, he asked H’ to heal him based on a kal vachomer: ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????. Now if the kid had actually died then Chizkiyahu would have a kal vachomer even if his ??? ??? hadn’t done anything more than the Shunamite, beacause he was only asking to be healed, not to be resurrected. So the fact that he mentioned ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? that he was asking for the same intervention that the Shunamite got.
@ Patur: Perhaps Chizkiyahu was deathly ill (i,e, a treifa/goses) and he needed the same resurrection as the kid did.
The Ralbag went great lengths to explain how many of the miracles in Tanach were just natural occurrences. They way it was explained to me, God prefers to work within the system of rules that he created. God doesn’t like breaking the rules of physics. At least not too much.
So in other words the whole world should be healed because that is less than ressurection?
(I hardly looked at the first page of this thread.)
PAA:
“
The Gemara relates that when Chizkiyahu was sick, he asked H’ to heal him based on a kal vachomer: ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????. Now if the kid had actually died then Chizkiyahu would have a kal vachomer even if his ??? ??? hadn’t done anything more than the Shunamite, beacause he was only asking to be healed, not to be resurrected.”
What exactly would that kal vachomer be?
“If you resurrected her son, you can surely heal me?”
That’s not a kal vachomer. A kal vachomer is as follows: When we see that something is done in a situation where there is little reason for it, then in a situation where there is more reason for it, all the more so should it be done! But “you have done a greater thing” is not a reason that “you should do a lesser thing” – it is merely proof that you are capabable of the lesser thing.
The truth is I was posting somewhat in jest.
But the kal vachomer is that if building a wall is good enough to be rewarded with resurrection, then it is certainly enough to be rewarded with mere healing.
The Pasuk had already stated earlier “va’Yamos”. Then Elisha had Geichazi go and check if he was really dead, or maybe he had “woken up”. When the Pasuk stresses that Elisha entered and saw him dead and cold, the whole point is l’Afukei PBA’s Hava Amina.
PAA:
You’re right. But, given that his grandfather had
done more, what else could he have said?
(PAA:
I had read “even if his ??? ??? hadn’t done anything” in place of “even if his ??? ??? hadn’t done anything more than the Shunamis.”)
It doesn’t matter whether the world actually exists or not.
PAA:
I had read “even if his ??? ??? hadn’t done anything” in place of “even if his ??? ??? hadn’t done anything more than the Shunamis.”
Does that affect your previous question?
PAA:
Yes. (If his grandfather hadn’t done anything,
there’d be no second side to apply the first to.)
I’m referring to this question:
But, given that his grandfather had
done more, what else could he have said?
Presumably you can still ask it even after your clarification.
Yes, I can and do. (Your use of the word “previous” caused
me to think you were referring to my first question, as my
third post had not been a question, that it should cause
the second question to be a previous one. Perhaps you
meant “previous post.”)
I didn’t mean “previous post” – the question was not in your previous post. I probably should have just written “question” without “previous”.
PAA:
It was in my previous post. My post before the one you were responding
to was in fact the one with the question. Now, what about the question itself?
I was assuming that “previous post” would refer to the one I was responding to. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that.
PAA:
If “previous post” meant the post one was actually
responding to, which post would be the non-previous one?
Again, what about the question itself?
Randomex:
It doesn’t specifically refer to the post being responded to. It refers to the most recent post.
As for the actual question:
Chizkiyahu said ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???. Why didn’t he say ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????
Presumably then, the kal vachomer is from the Shunamite as opposed to from the kid. If that is the case then we have a problem – by the Shunamite, the one who did the good deed was the one who got helped whereas by Chizkiyahu, the one getting helped was not the one doing the good deed. So the kal vachomer is no good. Unless you say that the good deed of King Solomon was so much greater than the good deed of the Shunamite that it outweighed the fact that it wasn’t Chizkiyahu himself who had done it. But we don’t usually make kal vachomer’s like that. (Perhaps one could say that Chizkiyahu wasn’t using the actual middah of kal vachomer, inasmuch as he was just making an argument.)
I know this didn’t actually address the question.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.