Simone and Earl Maser | 1 Sep 12:33 2005

hekesh, g"sh and mufnah

> Rashbatz states that something learned from a hekesh is an essential
> part of Torah (Guf Torah) as if it was written in the Torah itself, and
> therefore hekesh is preferable (adif) to a gezerah shavah. That is why
> this midah is not mentioned by R. Yishmael in his 13 midos shehaTorah
> nidreshes bahen -- because it is a Guf Torah.>>

Gershon Dubin replied:
> I don't buy it; many sources say that anything learned from 13 midos
> is guf haTorah.

An answer to this is found in a Rashi on Sanhedrin 73a (d'h hekishah)
where Rashi states that every hekesh and gezerah shavah mufnah is as
something written in the Torah itself (kimfurash bamikra).

A gezerah shavah mufnah is one in which one or both of the similar words
are "free" ("superfluous", "redundant") in their respective contexts,
and thus serve only for the gezerah shavah.
But the gezerah shavah she'aynah mufnah --where both terms are already
"taken"-- is valid at best only if not successfully challenged.

According to this distinction, R. Yishmoel's inclusion of gezerah shavah
as the second of his 13 midos is based on the gezerah shavah she'aynah


> Hekesh does not figure explicitly in R. Yishmael's 13 midos.

RMB commented: 
(Continue reading)