2

The Talmudic rule of Dayo is used in Kal VaChomer (a fortiori) arguments to limit the 'Chomer' to the same measure as the 'kal'. For example, Mishnayot Bava Kama 2:5:

שור המזיק ברשות הנזק כיצד, נגח... ברשות הרבים, משלם חצי נזק. ברשות הנזק, רבי טרפון אומר נזק שלם טז, וחכמים אומרים חצי נזק. אמר להם רבי טרפון, ומה במקום שהקל על השן ועל הרגל ברשות הרבים, שהוא פטור, החמיר עליהם ברשות הנזק לשלם נזק שלם. מקום שהחמיר על הקרן ברשות הרבים לשלם חצי נזק, אינו דין שנחמיר עליה ברשות הנזק לשלם נזק שלם. אמרו לו, דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון. מה ברשות הרבים חצי נזק, אף ברשות הנזק חצי נזק.

How is the penalty assessed for an ox that damages while on the private domain of the damaged party? If the ox gores... in the public domain, he pays half damages. In the domain of the damaged party, Rabbi Tarfon says full damages, while The Sages say, half-damages. Rabbi Tarfon said to them [using a fortiori reasoning], in a case where we are lenient with respect to "tooth" and "leg" [damages caused by normal behavior] in the public domain, where he is completely exempt, we are strict regarding the private domain of the damaged party, [requiring the owner] to pay full damages. In a case where we are strict with "horn" damage in the public domain, [requiring the owner] to pay half-damages, isn't it logical [a fortiori] that we should be strict with him in the domain of the injured party to pay full damages? They [The Sages] said to him [Rabbi Tarfon], it is enough that a law derived from an a fortiori argument be established similar to the case from which the inference is drawn. Just as in the public domain the payment is half-damages, so too in the domain of the damaged party the payment is half-damage.

I have always heard it pronounced "Dayo Lavo Min HaDin", "It is enough for it to come from an a fortiori argument," but shouldn't the phrase really be "Dayo LaBa Min HaDin", "It is enough for something that comes from an a fortiori argument," for grammatical sense?

2
  • I don't know that I've heard Lavo.
    – Double AA
    Apr 2 '17 at 21:10
  • shouldn't the phrase really be "Dayo LaBa Min HaDin?" Yes.
    – wfb
    Apr 3 '17 at 20:15
1

The right version is the second (LaBa).

Pronunciation LaVo is from the Ashkenazic קמץ under the "for the going" then people think it is "to come"...

Must remember the source, but I think it was from the קרבן אהרן (a מפרש on the תורת כהנים ).

6
  • Had the same question a few years ago :-)
    – yO_
    Apr 2 '17 at 21:36
  • He specifies it's the definite laba and not the indefinite l'va?
    – msh210
    Apr 3 '17 at 5:07
  • 1
    Laba is clearly right. דיו means enough for him. That 'him' is the 'ba'. Not sure what you are on about with the Ashkenazi komotz' lavo is a cholam and means to come. Apr 3 '17 at 11:56
  • @msh210 Don't remember exactly, sorry I have not the sefer now. But I had the question for years and IIRC the answer was quite clear from his loshon. It is on the very beginning of the תורת כהנים
    – yO_
    Apr 3 '17 at 12:23
  • @MosheSteinberg Exactly! Edited the answer to clarify the meaning.
    – yO_
    Apr 3 '17 at 12:29

You must log in to answer this question.