Chasidut for Bava Kamma 49:6
ורבנן שבעה דשכינה כתיבי תסגר שבעת ימים
but where it does not defeat the purpose of the <i>a fortiori</i>, even he maintains the principle of <i>Dayyo</i>. In the instance quoted there is no mention made at all of seven days in the case of divine reproof; nevertheless, by the working of the <i>a fortiori</i>, fourteen days may be suggested: there follows, however, the principle of <i>Dayyo</i> so that the additional seven days are excluded, whilst the original seven are retained. Whereas in the case before us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding compensation whether it be half or full in the case of Horn doing damage. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> the payment of not less than half damages has been explicitly ordained [in all kinds of premises]. When therefore an <i>a fortiori</i> is employed, another half-payment is added [for damage on the plaintiff's premises], making thus the compensation complete. If [however] you apply the principle of <i>Dayyo</i>, the sole purpose of the <i>a fortiori</i> would thereby be defeated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 126, n. 9. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Kedushat Levi
We may expand on this theme by citing the Talmud Sanhedrin 91 where we are told that when a cure occurs as overt intervention by heaven this is comparable to the application of the exegetical tool called קל וחומר, “logic.” When someone doubted G’d’s ability to resurrect man, the doubter who admitted believing that G’d had created man, was told that if G’d had created man out of nothing, how much easier is it for Him to restore the dead to life seeing that they had already been alive once. This is another example of how the attribute of א-ל is linked to the exegetical tool called קל וחומר.
Seeing that we have stated repeatedly that it is impossible for a creature, including the most spiritually oriented one such as Moses, to truly understand the essence of the Creator, the question of how the authors of the prayers could make statements about G’d’s attributes, etc.; is obvious. The answer is equally obvious. The sages who composed the liturgy observed attributes possessed by man, i.e. G’d’s creature, and concluded that these attributes must reflect similar attributes possessed by the Creator, else where did they originate? In other words, the attributes of G’d are closely related to the use of the קל וחומר, the exegetical tool known as “logic.” It is “logical” therefore to speak of הא-ל הגדול, etc., “the great Divine power,” in our prayers, the introductory words of the עמידה, the central prayer on all three occasions that we pray communally each day. When continuing to list specific attributes of G’d, this is in the nature of describing how the Creator has practiced צמצום, “self-restraint,” for the sake of His creatures. Expressed allegorically, this “self restraint” of G’d may be compared to the hair on one’s body, a לבוש, “garment,” designed to tone down the overwhelming light emanating from G’d’s essence, something that man cannot endure, and the reason why the Israelites at Mount Sinai asked G’d to make Moses their intermediary. When acquainting Moses with 13 of His attributes in our portion, our sages have described the grand total of these attributes mentioned here as תקונא דיוקנא, “the beard and peyot, sideburns,” of the Creator.
Seeing that the list of these attributes extends [i.e. beyond the word א-ל], all the way until the words רב חסד, “abundant in the dispensation of loving kindness,” (to His people Israel) David alludes to this when he said in psalms 118,5 מן המצר קראתי י-ה ענני במרחב י-ה, “When I called upon G’d out of my distress, He answered me in the most expansive manner.”