Commentary for Zevachim 100:11
אלא ק"ו ומה היקש שאינו למד בהיקש אי מדרבא אי מדרבינא מלמד בק"ו מדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל ק"ו הלמד מהיקש מדתני דבי רבי ישמעאל אינו דין שילמד בק"ו וזהו ק"ו בן קל וחומר.
Surely this is a secondary derivation from a kal wa-homer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the grandson of a kal wa-homer'. Thus: A, which is learnt through a kal wa-homer, teaches B by means of a kal wa-homer; that it does so is learnt from the fact C. Now, even if C were directly stated, B would still be the derivative (lit., 'son') of the first kal wa-homer. Since however C itself is known only through a kal wa-homer, B becomes the secondary derivative (lit., 'grandson') . That is so in the present case. Possibly, however, this is straining the powers of a kal wa-homer too far, and is inadmissible, in which case the problem remains unanswered.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Zevachim 100:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.