14 Mark Washofsky

draw analogies, for not all laws, either of a monetary or ritual nature, are written explicitly. Should an issue not explicitly written present itself, we have no choice but to compare it to a similar matter discussed explicitly in the Talmud . Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud themselves draw conclusions by analogy in their formulations of the law(shemateta) and in their rulings in actual cases(uvdei).”' Similarly, R. Asher b. Yechiel(Rosh, 13th—14th century Germany and Spain ) declares:“We learn from case to case, by analogy, for the Sages of the Talmud were unable to provide legal guidance for every case and every new problem that would one day arise. Those that have succeeded them follow in their footsteps and use analogies therefore to learn the law.”* As Rashi (1 1th-century France -Germany ) notes, the very process called talmud consists of“the deducing of conclusions from the words of the Mishnah and the use of analogy”(medamei milta lemilta).”” Consider the following example, one of many that obviously could be chosen to illustrate. In B. Kidushin 59a, we read that Rav Gidal was“examining”(mehafikh) a plot of land, that is, he was engaged in efforts to purchase it(Rashi , s.v. mehafekh behahi ara). Before he concluded his negotiations, Rabbi Abba came along and purchased the land. Rav Gidal filed a formal protest before the sage Rav Yitzchak bar Napacha, who confronted Rabbi Abba and asked him:“Suppose a poor man is examining a cake, and another man comes along and takes it from him. What is the rule in that case?” Rabbi Abba responded:“That other man is called‘wicked’.”“Then why,” asked Rav Yitzchak,“did you behave in that manner in this case?” Rabbi Abba answered:“I did not know that Rav Gidal was seeking to purchase that plot of land.” Here, the poor person seeking to acquire a cake is the source case from which we learn the law concerning the target case, Rabbi Abba’s purchase of land over which negotiations are taking place. Just as in the source case, so in the target case: the acquisition of the cake/land is valid, but the one who acquires it is branded as“wicked” and subject to public condemnation® because he acquired it while the poor person/other prospective buyer was seeking it. Although Rav Yitzchak