Hi Rabbi, I’m listening to your Shiur for the first time and really enjoy it so far. On the top of the Amud there’s a kal vichomer from nidme to kilayim which is used to prove that the pasuk quoted in the braita on the previous amud cannot be used to include kilayim. My question is why can’t the opposite kal vichomer be used to argue against its exclusion? If the argument is made that the inclusion of kilayim implies the inclusion of nidmeh couldn’t the exclusion of nidme imply the exclusion of kilayim? Yet the Gemara is accepts the תרי מיעוטי argument. Thanks so much, Ari Portal

Hi Rabbi, I’m listening to your Shiur for the first time and really enjoy it so far. On the top of the Amud there’s a kal vichomer from nidme to kilayim which is used to prove that the pasuk quoted in the braita on the previous amud cannot be used to include kilayim. My question is why can’t the opposite kal vichomer be used to argue against its exclusion? If the argument is made that the inclusion of kilayim implies the inclusion of nidmeh couldn’t the exclusion of nidme imply the exclusion of kilayim? Yet the Gemara is accepts the תרי מיעוטי argument. Thanks so much, Ari Portal