More Discussions for this daf
1. Variant texts in Rashi? 2. Wood Korban
DAF DISCUSSIONS - TEMURAH 7

Eric Chevlen asks:

Gentlemen,

I'm sorry to trouble you with a question that is probably quite elementary. But I am learning the daf on my own, and I never had the benefit of a yeshiva education. So there are major lacunae in my knowledge.

I understand that there are several conflicting manuscripts, especially on Temurah. My question has to do with Likutei Rashi. I find this in the back of my Schottenstein edition of Mesechta Temurah. The Rashi commentaries there are somewhat different from those I find in the margins of the pages. I wonder, are these both writings of Rashi? Is there some speculation that one or the other is written by someone else? To put the question differently, just what is likutei Rashi, and how does it differ from plain old Rashi?

These questions came to mind when I noticed a minor textual variant between the gemara and Rashi. On page 7b, the first sentence in the gemara reads mochrin oto tam chai But Rashis dh put the adjective in the plural, mochrin oto tamim chai. Im used to little variations between Rashi and the gemara text, but here, if my understanding of Hebrew grammar is not in error, Rashi (or at least the copyists rendition of Rashi) seems to make a grammatical blunder. Compounding the mystery, the likutei rashi has the word tam in the singular.

I thank you in advance for any help you can give me.

May we all, and klal Yisroel, be written and sealed for a year of peace.

Eric Chevlen, MD Youngstown, Ohio, USA

The Kollel replies:

To the best of my knowledge, the author of the Perush Rashi on Temurah was Rashi himself, the same one who authored the Perush on other Masechtos. The nature of Likutei Rashi is collected comments of Rashi as recorded in other places in the Talmud that Rashi comments on a parallel discussion.

It is known that Rashi often offers differing explanations for a single discussion in the Talmud when the discussion appears in more than one place. Some say Rashi changed his mind; others say that he maintains either explanation may be true. Yet others insist that Rashi is sensitive to slight nuances in the Sugyos which imply that the two Sugyos had different approaches to some fundamental concept. Because of this he found it necessary to offer differing explanations for the two Sugyos. Examples of this can be found in numerous places in our Insights to the Daf.

The word "Tamim" is not plural; it is grammatically correct to use it for the singular. The word "Tam" is also grammatically correct for the singular.

Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld