Hello,
I was going through the beginning of Meseches Bava Metzia B'Iyun and writing down some chidushim and kashyos. I realized that a p'shat that I had in the first Rashi was based on the fact that Rashi is going l'maskanas hagemara (7a) that the mishnah is not talking about where they are holding on to the actual talis rather the fringes. Is it possible to say a p'shat in rashi that he is going in the gemaras case l'maskana? Also, some peshatim I had were also based on the fact that tosfos (d"h v'yachloku) when he says that there is an anan sahadi is going l'maskana also, is that okay to say. I also thought that for sure tosfos can be going in the mishnah acc. to the maskana because why do we need an anan sahadi if they are holding on to it, it must be that it's the case of the maskana.
What do you think is the correct way to understand rashi and tosfos?
Thank You!
Yehoshua, USA
Yehoshua, it is very nice to hear from you again!
1) As a general rule, it is not so good to say that Rashi is going according to the Maskana, because the Tosfos Yom Tov writes (in the second chapter of Maseches Peah, Mishnah 2) that the way of Rashi in many places is to explain the Mishnah according to the Salka Da'atach of the Gemara, according to the initial understanding (however, this might not always be a hard and fast rule).
2) As a general rule, it would be more acceptable to say that Tosfos follows the conclusion of the Gemara. The difference between Rashi and Tosfos is that Rashi is a running commentary on the Gemara, who always tries to help us understand the Gemara we are learning at the moment, and pays less attention to the conclusion.
3) My above comments are general ones, not necessarily relating to this Sugya.
4) I looked up the Bartenura on this Mishnah and he cites the Gemara 7a that you cited, Yehoshua, as being the Pshat in our Mishnah. The Tosfos Yom Tov cites the Bartenura and agrees with him. This is all consistent with the Tosfos Yom Tov in Peah that I cited above. The Tosfos Yom Tov there writes that there should be a difference between the way of Rashi and the way of the Bartenura. The way of Rashi is often to explain the Mishnah according to the initial approach of the Gemara. However, this should not be the way of the Bartenura. The Bartenura should explain the Mishnah according to the conclusion of the Gemara. (This is why the Tosfos Yom Tov in Peah criticizes the Bartenura for explaining the Mishnah there according to the Hava Amina of the Gemara.) The Tosfos Yom Tov writes that this is because Rashi is helping us understand the Mishnah before we come to see how the Gemara explains it. The fact that the first Tosfos Yom Tov in Bava Metzia does not disagree with the Bartenura is consistent with the way he understands, in what he wrote in Peah, to be the way of the Bartenura.
5) The reason why it is not so good to explain the first Rashi in Bava Metzia according to the Gemara on 7a is that there is no reason why we should know the Gemara on 7a when we are only just starting the Masechta with Rashi. Rashi does not expect us to know 7a at this stage. In contrast, the approach of Tosfos is very different to that of Rashi. Tosfos is always asking contradictions between passages in different places in the Gemara so we see that Tosfos does expect us to know what the Gemara says elsewhere.
6) However, I do not understand what you wrote, "why do we need an Anan Sehadei if they are holding on to it?" I argue that we do need the Anan Sehadei because otherwise how do we know that the fact that somebody is holding on to an item is proof that it belongs to him? What I mean to say is that the Magid Mishneh, in Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 1:4, cites the Ramban who says that there is a Chazakah that everything in a person's hand belongs to him. I want to say that the Chazakah of the Ramban and the Anan Sehadei of the Tosfos is the same thing. However, if this Chazakah or Anan Sehadei is not stated explicitly, we would not know it. That is why we need the Anan Sehadei of Tosfos.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you very much for your response, I was thinking of that which you said that the anan sahadi can be the same thing as the chazakes kol mah, however I am still thinking about it if it makes sense to me that a chazaka can be an anan sahdi. I am sorry for asking questions very often, I hope it's not a bother for you but I really appreciate it!
Yasher Koach!
Hatzlacha!
Yehoshua, thank you for your very kind comments!
There is a Chazakah that a person does not pay up before the due date (see Bava Basra 5b; we rule like Reish Lakish in this regard). I found that Rebbi Akiva Eiger writes (Teshuvos #136, DH UMH'T) that this Chazakah is like an Anan Sehadei and is similar to a testimony that he has not paid up.
Yehoshua, it is always a big Simchah to receive your questions!
Chodesh Tov,
Dovid Bloom