reb morchai sholom uvracha
on daf 7 amud b...rashi "mitumas veloh kol tumaas" ...rashi says since the torah doesnt say on which tumah etc... "lo mosron ellah lachchmim" etc.
why was it necesesary for rashi to go into this? the gemara follows with clear limudim as to how we know yediah batchilah etc... lo moron ellah lechachim seems more appropriate as we find by chal hamoed where the chachomim were working without limudim and decided on their own..here it seems out of place...
thanks
Shabsy Ledereich, Monsey NY, USA
That is an interesting point. But let me point out that Rashi is not referring to the Limud about which type of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kadoshav is atoned for by the Se'ir Penimi (i.e. Yedi'ah bi'Techilah or ba'Sof). We are at the stage where it is not yet clear which sin the Se'ir Penimi atones for altogether.
All the Pasuk says it "It atones for one sin, and that sin has to do with Tum'ah" ("mi'Tum'os") - no more. How do we know that the verse is referring to the sin of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kadoshav? The answer is, we leave it to the Chachamim to find a sin (involving Tum'ah) that seems less severe than other sins of Tum'ah, and then we apply the atonement of the verse to that sin (see Rashi 8a DH Chalack Lehakel.) Rashi says that this is accomplished through a "Mah Matzinu", in which we show that Tum'as Mikdash v'Kadoshav is treated more leniently elsewhere (its Korban is Oleh v'Yored), and therefore it should be more lenient here as well.
Thus it is indeed appropriate to call this "Lo Masran..." since the verse leaves out an essential detail and the Chachamim have to fill it in by themselves. (Other places where Rashi uses this term in this sense, a la database, are Kidushin 11b, 21b, Sotah 19a, Temurah 27a.) There is no explicit Derasha that fills in the missing detail.
The only question you may ask is, isn't a Mah Matzinu an explicit Derasha? The answer to that is that there is no true Mah Matzinu here. Without the word "mi'Tum'os" we would have absolutely no reason to think that the Se'ir Penimi atones for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kadoshav. The Mah Matzinu is just a way of scratching our heads until we find a sin of Tum'ah that - elsewhere - is more lenient than others in any respect.
In this sense, this Lo Masran is indeed similar to the Lo Masran of Chol ha'Moed (Chagigah 18a), or any other Lo Masran. In all of these cases, the Chachamim have to fill in an essential detail that is missing from the verse by applying their own logic. Of course, their logic is dictated by the Torah (i.e., it is based on the teachings of the Torah). Therefore some source for their logic must appear somewhere in the Torah. In our case, the source for their logic is the Oleh v'Yored Korban of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kadoshav.
I hope that makes things clearer. l'Hitra'ot - it's always great to hear from you!
Mordecai
thanx for reply,
precisely that was indeed my point....after seeing that the gemara has indeed a ma matzinu that indicates what drasha to learn ... the term "lo mosru ela lachachmim" seems quite different than the usage by chol hamoed where there is absolutely no guidelines other than a hasharas chazal. but i do see where there is still some ambiguity here left in this mah matzinu and hence the room for the hasharas chazal...somewhere in between the two extremes of the micro hoichachos like by classic limudim, and a wide open one like chol hamoed .did not check yet the other maara mekomos...but will bln'd and see.btw i think that the loshon of "kim lan lachachomim"(as in the some of the places you have from your database) would be another idea... not as strong a carte blanche" as "lo mosru".
thanx and hope to see you
shabsy
Reb Shabsy,
I see. The truth is, in every "hasharas chazal", the Chachamim guess what the Torah would say in such a case based on their experience from other Torah rulings. This is, in effect, a "Mah Matzinu" of the type used in our Sugya. For example, in the case of Chol ha'Mo'ed, Chachamim allowed Davar Ha'Aved, since we find that the Torah takes into account the loss of Jewish property (see Yoma 39a and Rashi, and Rabeinu Bachye Shmos 12:4).
BTW, I think I my list only included Marei Mekomos for Lo Masran, not for Kim Lan la'Chachamim.
Best wishes,
Mordecai
I noticed something interesting in Rashi that might shed some light on the expression Rashi chose here ("Lo Masran..."). Perhaps Rashi is reinforcing the explanation that follows from his Girsa-change in the Beraisa by using this term.
Originally, the Girsa in the Beraisa was "Mah Matzinu... Af Kan *Nachlok* b'Tum'as Mikdash..." Rashi erases the word "Nachlok." The Ritva wonders why Rashi took the trouble to erase it, since the Beraisa can be explained in the same manner that Rashi explains it even with the word Nachlok. It would read, "Just as the Torah differentiated between Mikdash v'Kodashav and other Tum'os with regards to its Korban, so the Torah *differentiated* between it and other Tum'os with regards to the Kaparah of Yom Kipur." Why did Rashi erase that word?
The answer is that "Af Kan" tells us what we are being taught about Yom Kipur. According to Rashi, we already know that on Yom Kipur only *some* Tum'os have a Kaparah, not all. The only point missing is *which* Tum'os. Since that is what we are learning from the Mah Matzinu, the Mah Matzinu should only say "Af Kan Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav." "Af Kan *Nachlok*," would imply that we do not yet know to differentiate between Tum'os on Yom Kipur at all before the Mah Matzinu.
But it is well known that Rashi does not take the trouble to erase the Girsa unless the Girsa would give us a misleading interpretation of the Beraisa. What possible misinterpretation can come from this? Isn't it obvious that there is no other way to learn the Beraisa?
The answer is that it is not at all obvious. Tosfos (DH Yesh Li) points out that it is strange for the Beraisa to specifically choose, in its Havah Amina, that the Kaparah of the Se'ir is for three sins that are *called* Tum'ah but do not really involve Tum'ah (Avodah Zarah etc.).
I think that the original Girsa would lead one to answer that question by saying the following: Without "mi'Tum'os" I would think that the Se'ir atones for *all* sins called "Tum'ah" - even if they do not really involve Tuma'h. "Mi'Tum'os" teaches that it does not atone for sins that are "pseudo" Tum'ah - such as Avodah Zarah, Giluy Arayos etc. However, I might still think that it atones for *all* sins involving true Tum'ah. The Mah Matzinu would then teach not only that it specifically atones for Mikdash v'Kodashav, but also that it does not atone for other Tum'os. That is, the Mah Matzinu teaches us also "Nachlok"!
Rashi considers this explanation to be mistaken. If this would be the meaning of the Beraisa, why does the Gemara ask (8a) that we may should from the Mah Matzinu that the Se'ir atones for the sin of *Avodah Zarah* because Avodah Zarah is different from all other Tum'os? Didn't we just reject the possibility of the Se'ir atoning for Avodah Zarah, from the word 'Mi'Tum'os?
Rashi therefore goes to the trouble to erase that Girsa. He then emphasizes that we already know "Nachlok." The only missing detail is *how* we are Mechalek the Tum'os, and that detail is filled in by the Mah Matzinu in a "Lo Masran Ela la'Chachamim" manner.
That is why Rashi emphasizes Lo Masran. He wants to point out that this is not a true Mah Matzinu. It is just filling in a missing detail of the Limud from "mi'Tum'os."
I hope that was clear. Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld