Why does Rashi in Parshas Behar explain the Toras Kohanim that Nishnu Kelaloseihen v'Dikdukeihem b'Arvos Moav unlike either opinion in our daf?
Daniel Gray, Toronto
Reb Daniel, it is very good to hear from you again!
1) Rashi in Behar (Vayikra 25:1) is going with the view of Rebbi Akiva in Chagigah 6b. It is true that Rashi cannot be going with the view of Rebbi Yishmael, since Rebbi Yishmael holds that the details were not said on Har Sinai, while Rashi (Behar) writes that the details of Shemitah were also said on Sinai. But Rashi is going with Rebbi Akiva since he writes that the details of Shemitah were given at Sinai, which is what Rebbi Akiva says. Rashi (Behar) does not relate to Ohel Moed at all, but that does not bother us. Rashi (Behar) concludes that Shemitah was repeated with its details at Arvos Moav, like Rebbi Akiva says. Rashi writes that they were said for a second time at Arvos Moav, while Rebbi Akiva said that they were said for a third time at Arvos Moav, but that is because Rashi (Behar) does not relate to Ohel Moed (since Rashi is discussing what is stated explicitly in the Torah).
2) I just want to add that the Or ha'Chayim, on the very first Rashi in Parshas Mishpatim, writes that Rashi at the beginning of Behar writes according to Rebbi Akiva, as I wrote above, bs'd. (The Chazon Ish, OC 125:2, also writes that Rashi (Behar) follows Rebbi Akiva.) The Or ha'Chayim also writes that the first Rashi in Parshas Mishpatim follows Rebbi Yishmael, so there is a seeming contradiction in Rashi, which I will not go into now.
3) I mentioned above that Rashi (Behar) does not make any mention of Ohel Moed. Possibly, this may be explained according to what the Netziv writes in Ha'amek Davar at the beginning of Behar. He writes that all the Parshiyos in Sefer Vayikra were said in the Ohel Moed. Even though they had already been said on Har Sinai, they were not said there to Moshe Rabeinu in order to say over to Klal Yisrael, until he came to the Ohel Moed. Parshas Behar and Parshas Bechukosai may be different. Parshas Behar starts by stating that Hash-m spoke to Moshe at Har Sinai. Parshas Bechukosai concludes by stating, "These are the Mitzvos which Hash-m commanded Moshe to Bnei Yisrael in Har Sinai." It may be that the Mitzvos in Behar and Bechukosai were not said in the Ohel Moed, but only in Har Sinai. This may be why Rashi at the beginning of Behar makes no mention of Ohel Moed.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Hi,
Applies to 37b Sotah.
RE: But Rashi is going with Rebbi Akiva since he writes that the details of Shemitah were given at Sinai, which is what Rebbi Akiva says. Rashi (Behar) does not relate to Ohel Moed at all, but that does not bother us. Rashi (Behar) concludes that Shemitah was repeated with its details at Arvos Moav, like Rebbi Akiva says. Rashi writes that they were said for a second time at Arvos Moav, while Rebbi Akiva said that they were said for a third time at Arvos Moav, but that is because Rashi (Behar) does not relate to Ohel Moed (since Rashi is discussing what is stated explicitly in the Torah).
Question: Rashi Sotah 37a* says all 3 places are explicit in אלה דברי הברית (רבי ישמעאל = הר סיני ואהל מועד & הר גריזים והר עיבל & בערבות מואב ר' עקיבא = אהל מועד & הר סיני & בערבות מואב)
ר"ש מוציא הר גריזים והר עיבל ומכניס אהל מועד שבמדבר ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא רבי ישמעאל אומר כללות נאמרו בסיני ופרטות באהל מועד ר' עקיבא אומר כללות ופרטות נאמרו בסיני ונשנו באהל מועד ונשתלשו בערבות מואב
Rashi Sotah 37b
ונשתלשו בערבות מואב. מפי משה לישראל ת"ק סבירא ליה כר' ישמעאל הלכך הר סיני ואהל מועד חדא היא ור' שמעון ס"ל כר"ע הלכך תרי נינהו:
Rashi Sotah 37a
שנאמר אלה דברי הברית וגו'. בתר קללות וברכות כתיב מלבד הברית וגו' אלמא כברית ערבות מואב בברכות וקללות כך ברית בחורב
1) Rashi (37a, DH she'Ne'emar Eleh) does not mention Ohel Moed.
2) The only problem here seems to be that Rashi (Vayikra 25:1) is clearly going according to Rebbi Akiva (since he mentions Arvos Moed, which is only mentioned by Rebbi Akiva, not by Rebbi Yishmael), so why does Rashi not mention also Ohel Moed, which is mentioned by Rebbi Akiva?
A probable answer seems to be that Rashi in Chumash does not have to mention all the places where the Torah was given, but rather he mentions the public places where it was given to the whole of Klal Yisrael, while in Ohel Moed it was given to Moshe and then Moshe taught it to the whole of Klal Yisrael, but since it was less public Rashi does not mention Ohel Moed, even though it is mentioned in the Gemara.
Dovid Bloom