More Discussions for this daf
1. The 400 Zuz Rav Bibi received for his daughter 2. Nasata Devarecha l'Shiurin 3. Soft-Boiled Question
4. Hiding Ma'aseh Merkavah
DAF DISCUSSIONS - SHABBOS 80

Boruch Kahan asks:

The Gemoro brings there a Maaseh about someone who Darshened on the Maaseh Merkovoh and as a result died.

I note that in your notes to explain the Gemoro you have had to cross reference this to the Mishna in the Second Perek of Chagiga 11b and the Gemoro in 13a that discusses it. In a way my question is Mechaven really to yours Tosfos makes no reference at all to this Gemoro and Rashi Keilu hardly refers you to it he does not even mention the Masechtoh and I would have thought the Gemoro here or there in Chagiga would have "Tzychened Tzu" the 2 Marei Mekoimos and its only through ones extra knowledge of knowing the Sugya in Chagiga that you can work out why he died

So what I mean is why does both the Gemoro and Rishonim "hide" the whole of thuis Sugya in Chagiga and make no reference to it.

Boruch Kahan, London,England

The Kollel replies:

1. It seems that the Gemara expects that someone learning Gemara already knows the Mishnah. This might be especially applicable here, since the Mishnah in Chagigah 11a is a very well-known one. Therefore, the Rishonim did not find it necessary to refer us to Chagigah because it is assumed that we already know this.

Reb Boruch, you asked me a similar question some months ago when you were holding on Shabbos 36b. The question was why does Rashi there not explain the concept of Ma'achal ben Derusai, which is cited there in the Gemara? I am forwarding the answer I gave then, and I think the example you have showed us on 80b provides a further proof to what I argued then -- that the Gemara expects us to know the basics already. Even though I made a distinction there between what has already been stated in the same Masechta and between something from a different Masechta, nevertheless I think that the prohibiton against expounding the Ma'aseh Merkavah is very well-known, so Rashi does not refer us to it, even in a different Masechta.

2. Let me share with you something I came across shortly after you asked the question on Shabbos 36b. I was learning the Sugya of "Lifnei Iver" with a Chavrusa. We started with the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (2a), because the first chapter of Avodah Zarah is full of the Sugya of Lifnei Iver. We learned the Mishnah with Rashi and Tosfos, and then we skipped to Avodah Zarah 6a where the Gemara discusses Lifnei Iver. We started learning Rashi there (6a, DH Lifnei Iver) and saw that he cited the words "Omad v'Hitiran." I started looking around for the Gemara that Rashi was referring to, and in the end remembered that this is a Gemara in Bava Kama 38a. However, I then noticed from the Masores ha'Shas in Bava Kama that the Gemara also appears in Avodah Zarah 2b. So the reason why Rashi did not refer us to 2b is because he assumed that we learned that a few pages ago and we should know it ourselves.

My edition of the Shas is about 30 years old, and there is no reference inserted into Rashi on 6a to the Gemara on 2b. However, I see that in the new printings, they have inserted such a reference. In other words, it seems that in the last 30 years, the ability of people to remember a Gemara from a few pages ago is less than what it used to be.

In summary, we see from Rashi in Avodah Zarah 6a that he expects us to remember a Gemara from a few pages ago. We also see from Shabbos 80b that the Gemara expects us to know a well-known Mishnah even in a different Masechta, as I wrote above, and we also see from Shabbos 36b that we are expected to remember a Gemara from earlier on in the Masechta.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

From the Dafyomi Discussion List on Shabbos 036:

I have now started Perek Kiroh,IE Krufoh, Ketumah, Shehiyoh, Chazoroh, etc. As we know straight after the Mishnah we are immediately introduced to "kemaachal ben drusoi" Having B.H. learned Perek Yetzios Hashabbos I am familiar with it coming at the end of that Perek Daf 20a where Rashi obliges me with all the details ie who he was and more importantly his famous Shitta cooked to a third.

What I could not believe or understand why Rashi completely misses out any Pirush at all on the "headquarters" of Kemaacal Ben Drsoi and not mention any of this anywhere at all in the Sugyoh here in Kiroh.

Pashtus you can say he assumed we all remebered it from 16 blatt previously who he was and what the fraction of Bishul was therefore he felt he did not need to repeat it.I just find this so hard to believe. Surely the "Signon" of Rashi throughout Shas is at least to be Meramez to us to "Tzychen Tzu" to the first perek with a loshon of Kvar Pirashti Leayl and then the Mesoras Hashas would oblige with Shabbos 20a. and then we would refresh ourselves But here Rashi seems to be confident that we would know the Perotim that he does not say anything.I find this very strange

Any thoughts on this Heoroh

Boruch Kahan

The Kollel replies:

1. Rashi often does not explain something which has already occurred in the same Masechta. This is especially true in our Gemara, because the Gemara cites the Beraisa of Chananya, and exactly the same Beraisa has already been cited in the same part of our Masechta. Therefore, that makes it easier to find the first reference to the Beraisa involving Chananya and once one finds this, he can look up Rashi's explanation there.

2. A few hundred years after Rashi, it seems that people were already finding it more difficult to remember Sugyos in the same Masechta, so the Masores ha'Shas helped us by telling us that Chananya is on 20a.

3. If the Sugya referred to is in a different Masechta, then Rashi more readily cites this.

4. There is a hint to this above on 3b, where Rebbi Chiya told Rav that when Rebbi (Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi) is learning one Masechta, one should not ask him a question in a different Masechta. This suggests that it is a lot easier to remember things from the same Masechta rather from a different one.

Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds:

Reb Boruch, I must share with you something I came across shortly after you asked me the question on Shab-036. I was learning the sugya of "Lifnei Iver" with a chevrusa. We started with the Mishnah on Avoda Zara 2a because the first chapter of Avoda Zara is full of the sugya of Lifnei Iver. We learnt the Mishnah with Rashi and Tosfos and then we skipped to Avoda Zara 6a where the Gemara discusses Lifnei Iver. We started learning Rashi 6a DH Lifnei Iver and saw that he cited the words "Omad V'Hiteeran". I started looking around for the Gemara that Rashi was referring to, and in the end remembered that this is a Gemara in Bava Kama 38a. However I then noticed from the Masores HaShas in Bava Kama that the Gemara also appears on Avoda Zara 2b. So the reason why Rashi did not refer us to 2b is because he assumed that we learnt that a few pages ago and we know it ourselves.

My Shas is about 30 years old and there is no reference in Rashi 6a to the Gemara on 2b. However I see in the new Gemoras that they refer to 2b. In other words, it seems that in the last 30 years ago the ability of people to remember a Gemara from a few pages ago, is less than it used to be.

To summarise, we see from Rashi Avoda Zara 6a that he expects us to remember a Gemara from a few pages ago. We also see from Shabbos 80b that the Gemara expects us to know a well-known Mishnah even in a different Masechta, as I wrote above, and we also see from Shabbos 36b that we are expected to remember a Gemara from earlier on in the Masechta.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Boruch Kahan asks further:

Thank you very much for getting back to me it is greatly appreciated.

I wonder now that we seem to be discussing Rashi's rationale in how he went out about explaining his Pirush ON SHAS in other words where he thought it was appropriate to bring something relevant or not

How about the following "BOMBER" Chiddush that I want to be Mechadesh and please feel to 100% "ding" on it and "shlog" it up!!!

The Shyloh is Nogea to Rashi Al Hatorah if 1 looks carefully on his Pirush I would say a very big Roiv perhaps as much as over 90% is made up of his encyclopaedic knowledge of 4 main things

1. Talmud Bavli/Shas (Leafukei Yerushalmi)

2. Medrash Rabba and other associated Medroshim perhaps not all of them are around today

3. Medrash Tanchuma Lemoshol his first comment on Parshas Korach is Yofeh Parshah Zu Nedreshes BeTanchuma or words to that effect

4. Mechilta,Toras Cohanim ie Sifro ,and Sifri

I am sure he had others but with the help of all the new Defusim of Mikroos Gedoilos,Oz VeHodor Vechu you can see clearly what his Mekorois are.

If you agree with that Hanochoh then the Shyloh is why is it that Rashi will stam say something without him Meyaches it to a particular Tanno or Amora with just Rabboiseynu Omru or Stam just saying it and sometimes he seems to be very insistent on Omar Rabbi X or Rav Y Omar

My thought was and so far I have many proofs that if he found the thing in 1 source or more and not repeated anywhere else and it was undisputed who that was he would say the name.

Look in Parshas Tazria Perek 12 first Possuk Omar Rav Simloi its a direct quote from Medrash Rabbo on the Parshah no one argues with him it does not come elsewhere in another mekor so Rashi says it Bishmoi.

Come to the famous Rashi in Parshas Lech Lechoh when Avrohom is chasing the 4 kings and he goes with the 318 men and Rashi says that is Eliezer and its his Gemartria famous but it has at least 2 Mekoiros 1 in Nedarim 32a and 1 reference at least in Medrash Rabbo of Parshas Emor Perek 28 Ois 4 look carefully its brought from 2 different Man DeOmrim so Rashi "steers clear" and just says Rabboisenu Omru

Another example the famous Rashis throughout Bereishis and other parts of the the Torah the Lamed before a word is equal to a Hey at the end that's in Yevomos 12b but brought as Rebbi Nechemya and then Tonna DeBei Rabbi Yishmoel with the examples Now go to the Medrash Rabboh in Parshas Vayeroh for example Parshah 50 there is no mention of Rabbi Yishmoel only Rav Nechemya so again Rashi steers clear

In Parshas Emor when Rashi says with the Mekallel Meyheychon Yotzoh and the Shittos of the 2 Man Deomrim that is a direct quote from the Medarsh Rabboh AND the Tanchumah same Rabbonim same Girsoh so Rashi is confident to quote both Bishmon.

Rashi in beginning of Parshas Shemois Vayokom Melech Chodosh Rav U Shmuel etc. a direct quote from Sotah 11 again Rashi says to himself I will bring both Man Deomrim because that's a direct quote. no one argues who the 2 Man Deomrim were.

The 2 Kllolim of Rabbi Yishmoel about Kol Im etc. in Parshas Yisro is a direct undisputed quote from a Mechiltoh in Parshas Yisro no one argues the other Rabbi Yishmoel in Emor Noso and Zos Habrochoh is a direct quote from the Sifri in Parsas Noso attributed to Rav Yishmoel no one argues.

So Mikaan ULehaboh when you are Maavir the Sedroh from Behar onwards look up the sources where Rashi quotes the Tanna or Amora and see if its Bli Machloikes about who the Man DeOmar is

Shkoyach I look forward to hearing from you

Boruch Kahan

The Kollel replies:

Reb Boruch, I am going to try a different Peshat than yours, which in a way might be opposite to your Peshat.

1) You have cited two examples where Rashi does not cite an individual as a source. The first is the Gematriya of 318 for Eliezer, and the second one is that a Lamed before a word is equal to a Heh at the end.

2) I argue that the reason why Rashi does not cite the individual Chacham who said this is because it is a general teaching with which a lot of Chachamim agree, as you have written yourself. This gets the status of a widepsread teaching of Chazal, which is why Rashi calls it "Raboseinu."

Again, the Peshat about the Heh at the end being like a Lamed at the beginning is also a well-known and accepted rule, so Rashi does not limit this to merely one Chacham, because many agree to it.

3) In contrast, for the cases you have cited, where only one Chacham was mentioned, this might be because it is only this Chacham who taught this. Accordingly, it carries more weight if Rashi writes "Raboseinu," or does not reveal the source, because this suggests that the teaching has a wider range of support.

4) We will have to pay attention, when we are Ma'avir Sedra, which proposal seems more accurate, yours or mine!

Kol Tuv,

David Bloom

The Kollel adds:

Reb Boruch, this really is a very interesting point that you have raised!

I looked things up and found a lot of places in Rashi on Chumash where he says, "Raboseinu Amru," and I think, b'Ezer Hashem, we can find a common theme in all of these places.

1) First, I will list all the examples I found so far (apart from the one you cited in Bereishis 14:14):

(a) Bereishis 26:12

(b) Shemos 2:5

(c) Shemos 7:22

(d) Shemos 23:21

(e) Vayikra 19:20

(f) Bamidbar 11:10

(g) Bamidbar 31:22

(h) Dvorim 22:1

(i) Dvorim 28:4.

2) If you look at all of these examples, I think you will see that Rashi is citing from Chazal something which is not Pashut Peshat, but rather is a Derashah of Chazal. In addition, in all of these cases, "Raboseinu Amru" is said only after the first explanation. In other words, Rashi first gives the simple interpretation and afterwards gives the Derashah of Chazal.

3) For example, look at example (h). The Torah says that you must not see your brother's ox.... Then the Torah seems to continue and say that one indeed may ignore it. Rashi writes that this is not in fact the Pashut Peshat, but really what the Torah is saying is that one may not see one's friend's ox and then ignore it (i.e. you must not ignore it). Rashi writes explicitly that this is the Peshat. Then, he adds that "Raboseinu Amru" that sometimes one may ignore it (for example, a Kohen may not enter a cemetery to return the lost ox). When Rashi writes "Raboseinu Amru," he is stressing that it is not the Peshat, but rather it is Derash.

4) I think that the above ideas are hinted at succintly by the Rashbam when he writes (Bereishis 37:10) that his grandfather (Rashi) placed his attention on giving the simple explanation of the Chumash. This suggests that Rashi's initial purpose was to give the Peshat and only afterwards he tells us the Derash.

5) In contrast, the places you cited (Bereishis 14:10, Shemos 1:8, Shemos 20:22, Vayikra 12:1, Vayikra 22:16, Bamidbar 6:13, Devarim 34:6) are all examples of Peshat, which is why Rashi does not write "Raboseinu Amru" but instead either cites the Chacham who said the Meimra, or does not cite anyone at all, along the lines that I suggested in my first reply. (I am not sure how Vayikra 24:10 fits into this; maybe it is a small proof for your approach.)

6) Reb Boruch, there is an example which I forgot to mention above, which I think is a Pircha on your approach. This is from Bamidbar 5:8. There, the Sifri cites Rebbi Yishmael, while Rashi cites exactly what Rebbi Yishmael says but calls it "v'Amru Raboseinu." According to the rules of your approach, Rashi should have cited it in the name of Rebbi Yishmael. According to my approach, the words of Rashi make sense, because Rebbi Yishmael's explanation is not the Pashut Peshat, but is a Derash, so Rashi writes "this is what Raboseinu explain."

(This might be a Pircha on what I wrote in my first reply as well, but it goes well with my second approach.)

I have by no means exhausted all of the Rashis in Chumash which are relevant to this matter, but I will have to close here for the moment.

Yeshar Ko'ach again for your very important He'oros!

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom