x-mailing-list: daf-discuss@shemayisrael.com
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Ta'anis 000: Rashi on Ta'anis
Avraham Adam Sabzevari asked:
I heard that Rashi in Masechet Ta'anit is not really Rashi. I was wondering
what the story is:
(a) How do we know it's not Rashi?
(b) Why didn't Rashi write a commentary?
(c) If it's not Rashi, who is it?
Avraham Adam Sabzevari, Kew Gardens, NY, USA
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
(a) The Sefer "Rashi Ta'anis" (Moshe Chai Publishing, 5764, annotated by Rabbi
Yosef Chaim Dayan) brings in his introduction the Maharatz Chiyus' essay "Imrei
Binah", chapter 5, who mentions several categories of proofs and many examples
of each to show that the Perush printed in our Gemara is not from Rashi. Among
his proofs are:
1. Contradictions between this Perush and Rashi's Perush throughout Shas.
2. Tosfos on our Masechta does not quote this Perush, so it would seem that
they did not have it.
3. Other commentaries, such as Ritva and Ran, do not bringing Rashi's opinion
in their commentaries, again implying that they did not have his Perush
available. (Neither does the Bartenura use the words of Rashi nearly as much as
with other Masechtos.)
4. The quotes in Tosfos and other Rishonim that are attributed to Rashi are not
consistent with the Perush here.
5. This Perush is not written in the same style as Rashi throughout Shas,
specifically regarding the way he quotes Pesukim.
6. There are several examples of extraneous words appearing in this commentary,
which is clearly not Rashi's style.
7. There is an abundance of differing versions of this Perush.
Although Rabbi Dayan refutes many of the proofs of Maharatz Chiyus,
nevertheless it is clear that many Rishonim had a different commentary of Rashi
than what is printed. (See, for example, Tosfos 4a DH Chigeres, and 12a DH Im,
and 12b DH Nim; Ramban 15a; Or Zaru'a #403, 407, and 410). Many Acharonim
agreed with Maharatz Chiyus that our commentary was not written by Rashi, for
example Chida (in Shem ha'Gedolim, letter "Shin"), citing R. Yakov Emden, Yad
David (Zintzheim) Ta'anis 13a, Mar'eh Kohen (R. Betzalel Cohen of Vilna), and
R. Reuven Margoliyos (Nitzotzei Zohar to Mishpatim, 115a).
(b) We do not have Rashi's commentary on Nedarim and Nazir either, or on most
of Bava Basra. Nobody seems to know why that is - were they lost, or did Rashi
simply not have a chance to finish them? That does not seem to be the case
here, though, since Rishonim do quote Rashi from Ta'anis.
We actually have another record of Rashi's commentary on Ta'anis. Three
manuscripts of a commentary which has been attributed to Rashi (but differs
from the printed "Rashi") exist. The commentary of Rashi printed with the
Gemara in Spain 1482 seems to have been based on those manuscripts, as well as
the Rashi printed in the Ein Yakov of Saloniki, 1520. Although there are minor
differences between the manuscripts and the printed "Rashi" throughout the
Maseches, the major difference between our Rashi and those Rashis is in the
first Daf and a half of the Maseches. It seems that the commentary we have for
these pages was written by a Talmid of Rabeinu Gershon (see below, (c)).
Even these manuscripts do not contain all of the citations from Rashi that the
Rishonim bring, but they are more consistent with the Rishonim's citations than
our "Rashi". One of the manuscripts begins with a note saying that it is not
clear who wrote it, but the scribe heard that Rashi's student wrote the (or a)
commentary. This is consistent with the conclusion of Maharatz Chiyus (see
below, (c)).
The Rashi printed alongside the Rif is much briefer than our "Rashi", and his
style seems more polished. According to R. Reuven Margoliyos (cited above at
the end of (a)), this is what remains from the "true" commentary of Rashi on
Ta'anis.
(c) Maharatz Chiyus concludes that some notes for Maseches Ta'anis were indeed
written by Rashi himself. These were then used by a Talmid of his as the basis
for his own Perush. This new Perush was not popularized at the time (thus it
was not available to the other Rishonim) but after the Perush was printed
alongside the Gemara, it was mistaken for Rashi's own commentary. He asserts
that each mention of "I heard from my Rebbi" indicates a teaching that the
author read in Rashi's Perush.
The author of Dikdukei Sofrim (Ta'anis 2b, see also Cheshek Shlomo 3a) points
out that for the first Daf and a half of Ta'anis, the commentary printed as
"Rashi" is suspiciously similar to the commentary of Rabeinu Gershon (which is
printed in the common Shas). That section may have been written by a student
of Rabeinu Gershon (as mentioned above (b)). This is not true of the remainder
of the commentary.
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
>>><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US):(206) 202-0323; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007 2:28
PM
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://mailman.shemayisrael.com/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
