The Ba'al haTurim takes up the question of why the Torah juxtaposes the parsha of shoftim with the previous parsha that speaks of the moadim. Sefas Emes explains that once we've discussed the shalosh regalim at the end of last parsha, the Torah moves to the remaining holidays, the yamim noraim. Shoftim = justice and judgment, the theme of the upcoming days of Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur. Hard to believe we are almost there.
I have one and the same question on two separate comments of Rashi:
1) Rashi identifies "reishis degancha" (18:4) as terumah and then adds that m'doraysa there is no shiur for terumah, however Chazal instituted different shiurim, one of the generous person, one for the average guy, and one for the less generous. Rashi goes yet a step further and gives us the asmachta source for this din.
2) In the same pasuk Rashi identifies "resihis geiz tzoncha" as the first shearing from one's sheep, and Rashi again adds that m'doraysa there is no shiur, but Chazal instituted a shiur and Rashi explains what it is and the source.
Why does Rashi need to discuss the issue of shiur in this context? What is lacking in understanding the peshuto shel mikra if one does not have that information? Furthermore, even if Rashi needs to tell us something about the shiur, does he need to go into detail about the source, the asmachta?
I don't have an answer. The question just occurred to me when I was reviewing the parsha and I can't think of anything (yet : )
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
a question on Rashi
Posted by Chaim B. at 7:13 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I always understood that the ambiguity of the word Raishis demands an explanation. The Peshoto Shel Mikroh leaves one wondering how much Terumah is considered Raishis, how much Raishis Hagez, from how many sheep, etc.ReplyDelete
Still, why the need to give the shiur derabbanan? And the source for it from the asmachta? Too much verbiage to just answer your question. Also, why does Rashi not offer the same explanation (i.e. tell us what the shiur is) in p shlach (15:20) "reishis arisoseichem" by challah? Shouldn't you have the same question there?Delete
Aderaba - in Shlach Rashi uses far more verbiage, in addition to giving the Shiur Drabbonon! I honestly don't think this Rashi is so difficult. He is explaining the pasuk so that someone learning it can know how to fulfill the Mitzva. I agree that he didn't need to bring the Asmachta. YODelete
I agree with R Yehuda that the word Reishis is ambiguous, and only rarely means chronologically, but I'm not sure how Rashi resolves that question by talking about shiurim. I understand that you address that by saying that Reishis simply means שיריה ניכרים and mimeila we know that there is no shiur, but then Rashi should have said that b'feirush.ReplyDelete
he could just say there is no shiur and full stop.Delete
As at Shlach 15:20, Rashi is saying pshat in the concept of titain/titnu - k'dei nesina. Although chitta achas poteres es ha'kri, it is not mekayem the d'oraysa of k'dei nesina.ReplyDelete
However, k'dei nesina implies a certain minimal amount, similar to the minimum amount to give each oni from ma'asar oni. This minimal amount would satisfy the obligation regardless if it was given from 100 pounds of challah or grain, or from 100 tons. Continues Rashi that the Chachamim said pshat in k'dei nesina that it is proportional to the amount being tithed.
This is not a takana or gzeira: this is nosnu shiur. K'dei nesina means a minimal amount or a proportional amount, whichever is greater. One who gives the minimal amount when it is less than one in sixty is not mekayem k'dei nesina. Perhaps more than by the melochos asuros on Chal Hamo'ed, this shiur is de'oraysa for k'dei nesina, because it is not a value judgement by the Chachamim but rather the pshat in the words.
However, the halacha of chitta achas poteres es hakri remains regarding tevel, because that is a din in torimu, not titnu.
For pellehDin to say that there are two dinim deoraysa in matanos, hafrasha which has no shiur and nesina that has a shiur, is a blithe assertion of an unprecedented proposition of such novelty that it requires a good deal more support than "how do I know so, because I think so."Delete
Fortunately, the Noda beYehuda says exactly what he says.
I just want to add that the Noda beYehuda himself says "ויש לי לומר בזה דבר חדש לא קדמני בזה שום מפרש או פוסק," and indeed the Aruch haShulchan (Trumos 60:4-5) disagrees. He says you can't say you're not yotzei nesina midorasa, Instead, you're yotzei, but the Torah calls it a chet, like min ha'ra'ah.Delete
According to both, however, k'dai nesina is separate from hafrasha. The parameters of which Rashi is clearly elucidating.Delete
And BTW, the fact that one is yotzai harama min haTorah even min ha'ra'ah seems to be the makor for chazal establishing three shiurim for nesina by teruma.Delete
tI's a nice lomudus, but how does it address my question? If Rashi in Devarim feels he needs to explain how much is considered "reishis." So why in P' Shlach does he not feel the same need, i.e. how much do you have to separate for it to be considered "reishis?" (Which has nothing to do with what the shiur nesina is.)Delete