Rashi d"h k'man (Shabbos 27b)
Rashi seems to have two pshatim here in the gemara. The second pshat seems simple to me. The gemara is asking which Tana does Abaye go like. He's understand R' Eliezer ben Shimon to mean any pishtan even if it's not a beged. The gemara is questioning how the amora Abaye could understand the tana that way. Is there any other tana who holds like that? The gemara then answers that R' Yehuda holds like that.
However, before that pshat, Rashi seems to have another pshat which I don't understand. The gemara is asking k'man on the Tana Sumchus? And it concludes that it's like R' Meir? First of all, why does Sumchus need another tana supporting him? Second of all, how is it like R' Meir? Or am I misunderstanding something in that Rashi?
posted by David @ 11:15 AM
2 Comments:
I think that the first pshat merely means this: the gemara is not asking with whom Sumchus agrees; rather, it is curious as to the precise meaning of tavui. The answer -- when it is shesi va'erev -- spun (like R. Meir), even though the shesi is not yet boiled (like R. Yehuda). This would seem to be foreshadowed in the previous Rashi D"H Sikcha b'tavui in which Rashi suggests that all agree that even onin shel pishtan may become tamei nega but that the term tavui was chosen to reflect Sumchus's view that shesi did not need to be boiled before it was susceptible to tumat nega.
What is curious to me is that it would seem that it is of no significance whatever if Sumchus follows R. Meir or R. Yehuda or which of the two Abaye follows. If we understand the similarity between Sumchus and R. Shimon b. Eliezer to be that pishtan can receive tumat nega even if it is not a beged, it is not a beged according to both R. Meir and R. Yehuda. As I understand shesi v'arev, it means merely threads.
Or am I misunderstanding shesi v'erev?
I think that this is pshat although I'm not 100% positive about this. The pasuk says that shesi v'arev are mekabel tuma by negaim. In Vayikra 13:48 it says "o b'shesi o b'arev l'pishtim." I think that what we're saying (in the second pshat of Rashi) is that Sumchus and RShB"E both say that even before it's made into shesi and arev it is rauy l'kabel tuma. R' Meir says that it's not but R' Yehuda says that Oonin shel pishtan are rauy l'kabel tuma even earlier.
Thanks for the explanation of the first pshat in Rashi.
Post a Comment
<< Home