[boxify theme=”info” cols=”4″ cols_use=”3″]The following is an excerpt from our mishpat hakohanim commentary to dinnei zroa, lechayayim v’keva[/boxify]

What does rashi say about giving these gifts to the kohen outside of ארץ ישראל? did he validate what the stam mishna says?

Rashi’s view can be gleaned from his responsa to Rabbi Natan ben Rabbi Machir;

..Who would object (to giving the gifts)? those that give (the gifts, תבא עליהם ברכה. But they’ve accustomed themselves (i.e. ”’נהגו”’) to Rabbi Elai who said regarding the gifts ..that they are not done only in the land (Israel), ..as we compare “give” and “give” from Trumah. And(/but) the giver -reaps complete benefit since; ”anywhere where we say (the term) “they’ve accustomed themselves (i.e. ”’נהגו”’)” it is unneccesary to state that we (halacha instructors) do not discuss (being lenient) at rabbinic conventions, but even instruction (to be lenient) we abstain from as it is taught (Taanit, p. 26)..he who quotes Halacha -we promote at conventions. He who sais a minhag -we do not promote (at conventions) -but we instruct (such action).   But he who sais “they’ve accustomed themselves (i.e. ”’נהגו”’)” -we do not instruct (such action), and if already acted on (a statement of leniency was already publicized) we don’t instruct to backtrack..” |Rashi Responsa, “Sefer Hapardes LeRashi” p. 98a

Rashi explains how halachic authorities are to act on this mitzvah.

What the letter says

Rashi, in an unquestioned-as-authentic responsa, delivers two key messages to halacha instructors in this letter;

1. Not to instruct publicly or in private to be lenient about the mitzvah
2. Not to object to the נהגו of the masses

The highlighted text to מסכת שבת (see below) favors only message number 2, whereas rashi’s responsa presents a more balanced approach (“הכרעה”).  This concludes that the accurate halacha opinion of rashi himself is reflected in his responsa.

While stating that the masses in action rely on Rabbi Elai for leniency, Rashi was opposed that halachic instructors publicize leniency to שומרי תורה ומצוות about giving the foreleg, cheeks and abomasum to the kohen outside the land of Israel.

Rashi to מסכת שבת

Many are familiar with Rashi’s pirush to gmara shabbos דף י,עמוד ב;

Highlighted text not found in all original Rashi manuscripts

The highlighted text pretty much says that the mitzvah is not applicable outside of eretz yisroel. This is the same Rashi text printed in the very first print edition of Shas in Venice, 5280 (1519) – and studied by תלמידי חכמים worldwide ever since. But, these known manuscript editions of pirush rashi don’t contain this highlighted text -not at all;

• Rashi Manuscript Rab. 718
• Rashi Manuscript Rab. 841
• Library of Paris, Rashi manuscript 324
• British Library, Manuscript Or. 5975
• Pharma library Manuscript 1324/2087

Reason has been sought for the origins of this specific rashi text and opinions have been given.  Our newly published sefer introduces that the rashi text to the gemara can be read לא משנינן as in “we do not teach/instruct” to the masses that there is a minhag involved (as per אורויי לא מורינן) – rather a nahug that is not instructed as mainstream.

Others assume that students of rashi added this text in to the gmara –ר’ שלמה יצחקי, מאת הרב אליעזר ליפשיץ | This text was composed by persons other than rashi, see גלגולו של שיבוש בפירוש רש”י בדפוסים שבידינו, Dov. Y. Fogel, p. 129 and 175. ‬

Arbaah turim

Rabbenu Asher sides with this mitzvah being applicable in chutz le’aretz (chullin, kitzur piskei harosh). The Arbaah turim (compiled by his son Rabbi Yaakov baal haturim), first brings the mainstream opinion of its applicability in chu”l and in the name of the Rambam, yet concludes with bringing rashi’s opinion that it is not applicable in chu”l and so wrote Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg וכן נוהגין.

This is view-able in the ארבעה טורים manuscript (only two are known to date, with the earlier dated to 1475, Harley MS 5716 folio 171r). The discrepancy regarding the maharam”s responsa (i.e. in strong support of the mitzvah’s applicability in chu”l) is reconciled by the ba”ch, see there.

This quote of Rashi’s opinion needs furthur reconilliation, yet does not change the halachic opinion of the Baal HaTurim as this mitzvah being applicable in chu”l.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013-2014All Rights Reserved