0:00 / 0:00
Journey to France: Troyes - Preparing For Rashi's Burial Site, Was Rashi a Posek?
236 views
Subscribe and hit the bell to see new videos!!! • Visit the Rav's site: https://www.rabbidg.com • Have a Question? Contact the Rav: https://www.rabbidg.com/contact • Order Rabbi Glatstein's Books: https://www.rabbidg.com/rabbi-glatstein-books Date This Shiur Was Given: 7/29/2022 #Torahstudy #Judaism #Jewish #Torah #Spiritual #Rabbi
Categories:Torah
Comments(0)
Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
This Torah class is brought to you by
torahanytime.com.
Okay, good morning everyone.
For those of you
who are up
Um,
I want to take the opportunity
just to really put ourselves in the
right frame of mind and preparation for
what is the most important day of our
trip.
Uh, the primary reason we came to France
is for today. Haftest Kamos the yard
site of Rabon the Avraham shall Yisrael
the yard site of the Rebbe and the
father of the Jewish people, Rashi. And
we don't use those words lightly. Rashi
of course is the great Rebbe of Klal
Yisrael. If not for Rashi, the Shas
would be a safer a safer chasam. It
would be a sealed book. Who could make
heads or tails of Shas? We wouldn't know
not what a question is, not what an
answer is, not what the meaning of the
lines of the words in the Gemara, not
the translation of the words in the
Gemara and not the signon, the flow of
the Gemara. Rashi opened up the backbone
of the Jewish people to the Jewish
people. Yes, today we have all kinds of
aids to learn. We have the Artscroll, we
have the Mesivta, but none of those
would be available if not for Pirush
Rashi. And then of course Rashi al ha
Torah. Rashi on Chumash is so important.
The Chafetz Chaim writes in our
generation, Rashi has supplanted the
importance of the Targum. While it once
was "Esnayim Mikra v'Echad Targum",
today the Chafetz Chaim says, "Esnayim
Mikra v'Echad Rashi".
And we see the importance of Rashi from
the number of super commentaries that
were written on Rashi. More than 200
perushim were written on Rashi al ha
Torah.
The Mizrachi writes, "Every word of
Rashi is laden with so much meaning." So
now on the bus uh, I I I would like to
uh, present to you two short
um, segments. One will be about
what Rashi's intention was was in
writing his Pirush and then one a little
bit of a legend.
Um,
you know, there's an interesting thing.
Rashi tells us in Bereishis Perek Gimmel
Pasuk Ches. Rashi says, "There are a lot
of Midrashim about the subject. The
Chachamim have already arranged them in
the Bereishis Rabbah and Rashi utters
the famous phrase, "Va'ani lo basi ela
l'pshuto shel Mikra." I've only come to
tell you the simple interpretation of
the psukim. And this is a very important
yesod. Rashi is not a Tosafos. Rashi is
not here to make the sugia complex. He
Rashi is not giving you an in-depth
analysis of how this Gemara could be
reconciled with other Gemaras. Rashi is
trying to tell you both al ha Torah and
on the Gemara pshuto shel Mikra. Now,
what does that mean? Does that mean
Rashi was not a posek? Now, this is a
very important discussion.
The Radvaz in Siman Kuf Tes writes in a
Teshuvah
"Yesh b'yadeinu klal gadol ki Rashi
mefaresh hu v'lo posek." We have a
principle Rashi was a commentator. He
was not a posek and therefore we need to
rely more on Rambam, Rif, Rosh than we
rely on Rashi.
This goes so far as the Beis Yosef
himself in Orach Chaim Siman Yud says
that we have a machlokes the Rosh and
the Rambam.
Even though Rashi sides with the Rosh
we are going to pasken like the Rambam
because Rashi was not a
posek. Rashi was a mefaresh. Rashi
mefaresh hu v'lo posek. By the way, the
Ibn Ezra uses a very uh,
interesting expression in describing
Rashi. The Ibn Ezra says Rashi is
parshan dasa. Like from the Aseres Bnei
Haman, parshan dasa so he would explain
the law. But Rashi was not a posek.
Therefore the Beis Yosef says, "We will
follow the Rambam even though it's the
Rosh and Rashi versus the Rambam because
Rashi's out of the equation and the
Rambam is more mustaber in this issue."
And that is the conclusion of the Beis
Yosef.
The Chida in the Shem HaGedolim
discusses what seemingly is disparaging
to Rashi. To say Rashi was a mefaresh
and not a posek, Rashi was a commentator
and not a halachic authority.
So the
uh, the Chida offers the following
analogy. There's a Gemara in Bava Basra
that Rav Assi said to Rav Yochanan
"Rav Yochanan, when you tell us the
halacha
how should we act?"
So Rav Yochanan said, "Don't act until I
tell you it's halacha l'maaseh. It's not
enough when I tell you it's a halacha.
If I tell you this is the halacha
you can't follow it. Only when I tell
you it's halacha l'maaseh."
Rav Nosson Werdiger is going to make a
siyum today on Horayos, yeah?
In Horayos we find the following Gemara.
That if someone is giving a shiur
and you listen to the shiur and you
follow it l'halacha
and the person giving the shiur did not
say it accurately, you are a mazid. The
onus is on you. You cannot follow Jewish
practice based on something you heard in
a shiur.
Moreover, if somebody asked a rabbi a
shaila
and you overheard and you followed the
psak of that rav you are negligent. The
rav did not give you the psak.
Only when the rabbi says, "This is the
halacha relevant to you in your
particular circumstance," only then you
can follow the halacha.
So the Chida says
there's no question that when Rashi
explained the sugia
he felt
that
at a at
within a certain perspective of
reasonability
the conclusion that would come out based
on the way he explains the sugia is
correct. But Rashi never intended to
explain the sugia halacha l'maaseh. That
was not the intent of Rashi. When the
Beis Yosef says Rashi is a mefaresh and
not a posek
what that means is not that Rashi is not
capable of being a posek. It's Rashi
never intended to be a posek. Says the
Chida, "If Rashi writes a halachic
ruling in the Sefer HaPardes or the
Sefer HaOrah, that would have just as
much credibility as the Rambam and the
Rif. It's just that that was not Rashi's
kavana. What is Rashi's kavana? Like
Rashi himself articulates "Va'ani lo
basi ela l'pshuto shel Mikra." That is
the opinion of Radvaz. That is the
opinion of the Beis Yosef. It's
important to point out that that opinion
is not unanimously maintained. The
Yeshuos Yaakov in Hilchos Ketanos Chelek
Beis Siman Kuf Tes Zayin, he disagrees
with Beis Yosef. He says if Rashi
explained the sugia a certain way, that
means Rashi it recognized and realized
that if this is how he explained the
sugia, the following halacha would come
out and Rashi means you could rely on
him l'halacha just like the Rambam and
the Rif.
But in general, we do follow the Beis
Yosef that Rashi was mefaresh hu v'eino
posek. This is not lignai of Rashi, but
this was the area and the realm in which
Rashi's commentary is used. As we
mentioned, Rashi is Avraham the Rabbon
shel Yisrael which we will discuss
further.
And here we're all going. You know, when
people travel to Eretz Yisrael
to Kever Avos, people travel all over
the world to the graves of their
ancestors. At least for Ashkenazim,
Rashi in all likelihood is uh,
your great-grandfather. As we mentioned,
in the 11th century there were only
between 5 and 10,000 Ashkenazic Jews
and almost 80% of Ashkenazim come
directly from Rashi. So Rashi is not
only Avraham shel Yisrael in a
figurative sense, Rashi is actually
Avraham shel Yisrael.
Okay, so that's just um, some important
thoughts about Rashi's role as mefaresh.
You've just experienced another Torah
class brought to you by
torahanytime.com.