Rashi on Meseches Taanis

Tosafos is the second Tosafos on the Amud. The Rama Rabbi Akiva Eiger L'Ginzach brings that Rashi M'sachas Tamid Dof Yud Aleph Amud Bais says that I saw a Girsa that said not Rabbi Akiva Eiger L'Ginzach but rather Mar Ukva Eiger L'Ginzach. And Rashi there says I prefer the Girsa Mar Ukva. And the reason I prefer the Girsa Mar Ukva is because let's be honest, does it make sense that the great Rabbi Akiva Nun Shari Bina, Rabbi Akiva who reached the level of Chochma that Moshe Rabbeinu when he went up to be Mekabel the Torah, he turns to Hakadosh Baruch Hu and says if you have a Neshama like Rabbi Akiva, why you giving the Torah through me? Rabbi Akiva is on a higher level, it would make much more sense to do it through Rabbi Akiva. So could it be? Is it even fathomable that Rabbi Akiva would walk into a city, they would ask Rabbi Akiva three questions, Rabbi Akiva would say I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. It's impossible. Mar Ukva is also a Chiddush. But Mar Ukva I could hear. Mar Ukva was a Nasi, right? Mar Ukva is a whole different Indian than Rabbi Akiva. So says Rashi, I saw a Girsa that said not Rabbi Akiva, Mar Ukva. You can see how those Girsaois would have maybe been confused. And to me it felt more the Girsa Mar Ukva because to say that Mar Ukva didn't know the answer to these three questions, I hear. Again, of course it's a Chiddush, but at the very least I hear. But to say Rabbi Akiva, I don't hear. Sometimes you can't even say I hear. You need a license to say that. And I don't even hear that Rabbi Akiva would not know the answer to these three questions. But Oy it says Rashi, being that according to the Girsa, Rabbi Akiva, we're dealing with a Tanna, shouldn't this have been presented as a Braisa? Right? Usually Tannaim are talking Mishnayos, they talking Braisos. This is not a Braisa, this is just Rabbi Akiva Eiger L'Ginzach. Now if it's an Amora, okay. This is the way Amoraim are presented throughout Shas. But Tannaim are usually presented in a Braisa. I mean they're usually presented in a Braisa. Again, sounds to me says Rashi that the proper Girsa over here is not Rabbi Akiva but rather the proper Girsa over here is Mar Ukva. After Tosafos brings this Rashi, he says Tosafos "Me you all I got you as relates to the second question." Meaning the first question would be given no the answer to these three questions. Right? That's a problem. But the second question that we would have a story with Rabbi Akiva and we wouldn't present it in the more traditional way of presenting the very hot tonight, which is with a brice that doesn't bother me so much. The very moist machine mask and mice are ready to give a good advice cuz you actually find many places that Rabbi Akiva and really other time known are presented in chance with a mice such a higher without the more conventional preface of ton of rabbinon or some sort of braces that says "Tosafos, the first argument of Rashi to me is a little bit more plausible than the second argument of Rashi." Just one interesting thing that I think is worth highlighting and that is that when you learn the sign is one of the first things you're told is that there's a little bit of a shy love little bit of a the core whether Rashi is a sign is is Rashi or whether Rashi is a sign is is not Rashi. Really the more of the schmata as it relates to being Maharer after Rashi and sign is that being from one of the other Rashi is what the Rashi is in the voice of says that I have many Rashi that Rashi is a sign is is not Rashi. Now the truth is a lot of different in chance where you have a pure Rashi on the side of the and we know it's not Rashi. Most famously are in Nazareth all three of those come from the same account. They come from the who calls the beginning of the brings this Rashi and that's something that we have a very clear message on. There's Rashi and the sign is we once mentioned from my goal is that he believes Rashi and is not Rashi and one of his Rashi is that every single time there's a lot of Rashi and so So word that Rashi uses is old French. In Maseches Horiyos, there are two lasse Rashi, and those two words are Latin. They're not French. Rashi didn't speak Latin. Rashi spoke French. And if that's the case, it must be one of the Baalei Tosfos that spoke Latin. He says, "I don't know for sure, but it could be it's the Rivon who takes over from Rashi in the Maseches Makos cuz there's a lasse Rashi in the end of Makos, which is also Latin." So he says, "I don't know for sure, but maybe it's the Rivon." This is classic Reb Reuven Margolies. Another one of the Rashis where there's a little bit of a shaila with So actually not Rashi, it is on Maseches Megillah. But anyway, Taanis is yedua that could be Rashi on Taanis is not Rashi. We have a Tosfos over here where Tosfos says "Peirush Rashi bepera kama detaanis." If you look up Taanis daf yud alef amud beis, little bit of a drumroll. So does it say it or does it not say it? It says it verbatim. Rashi says as follows, "Goresh Mar Ukfor Ekvoli Ginzak Garsinan. De'ilu Rebbi Akiva lo hoyo mistabeik lehanach boi." There's no way he would have known the answer to these questions. "Ve'oi debelashon braisa havean mishtaibein maiseh Rebbi Akiva veloi bigmar." Either way, this Rashi over here that Tosfos quotes in Maseches Taanis is a mefurash Rashi Maseches Taanis, which I think for sure is something that Reb Tzvi Hirsch Chajes would have to answer because the Baalei Tosfos you would think know who Rashi in Maseches Taanis was. Right? Just to appreciate a little bit, where does all this confusion come from? How did Rashi in the Dor Hamikdash become not Rashi? Meaning if it's not Rashi, then why would would it be referred to as Rashi? So really to understand this, you have to understand the history of the printing of the Shas. Right? Rashis back in the day were manuscripts. The Gemara, the layout, everything the way we have it now was Gershon Soncino or Daniel Bomberg, right? This comes from Italian Chevra. Bomberg wasn't even a Jew, and he hired and employed Jews in Cremona, but he wasn't even a Yehudi. And they have this printing press, and you know, they find this peirush that it seems people are learning, and he puts it on the side, and he calls it Rashi. don't know, Kashi from Maseches. If you appreciate the history of printing, it's not clear where this confusion would have come from. But either way, here you have a Tosafos that refers to a Rashi in Maseches Taanis. We have this Rashi. Certainly, lends credibility to that side of the argument.