Timeline for What does Rashi mean with "our Rabbis expounded what they expounded"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24 at 23:23 | comment | added | josh waxman | Not Torah with mikra, mikra. It doesn't say "peshat". Nor does peshat mean the simple meaning for five year old, that is begging the question. And i don't think even the Rebbe doesn't say that Rashi's ONLY audience is a five year old. Also, how are they supposed to do this? Same way as before Rashi. Why not Rashbam instead of Rashi? Why either of them? This is a circular conversation. | |
| Mar 24 at 18:27 | comment | added | Awtsmoos--עצמות | The five year old reference is full pirkei avos. It says one is supposed to start learning Torah with mikrah at age 5. How are they supposed to do that? What commentary should they learn at 5? Rashbam? Also Rashi often references the source but one doesn't need to know the source he quotes from to understand it | |
| Mar 24 at 5:25 | comment | added | josh waxman | I linked to that comment in my answer. peshat is what he says, which can be translated as simple meaning, among other translations. But rashi continues with ule,'aggada. Just because a five year old can be helped by it doesn't mean that is rashi,'s intended audience. He makes comments like "this is darshened well in tanchuma" expecting the reader to understand it. Meanwhile, other such commentaries focused on peshat include ibn ezra, rashbam, Shadal. | |
| Mar 24 at 4:25 | comment | added | Awtsmoos--עצמות | yes five year olds learned the Torah for thousands of years before Rashi. The point is Rashi says in the beginning of his commentary that he's only explaining the simple meaning of the verses. From Rashi onwards when people want to know the straightforward simple meaning they look at Rashi and he is accepted by klal yisroel. When a 5 year old starts learning mikrah he needs to do it with some commentary to know what it means. What other commentary other than the only one that says his only mission is to give the simple meaning | |
| Mar 22 at 20:26 | comment | added | josh waxman | Pirkei avot preceded rashi by many centuries. Also, by simply learning to recognize the letters, pronounce the words, be able to figure out the nekudot from the consonants (since wriiten nikkud wasn't invented yet). And also some of the midrashim or peshat that Rashi gives. Doesn't mean that rashi's audience is a five year old. | |
| Mar 22 at 19:17 | comment | added | Awtsmoos--עצמות | It's a Mishnah in. Pirkei avos 'someone who is five years old should start learning the written Torah". How can a 5 year old learn without Rashi? | |
| Mar 22 at 17:40 | comment | added | josh waxman | While the Rebbe as supercommentary to Rashi I think talks about 5 years old and Rashi and peshat, other meforshei rashi take other approaches. I don't subscribe to the five year old theory | |
| Mar 22 at 17:03 | comment | added | Awtsmoos--עצמות | Interesting about the channeling.. but is a Ben chameish lamikra expected to know bavli megillah so well that he would have a question as to if Rashi is quoting from it? Seemingly if Rashi just said nothing about the Rabbis in this case one would just understand the words in a simple sense. It seems like the only reason Rashi would say it is just to tell us that there are also deeper meanings. But why is that relevant? | |
| Mar 22 at 13:49 | comment | added | josh waxman | I don't think he's bringing any support for the other verse, but saying that the peshat is the same in both verses, contra what Chazal say in masechet Megillah about both this and the other verse. I'd guess as I said, to highlight that his interpretation deviates from the "traditional". He does the same on Esther 2:5, that he's deviating about Ish Yemini. I'd add that Rashi often has a go-to source that he channels, in order, and this seems to be Bavli Megillah, and he is citing it often here. So, he'll note where he takes exception, so you don't think he's channeling. | |
| Mar 22 at 6:26 | comment | added | Awtsmoos--עצמות | Interesting. But seemingly in our case Rashi could have either said nothing or stopped his comment after bringing support from the other verse .. why did he feel it was important to tell us that there are other explanations at all, in this context? | |
| Mar 21 at 22:36 | history | answered | josh waxman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |