10133 —פירוש רש"י על נזק, חזרה בלשון התלמוד, ושגיאות סופר

[Winter, 5731]

Notes — In haste — .

Shalom u'Vrachah!

At its beginning. On A. Damage – Rashi interprets as either an ox or a person who caused damage; the explanation is a person. In the note on the Rashi before us: a goring ox. Seemingly, one could support the author's version based on what we find that it is forced (though strained) in Arakhin (14b) to establish an anonymous Mishnah (which is — according to Rabbi Meir) according to Rabbi Akiva (even though Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Tarfon in Bava Kama (33a)) — and perhaps the reason is because Rabbi Meir at the end (and also originally) was a student of Rabbi Akiva (Eruvin 13a) — therefore, also here, Rabbi Meir's words should be established according to Rabbi Akiva.

There: D He Atto: It is not relevant to ask this way (i.e., . . i.e.) except regarding two matters where from one we know the other etc., but here (in the question — why) he repeated and taught them again, it is not appropriate to say "i.e." etc.

And in note 4: From M regarding Rashi's version — i.e., damage means injuries. Note: a) They are equal only in wording, but Rashi's explanation is that the question "i.e." "i.e." — why did he repeat and teach them again; b) According to Rashi "i.e." means literally "i.e." As found in Shabbat (118b): "i.e. Verdimas" "i.e. Menachem," and similarly in Megillah (23b) and elsewhere. When the reason is one (then from one we know the other) — we find "and this is the reason" etc., as explained by Re Ha (29b).

Ref B. D He And he says: You shall be blessed; but when he comforts others it does not apply, since they do not say to him: Be our atonement. And in note Dtz L (instead of: they say to him), they say to him. It makes more sense that the copyist erred between yud-vav and vav; Dtz L: Behold I (the Kohen Gadol) am your atonement. And it does not apply that others would say to the Kohen Gadol "be blessed," as he says to others who comfort him.

Ref G. D He What is ZB ZB for him in one matter etc.: So it is explained by Rashi (and the inference from not saying ZB for him judge and ZB etc.). It has already been noted by later authorities regarding Chiddushei HaRamban (at end of S five approaches), who questions this at length. Ran in his novellae there. Shaar Mishpat section H at its end.

D He Am L I heard etc. — Note (and similarly see what was written about this on p. 45): Just like in Sefer Margalit HaYam (by Harav R Shiya Margalit on tractate Sanhedrin). In his notes there at the end: And Levites on their watches – perhaps it should read Dtz L and Levites on their platform throughout Shas (Megillah 3a and elsewhere) – also note Taanit (26a and there).

Summary

The Rebbe explores subtle distinctions in Talmudic phrasing and commentaries, highlighting how careful textual analysis can clarify halachic meaning and reveal possible scribal errors affecting interpretation.