חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם

Q&A: As Rabbi So-and-So Said

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

As Rabbi So-and-So Said

Question

In honor of my teacher and rabbi, the great Rabbi Michi, may he live a good long life,
 

We find many times in the Talmud: “As Rabbi So-and-So said… so too here…”
 

And one may ask: why is it that sometimes Rashi explains “as Rabbi X said” as “later on” or “just below,” or points to a certain place, and sometimes he writes nothing at all?

Another point to note: why is it that the Talmudic cross-references sometimes point to places where this expression appears, and sometimes they write nothing at all?

And behold, what a wonder: in Sdei Chemed, system of the letter dalet, rule 8, he comments on the Talmud in Hullin 124, “as Rav Pappa said regarding something spread out,” and notes that we do not find Rav Pappa’s statement elsewhere; see there. This is very difficult, since it appears later nearby on that very page, and it is a mitzvah to resolve this.
 
The undersigned, with great respect,

Answer

It all depends on the context. Sometimes the meaning is a reference to a known general statement and not to something said specifically in our context (“as Rabbi So-and-So said” in general), and then they refer you to a distant source. And sometimes the statement was said specifically in the context under discussion here (“as Rabbi So-and-So said”), and there is no reason to bring it from afar.
Regarding the Sdei Chemed, two complementary explanations are possible:
 
1. Perhaps from the wording of the passage it seemed to him that this was of the first type, so he looked for a general statement in another context.
2. When the citation is from the same page, it would not make sense to say “as he said”; rather, the editor of the passage should have placed the statement at this stage. So that wording implies that this is a general statement, and he did not find such a statement. Which brings us back to #1.

Discussion on Answer

Sh. (2019-04-21)

We find in Bava Kamma, in the chapter Ha-Hovel, “as Rav Pappa said: they embarrass him and he is embarrassed,” on that same page.

Michi (2019-04-21)

Indeed. Maybe the Sdei Chemed would have had the same difficulty there too.
But of course the matter requires checking all the cases, each one on its own.

Sh. (2019-08-22)

Arakhin 13

A) How old was Caleb? He was eight less two, etc.

Why does the Talmud use this expression, “eight less two”?

B) If you wish, say: from the fact that they spent seven years conquering and seven years dividing, etc.

What is the reasoning behind this?

The undersigned, with great respect,

Michi (2019-08-22)

I didn’t understand. The Talmud explains that at the time of the sending of the spies he was under 40, and another 38 years passed until the entry into the Land.
Rashi in Zevachim says that this is just a plausible inference. I don’t have a better explanation.

Sh. (2019-08-22)

Thank you.

Sh. (2019-08-22)

In honor of my teacher and rabbi, the great Rabbi Michi, may he live a good long life,

I have two comments on the daily daf in tractate Arakhin, and I did not find anyone who noted them. I ask forgiveness for the trouble, but it is Torah and I need to learn.

A) 25a.

Mishnah: If one consecrated it for two or three years, etc.

Seemingly it should have said “two” and no more (and the Mishneh LaMelekh already discussed this at length in the laws of lulav).
And see the wording of Maimonides, chapter 4 of Arakhin, halakhah 6, and it requires examination why he used the phrase “four years.”

B) 25a:

Retushin, retushei retushin.

This is a bit difficult in terms of why the field is called that; see Tosafot Yom Tov.
And by the way, one can also look into whether after the third Jubilee the field is called retushei retushei retushin.

Michi (2019-08-22)

Maybe it wants to say that this means two and up, not two and below. If it had written only “two,” we would think that it means only two, and three would already be a different law. I do not know why Maimonides spoke specifically about four, but it is no worse than any other example. In the following halakhah he already speaks about the law of one year, so in any case the law comes out clearly.

What practical difference does it make what it’s called? The law is the same also in the third Jubilee, as explained there.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button