Glory to God-I have found a way of answering a difficult Rashi.
Sanhedrin 62.
The Mishna in the beginning of Klal Gadol in Shabat. Case 1) He forgot about Shabat he brings one offering. Case 2) He forgot today is Shabat he brings an offering for each shabat. Case 3) He knows today is shabat, but forgot one or more or all types of work.
The question of Rava is: "What happens if you put case 2) and 3) together?"
The Talmud in Sanhedrin asked: Why don't we answer this from the fact that if one thinks idolatry is allowed, he brings just one sacrifice. [i.e. אומר מותר. He thinks "It is allowed" is liable only one sin offering.]
(The Gemara Sanhedrin started off with explaining אחת מהנה (the verse "one of them") is שגגת עבודה זרה וזדון עבודות .(i.e. Accidental idolatry and yet knowing the different types of idolatry are unlawful.) Full stop. At this point the Talmud interrupts the flow of the discussion instantly when the words accidental idolatry are mentioned and then asks, "What is it?")
Now Rashi says אומר מותר (He says to himself "It is allowed") means he thinks there is no such thing as idolatry. And he also says that Rava is not referring to the original question of the Gemara.
The Ri (Rav Isaac, the grandson of Rashi) asks this question: "The actual question was not the same as if he forgot about Shabat totally שכח עיקר שבת. It was -he forgot today is shabat and work is forbidden. העלם זה וזה בידו So it is not parallel to the Mishna in Shabat in chapter 7. And that is why we don't answer the question of Rava from that Mishna. But then how does the statement of Rava about idolatry contain the answer to the question?
The Ri answers, the Talmud is thinking idolatry can't be forgotten totally because is the essence of being a Jew is to despise idolatry. And that is why idolatry is similar to the subject of the question of Rava about Shabat than the Mishna in Shabat. For the question is dealing with a situation where a simple reminder would perk the guy's memory. And the Mishna is Shabat is dealing with a case where a simple reminder would not work.
The Mishna in the beginning of Klal Gadol in Shabat. Case 1) He forgot about Shabat he brings one offering. Case 2) He forgot today is Shabat he brings an offering for each shabat. Case 3) He knows today is shabat, but forgot one or more or all types of work.
The question of Rava is: "What happens if you put case 2) and 3) together?"
(The Gemara Sanhedrin started off with explaining אחת מהנה (the verse "one of them") is שגגת עבודה זרה וזדון עבודות .(i.e. Accidental idolatry and yet knowing the different types of idolatry are unlawful.) Full stop. At this point the Talmud interrupts the flow of the discussion instantly when the words accidental idolatry are mentioned and then asks, "What is it?")
Now Rashi says אומר מותר (He says to himself "It is allowed") means he thinks there is no such thing as idolatry. And he also says that Rava is not referring to the original question of the Gemara.
The Ri (Rav Isaac, the grandson of Rashi) asks this question: "The actual question was not the same as if he forgot about Shabat totally שכח עיקר שבת. It was -he forgot today is shabat and work is forbidden. העלם זה וזה בידו So it is not parallel to the Mishna in Shabat in chapter 7. And that is why we don't answer the question of Rava from that Mishna. But then how does the statement of Rava about idolatry contain the answer to the question?
The Ri answers, the Talmud is thinking idolatry can't be forgotten totally because is the essence of being a Jew is to despise idolatry. And that is why idolatry is similar to the subject of the question of Rava about Shabat than the Mishna in Shabat. For the question is dealing with a situation where a simple reminder would perk the guy's memory. And the Mishna is Shabat is dealing with a case where a simple reminder would not work.
So what we have so far is the Talmud starts with a limited case accidental idolatry and knowing services. and it finishes with an even more limited case of forgetting both the major category and subdivisions.
Remember now this was the case of our original question and this is what caused the Ri to say אומר מותר is also limited to a case when he knows some idolatry somewhere is forbidden but thinks this particular one is allowed.
Now Rashi here says אומר מותר [He says to himself, "It is allowed."] means he thinks there is no such thing as idolatry. And he also says that Rava is not referring to the original question of the Gemara. These two statements of Rashi are the keys.
Rashi is aware of the question of the Ri. But let us think. We have a case of שגגת ע''ז [accidental idolatry] and we explained what that is. Then we jump and say maybe with this we can answer the question he forgot both. Why? For all we know he says it is allowed could refer to services also? And if he forgot both that is he says both this particular idolatry and also the four types of service are allowed, then maybe there too he would be liable more than one sacrifice?
That is even if you limit the case of אומר מותר like the Ri, you still have no answer to explain the Talmud.
So Rashi says Rava means like it sounds like he means everywhere when this statement of his is brought up --"He says to himself 'It is is allowed,'" means the guy says there is no prohibition to serve idols. And let me ask you now if one has totally forgotten the prohibition to serve idols or never knew it, does he bring a sacrifice for every kind of service and also for the sin of idolatry? Surely not! He brings one sin offering for the whole shebang. And this is what the Gemara is jumping on and this is why he could not answer Rava's question from the Mishna in Shabat. This is so beautiful it is astounding.
For what was our question? He forgot today is shabat and he forgot a few kinds of work; and we thought maybe he brings a sacrifice for each kind of forgetting. You can't answer this from the Mishna in Shabat. Forgetting about shabat completely does not tell us anything about our question
But you can answer our question from idolatry where is is obvious he brings one sacrifice and nothing more. And what was our question? It was based on the idea the more he forgets the more he has to bring. So now we know from idolatry that that surely cant be right because there too he forgot idolatry and all kinds of service and we know he brings only one sacrifice.
א) סנהדרין סב. המשנה בשבת פרק כלל גדול אומרת שלשה דינים לשלשה מצבים. 1) אם בן אדם שכח עיקר שבת הוא מביא קרבן אחד. 2) אם הוא יודע עיקר שבת ושכח שהיום שבת, אז הוא מביא קרבן על כל שבת. 3) אם הוא יודע שהיום שבת ושכח מלאכות, הוא מביא קרבן על כל סוג מלאכה. רבא שאל מה קורה אם אתה מצרף מצב 2) ומצב 3)? היינו העלם זה וזה בידו? התלמוד בסנהדרין רוצה לתרץ את השאלה הזאת. הגמרא בסנהדרין התחילה לפרש "אחת מהנה" שהיא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות. והיא שואלת מה היא שגגת ע''ז? והיא מתרצת: אומר מותר. ואז היא המשיכה ואמרה אם כן העלם זה וזה בידו חייב קרבן אחד לבד.
רש''י אומר אומר מותר הוא שהוא אומר אין ע''ז בתורה. וגם שהמשפט של רבא הוא כללי. היינו שבא לומר יותר דברים חוץ מן לתרץ מה היא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות
הר''י שואל אם כן התירוץ אינו שווה בשווה עם השאלה.(יכול להיות אומר מותר יהיה חייב קרבו אחד אהעלם זה וזה בידו יהיה חייב יותר). והוא מתרץ ש"אומר מותר" הוא יותר מצומצם ממה שרש''י פירש כדי שיהיה מתאים לשאלה של רבא.(אומר מותר על ע''ז מיוחדת). אבל רש''י יכול לשאול אם אומר מותר רק במצב פרטי של איזה ע''ז פרטית, אם כן איך זה מתרץ את שאלת רבא? "אומר מותר" יכול להיות על איזה ע''ז פרטית וגם על עבודות. ולכן רש''י אומר שאומר מותר הוא כללי. ואם אדם שכח ע''ז לגמרי אין סברה לחייבו קרבן אחד על ע''ז וארבעה קרבנות על כל סוג עבודה. ולכן הגמרא מביאה מזה תירוץ לרבא, מה שלא הייתה יכולה לעשות מן המשנה בשבת. ויותר מזה. מה הייתה הסברה לחייבו יותר מקרבן אחד בשבת? בגלל שהיו שיכחות הרבה. וברור שזה לא עובד כאן בע''ז. ולכן יש תירוץ לשאלת רבא
I am not saying this is all wrapped up. Only that it is a beginning of a way to understand Rashi here.
We still have to figure out why the case of idolatry is knowable more than the case of Shabat.
You have to say that Rashi here in Sanhedrin is understanding the question of Rava differently than it is stated in Shabat. The only way idolatry can be an answer to Rava is if Rava's question is like the case he forgot that Shabat even exists at all.
For some reason, I can't understand my learning partner is perfectly happy with Rashi as is. And when I posed this problem with Rashi, he was the one who suggested that Rashi understands the question here differently than in Shabat
_______________________________________________ I came to my learning partner is located. And he asked me "Did you see Tosphot?"
I said "No, What Tosphot?"
He said on the opposite side of the page. It was printed in the wrong place so you did not see it. He asks exactly our question."
I was in shock! And so now I have to present what Tosphot says and how it affects us. The first answer of Tosphot is that the Gemara could have asked this question on תפשוט but instead found a better question. That means it in fact thinks there is no proof from אומר מותר to Shabat.. And the he says what I was saying in the name of the Ri. But one thing he does not say is the answer I wrote above to Rashi.
So what I think now is that Rashi could say what Tosphot says: that the Gemara could have asked one of two questions to throw out the idea and choose a better way.
Or Rashi could say like I wrote: that at this point we are learning division of work and division of services from the same verse so if we can see that adding "forgetting"s does not add sin offerings for idolatry then it would not do so for Shabat either.
But I am not sure.
Since everything I wrote above is already included in Tosphot I was thinking to erase the whole thing.
But on Shabat it occurred to me that you have to say that both answers of Tosphot depend on each other. Because even if you say אומר מותר he says it is allowed is limited, still it does not mean teh same as case (b) and (c) in that mishna in shabat. One could say for example he says a particular service is allowed. Or a particular idol is allowed. and thus you still would not have any answer. So you end up saying in any case that the Gemera just found a better way of pushing it off.
Remember now this was the case of our original question and this is what caused the Ri to say אומר מותר is also limited to a case when he knows some idolatry somewhere is forbidden but thinks this particular one is allowed.
Now Rashi here says אומר מותר [He says to himself, "It is allowed."] means he thinks there is no such thing as idolatry. And he also says that Rava is not referring to the original question of the Gemara. These two statements of Rashi are the keys.
Rashi is aware of the question of the Ri. But let us think. We have a case of שגגת ע''ז [accidental idolatry] and we explained what that is. Then we jump and say maybe with this we can answer the question he forgot both. Why? For all we know he says it is allowed could refer to services also? And if he forgot both that is he says both this particular idolatry and also the four types of service are allowed, then maybe there too he would be liable more than one sacrifice?
That is even if you limit the case of אומר מותר like the Ri, you still have no answer to explain the Talmud.
So Rashi says Rava means like it sounds like he means everywhere when this statement of his is brought up --"He says to himself 'It is is allowed,'" means the guy says there is no prohibition to serve idols. And let me ask you now if one has totally forgotten the prohibition to serve idols or never knew it, does he bring a sacrifice for every kind of service and also for the sin of idolatry? Surely not! He brings one sin offering for the whole shebang. And this is what the Gemara is jumping on and this is why he could not answer Rava's question from the Mishna in Shabat. This is so beautiful it is astounding.
For what was our question? He forgot today is shabat and he forgot a few kinds of work; and we thought maybe he brings a sacrifice for each kind of forgetting. You can't answer this from the Mishna in Shabat. Forgetting about shabat completely does not tell us anything about our question
But you can answer our question from idolatry where is is obvious he brings one sacrifice and nothing more. And what was our question? It was based on the idea the more he forgets the more he has to bring. So now we know from idolatry that that surely cant be right because there too he forgot idolatry and all kinds of service and we know he brings only one sacrifice.
א) סנהדרין סב. המשנה בשבת פרק כלל גדול אומרת שלשה דינים לשלשה מצבים. 1) אם בן אדם שכח עיקר שבת הוא מביא קרבן אחד. 2) אם הוא יודע עיקר שבת ושכח שהיום שבת, אז הוא מביא קרבן על כל שבת. 3) אם הוא יודע שהיום שבת ושכח מלאכות, הוא מביא קרבן על כל סוג מלאכה. רבא שאל מה קורה אם אתה מצרף מצב 2) ומצב 3)? היינו העלם זה וזה בידו? התלמוד בסנהדרין רוצה לתרץ את השאלה הזאת. הגמרא בסנהדרין התחילה לפרש "אחת מהנה" שהיא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות. והיא שואלת מה היא שגגת ע''ז? והיא מתרצת: אומר מותר. ואז היא המשיכה ואמרה אם כן העלם זה וזה בידו חייב קרבן אחד לבד.
רש''י אומר אומר מותר הוא שהוא אומר אין ע''ז בתורה. וגם שהמשפט של רבא הוא כללי. היינו שבא לומר יותר דברים חוץ מן לתרץ מה היא שגגת ע''ז וזדון עבודות
הר''י שואל אם כן התירוץ אינו שווה בשווה עם השאלה.(יכול להיות אומר מותר יהיה חייב קרבו אחד אהעלם זה וזה בידו יהיה חייב יותר). והוא מתרץ ש"אומר מותר" הוא יותר מצומצם ממה שרש''י פירש כדי שיהיה מתאים לשאלה של רבא.(אומר מותר על ע''ז מיוחדת). אבל רש''י יכול לשאול אם אומר מותר רק במצב פרטי של איזה ע''ז פרטית, אם כן איך זה מתרץ את שאלת רבא? "אומר מותר" יכול להיות על איזה ע''ז פרטית וגם על עבודות. ולכן רש''י אומר שאומר מותר הוא כללי. ואם אדם שכח ע''ז לגמרי אין סברה לחייבו קרבן אחד על ע''ז וארבעה קרבנות על כל סוג עבודה. ולכן הגמרא מביאה מזה תירוץ לרבא, מה שלא הייתה יכולה לעשות מן המשנה בשבת. ויותר מזה. מה הייתה הסברה לחייבו יותר מקרבן אחד בשבת? בגלל שהיו שיכחות הרבה. וברור שזה לא עובד כאן בע''ז. ולכן יש תירוץ לשאלת רבא
I am not saying this is all wrapped up. Only that it is a beginning of a way to understand Rashi here.
We still have to figure out why the case of idolatry is knowable more than the case of Shabat.
You have to say that Rashi here in Sanhedrin is understanding the question of Rava differently than it is stated in Shabat. The only way idolatry can be an answer to Rava is if Rava's question is like the case he forgot that Shabat even exists at all.
For some reason, I can't understand my learning partner is perfectly happy with Rashi as is. And when I posed this problem with Rashi, he was the one who suggested that Rashi understands the question here differently than in Shabat
_______________________________________________ I came to my learning partner is located. And he asked me "Did you see Tosphot?"
I said "No, What Tosphot?"
He said on the opposite side of the page. It was printed in the wrong place so you did not see it. He asks exactly our question."
I was in shock! And so now I have to present what Tosphot says and how it affects us. The first answer of Tosphot is that the Gemara could have asked this question on תפשוט but instead found a better question. That means it in fact thinks there is no proof from אומר מותר to Shabat.. And the he says what I was saying in the name of the Ri. But one thing he does not say is the answer I wrote above to Rashi.
So what I think now is that Rashi could say what Tosphot says: that the Gemara could have asked one of two questions to throw out the idea and choose a better way.
Or Rashi could say like I wrote: that at this point we are learning division of work and division of services from the same verse so if we can see that adding "forgetting"s does not add sin offerings for idolatry then it would not do so for Shabat either.
But I am not sure.
Since everything I wrote above is already included in Tosphot I was thinking to erase the whole thing.
But on Shabat it occurred to me that you have to say that both answers of Tosphot depend on each other. Because even if you say אומר מותר he says it is allowed is limited, still it does not mean teh same as case (b) and (c) in that mishna in shabat. One could say for example he says a particular service is allowed. Or a particular idol is allowed. and thus you still would not have any answer. So you end up saying in any case that the Gemera just found a better way of pushing it off.
