Gefet: Gemara Rashi and Tosafot.
In our perek there are a number of sugiyot which deal with the identification of the arba minim. It seems that at least two of them reveal fundamental principles in Torah interpretation. We will look at two sugiyot on daf 32 and the argument between Rashi and Tosfot on them.
On daf 32a Ravina and Rav Ashi discuss the identification of the lulav:
אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי: ממאי דהאי כפות תמרים דלולבא הוא? אימא חרותא! – בעינא כפות, וליכא. – ואימא אופתא! – כפות מכלל דאיכא פרוד, והאי כפות ועומד לעולם. – ואימא כופרא! – אמר אביי: דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום כתיב.
Ravina asks an interpretive question: how did we arrive at the conclusion that the “כפות תמרים” mentioned in the pasuk refers specifically to the lulav? Ravina suggests a few other options for identifying “כפות תמרים”, but Rav Ashi rejects each one of them. We will use Rashi to help clarify this conversation:
- Ravina suggests that instead of taking a closed lulav, that we take a lulav “חירותא”, which is an open branch. Rav Ashi answers that the word “כפות” signifies that specifically a closed lulav is required – bound and tied.
- Ravina suggests “אופתא”, meaning part of the actual trunk which is completely “כפות”. Rav Ashi responds that “כפות” is referring to something that can be loosened when it is tied, but a tree trunk isn’t loose.
- Ravina’s last suggestion is “כופרא”. Rashi explains that this is an in-between stage between the lulav and the fully open branch. It is a young palm leaf which can still be tied and bound.
Rav Ashi doesn’t have a response to the last suggestion of Ravina – but here, the gemara does something surprising and quotes an answer from a generation which preceded Ravina and Rav Ashi. Ravina and Rav Ashi were amoraim in the seventh generation in Babylonia, yet now, surprisingly, the gemara brings Abayei into the discussion. Abayei was an amora from the fourth generation. This means that we need to notice the fact that Abayei didn’t really answer Ravina’s question, rather was quoted in the beit midrash as a response to his question. What is Abayei’s claim, and how can this be an answer for Ravina? Abayei had a fundamental principle regarding the way that the Torah should be interpreted, which reaches beyond the specific interpretation of the word “כפות”. Abayei says: “דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום – כתיב”, meaning that when we come to interpret the Torah, we need to do so according to the principle of pleasantness and peace. How does this principle negate the last suggestion of Ravina? Rashi explains:
דרכיה דרכי נועם – ואלו עשוין כקוצים, ויוצאין בהן עוקצין הרבה, ומסרטין את הידים.
The “כופרא”, which Ravina suggested, is a branch that already started to develop and has already hardened – all of its leaves are already sharp and prickly. Though they can be bound together, this comes with a price: scratched hands. Therefore, when we have a choice between two interpretations, one which scratches and hurts while the other one does not, we will negate the one that scratches and hurts because of the guiding principle of “דרכיה דרכי נעם”.
Learning the sugiya with the help of Rashi sharpens the notion that this sentence of Abayei which appears in the middle of the sugiya is a general rule of interpreting the pesukim of the Torah. The whole discussion here, which is surrounding the meaning of the word “כפת” , was held between amoraim in the last generation of the gemara. The principle of Abayei stands out in this context as a principle which belongs to a deeper interpretive claim. We will continue onto the next page and will see that this principle of Abayei is repeated and receives new emphasis and further development:
תנו רבנן: ענף עץ עבת – שענפיו חופין את עצו. ואי זה הוא – הוי אומר זה הדס. ואימא זיתא! – בעינן עבת וליכא. ואימא דולבא! – בעינן ענפיו חופין את עצו וליכא. – ואימא הירדוף! – אמר אביי: דרכיה דרכי נעם וליכא. רבא אמר מהכא: האמת והשלום אהבו.
After the gemara discusses the lulav, it moves on to discuss the identification of the hadas. The gemara opens with a braita which identifies the “עץ העבות” as hadas. In this sugiya, we don’t have specific speakers, rather it is the stam of the gemara which discusses the braita and suggests a number of additional options for the identification of the “עץ העבות”. The structure of the sugiya here is parallel to the sugiya that we saw on the previous page and has a similar progression. Here too we will use Rashi to help us:
The stam suggests that the “ענף עץ עבות” is an olive branch as it has lots of leaves which completely cover the tree. This suggestion is rejected as the covering needs to be מעשה עבות, like a chain. We will add to Rashi and will mention that we know the word “עבות” in the context of a chain from the description of the hoshen which needs to be buttoned with golden chains.
- The stam suggests the plane-tree as “ענף עץ עבות”. Rashi explains that this is a tree whose leaves create a chain, however, the gemara rejects this option because the leaves don’t cover the branch completely. At this point in the gemara we have seen that there are two meanings to the word “עבות” – covered, and chain, and only a tree which has both of these elements will be worthy of taking.
- The gemara continues and suggests the “הרדוף” which has both of these criteria. Yet here, we have a different type of problem. The gemara quotes Abayei and Rava: Abayei opposes this on the backdrop of the pasuk which was brought in the previous sugiya: “דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום”. Here, however, it seems that Abayei has a chavruta who learns a similar or even identical principle from a different pasuk: Rava rejects the suggestion that the “רודף” is the hadas on the basis of a different pasuk, as it says: “רבא אמר מהכא: האמת והשלום אהבו”.
We have seen thus far that there are two sugiyot on one page which teach us how we need to read the pesukim of the Torah. We need to be exact in the meaning that we give, and to choose the species which fits the best with the multi-faceted word written in the Torah. However, literal exactness isn’t enough. We also need to fit additional criteria of “דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום” and “האמת והשלום אהבו”. We will mention that these principles appear in other sugiyot in shas and are not limited to interpretations of the arba minim (those who are curious can Google the phrase “ דרכיה דרכי נעם” and find more information on the subject, but this is not the place to expand upon this).
The Argument between Rashi and Tosfot
In our sugiya there is an interesting argument between Rashi and Tosfot which at first glance seems technical. We will present the argument and will try to clarify it in order to sharpen our understanding and reveal a deeper point with regards to the principles of interpretation.
As we saw, one of the main differences between the sugiya that deals with the hadas and the one that deals with the lulav is the addition of the opinion of Rava. In both, Abayei brings the same principle of “דרכיה דרכי נעם”. Rava brings a different pasuk. From the simple reading, it seems as if there is a difference between the reason brought by Abayei and the reason brought by Rava for disqualifying the הרדוף – but the gemara doesn’t mention it. Rashi enlightens us in that in his explanation, he shows how each one of the reasons relates to a different problem in the הרדוף:
דרכי נועם – והאי מברז בריז את הידים כקוצים, שראשי עליו עשויין חדין כמחט.
האמת והשלום אהבו – וזה אינו לא אמת ולא שלום, שהוא עשוי לסם המות.
Rashi’s interpretation of the sugiya sharpens the difference between Abayei and Rava with regards to the reason they disqualify the הרדוף from being the hadas: Abayei is worried about shaking a prickly plant which will scratch the person’s hands, while Rava is bothered by something else – the הרדוף being poisonous. Rashi’s explanation can answer another question that arises from reading the gemara: why is Rava not mentioned at all on the previous page where we discussed the lulav, and only Abayei’s pasuk is brought? According to Rashi’s interpretation, is is clear – all of the options for the lulav were not poisonous, rather only prickly, and therefore only Abayei’s claim was relevant. In the discussion about the hadas, however, when we are talking about a plant that is both prickly and poisonous, there is room for an argument between Abayei and Rava – the question being: is the basis of the disqualification because of prickliness or the fact that it is poisonous?
The Tosfot raise a bunch of difficulties on Rashi’s interpretation, and as is usual for them, bring other sugiyot from shas. Therefore, in order to understand the progression in Tosfot, we will examine the central sugiya that they refer to: Pesachim 39a:
תני דבי (רבי) שמואל, אלו ירקות שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח: בחזרת, בעולשין, ובתמכא, ובחרבינין, ובחרגינין, ובהרדופנין….
אמר ליה רב רחומי לאביי: ממאי דהאי מרור מין ירק הוא? אימא מרירתא דכופיא! – דומיא דמצה, מה מצה גידולי קרקע – אף מרור גידולי קרקע. – ואימא הירדוף! – דומיא דמצה, מה מצה מין זרעים – אף מרור מין זרעים
This sugiya raises two questions:
- In the beginning of the sugiya it says that you can fulfil your requirement for eating maror on Pesach by eating הרדוף. If so, this proves that it is not poisonous. From here it is difficult that Rashi explained that הרדוף is poisonous and that this is the reason that Rava disqualified it from being the hadas.
- The second part of the sugiya is parallel to the discussions we have in Sukkah – there they deal with the identification of the maror, and here we are dealing with the identification of the hadas. In Pesachim, the הרדוף is mentioned, but it is not rejected on the basis of the principles of Abayei and Rava, rather for a different reason: the הרדוף is not maror because in order for it to be maror, it needs to be from a type of plant that is not a tree, just like matzah. Why was it not rejected because of the reason of דרכיה דרכי נעם or והאמת והשלום?
After this introduction, we will look at Tosfot and will see how the sugiya in Pesachim is the basis for their interpretation.
האמת והשלום אהבו – וזה אינו לא אמת ולא שלום שהוא עשוי לסם המות כך פירש הקונטרס, ועל חנם הוזקק לומר טעם בפני עצמו אכל קרא דכל חד שייך אתרוייהו ומתוך פירושו משמע דהירדוף היינו הרדופני בפרק אלו טרפות (חולין דף נח:) אחוזת דם והמעושנת ושאכלה הרדופני שהוא סם המות לבהמה ואי אפשר לומר כן כדמוכח בפ’ כל שעה (פסחים דף לט. ושם) גבי מרור דקא חשיב הרדופני גבי ירקות שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח. והירדוף פסל התם משום דמה מצה מין זרעים אף מרור מין זרעים אלא היינו דלא חשיב לא נועם ולא שלום לפי שראשי עליו חדין ועוקצין את הידים והאי טעמא לא הוי מצי למימר גבי מרור שיכול לכותשו או להסיר עוקציו ולאכול אבל הכא גבי נטילת לולב צריך כל המינים כדרך גדילתן.
The Tosfot is built from four parts:
- Stage A – The Tosfot quote Rashi’s interpretation and reject it. They claim that there is no difference between Abayei and Rava. Although they each quote a different pasuk, they mean the same thing.
- Stage B – The Tosfot comment that Rashi identifies the הרדוף as a plant called “הרדופני” which appears in a sugiya in Chullin and is described there as poisonous for animals.
- Stage C – The Tosfot raise a difficulty in identifying it with the “הרדופני”, because in Massechet Pesachim, it is mentioned as one of the plants that can fulfil one’s obligation for maror, and so cannot be a poisonous plant. Therefore it must be a plant that is only prickly but not poisonous, and so we can’t interpret Rava the way that Rashi did.
- Stage D – The Tosfot point to a seeming contradiction between the sugiyot: in Pesachim, the הרדוף wasn’t rejected because of its thorns, whereas the thorns are what disqualify the הרדוף from being the hadas. Why? Tosfot answer that since in Pesachim it is dealing with eating the הרדוף, the thorns can be removed, and so there is no problem of “דרכיה דרכי נעם”.
We will note that Tosfot explain the sugiya in Pesachim well, but the sugiya in Sukkah remains difficult for them: in our sugiya, it seems that there is an argument between Abayei and Rava and that each pasuk has a different meaning – otherwise why bring both? Tosfot’s statement that the pesukim are identical in meaning is difficult, yet they prefer this to seeing a contradiction with Masechet Pesachim. Another problem with Tosfot is the question of why Rava’s pasuk is not mentioned in the discussion about lulav? If it doesnt talk about poison, but rather about prickliness, it should have appeared in the previous sugiya as well. We will take a glance at Tosfot on the previous page and will see that they are aware of this problem and deal with it in a very difficult way.
דרכיה דרכי נועם – רבא לא היה שם משום הכי לא מייתי הכא קרא דהאמת והשלום כדלקמן.
Tosfot say that the reason that Rava’s opinion wasn’t mentioned in the discussion about lulav is simple and technical: Rava wasn’t in the beit midrash during that discussion. As we have seen, this is a difficult answer, since the whole discussion took place in a later generation, between Ravina and Rav Ashi. Abayei was also not there in actuality, rather he was quoted, and so just like he was quoted, Rava could have been quoted as well.
Thus we have seen that there is an argument between Rashi and Tosfot as to the identification of the הרדוף and in the reading of the sugiya, and we pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of Tosfot’s reading. We are left to go back and ask: how does Rashi read the sugiya in Pesachim? Tosfot’s difficulty on Rashi is significant, as it seems that הרדוף is not poisonous as it is mentioned as a plant that can be eaten as maror. In order to reconcile Rashi’s position, we will look at his words in Pesachim and in the מהר”ם חלוואה on the sugiya.
Rashi in Pesachim explains the הרדופיני which appears at the beginning of the sugiya in this way:
הירדופנין – יש מפרשין אלוישנ”א לענה (אבסינת).
This means that according to Rashi’s opinion, the plant that is suggested as an option for maror isn’t the הרדוף, rather the לענה. Rashi says that there are those who explain this way, and the “those” is Rashi himself, who is consistent with his opinion, as according to his opinion in Sukkah, the הרדוף is the poisonous plant that is mentioned in Chullin. However, from Rashi it seems as though there are others that explain in a different way. What is the alternative? We will look at a later Rashi, where he explains the word הרדוף again in the continuation of the sugiya.
הירדוף – עץ שהמתיק בו משה את מי מרה, ואמרינן (בסוטה) (מכילתא פרשת בשלח): נס בתוך נס, שהוא היה מר, והוא הירדוף.
Here, Rashi’s explanation is interesting as he shows that there is another type of הרדוף, and it seems that this is the poisonous one. If so, why did the sugiya not reject it because of the fact that it is poisonous? The המהר”ם חלוואה deals with this questions and answers something surprising:
ואימא הרדוף מה מצה מין זרעים וכו’, וא”ת אמאי לא שני ליה כההיא דפרק לולב הגזול דמקשה ואימא הרדופני ומשני אמר אביי דרכיה דרכי נועם כתיב והכא ליכא נועם משום קוצים דאית ביה רבא אמר האמת והשלום אהבו כלומר והאי סם המות הוא לבהמה ואפשר דלאדם נמי מזיק. א”ל התם שאני דניטול כבריתו איכא קוצים אבל הכא דלאכילה מתקן ליה במאי דבעי, וכן הכא כיון דרמז לשעבוד למצרים ומרירות עבדי’ הוה אמינא דאע”ג דאית ביה קצת היזק שפיר דמי קמ”ל מטעמא אחרינא.
The המהר”ם חלוואה says that here it is indeed talking about the הרדוף that is poisonous for animals, but that it also harms people minimally. The sugiya really thought that regarding the mitzvah of maror, it is possible that the Torah wanted us to be hurt a little so that by eating it, we can have a small feeling of the suffering in Egypt. Therefore, the idea of “דרכיה דרכי נעם” isn’t relevant because there is no pleasantness in eating maror. We have seen, therefore, that it is possible that in Rashi’s opinion, the הרדוף is a little bit poisonous for people, and therefore the rules of “דרכיה דרכי נעם” and “והאמת והשלום אהבו” aren’t relevant for the mitzvah of maror.
In conclusion, we will go back to the sugiya and will sharpen Rashi’s reading of it. Rashi really consistently sees הרדוף as a plant that is poisonous for animals and slightly harmful for humans. According to the understanding of the מהר”ם חלוואה, Rashi raised the possibility that for the mitzvah of maror, we can eat something that is slightly harmful to us. In light of this, we can better understand the argument between Abayei and Rava in our sugiya.
Taking the lulav involves shaking, not eating. According to Rashi’s opinion, Abayei thinks that הרדוף can’t be one of the arba minim because it injures people. The fact that is poisonous isn’t relevant to Abayei’s opinion because we don’t eat it, and therefore he specifically chooses the pasuk “דרכיה דרכי נעם”. Rava goes in a different direction and chooses a different pasuk: “האמת והשלום אהבו”. Rava says, it is true that we only shake the הרדוף, but its real nature is that of death and not of life, and therefore, even though we don’t eat it, it can’t be one of the arba minim. The arba minim need to have an inside that matches their outside, and therefore if there is an inner problem as to the truth of the הרדוף, even if it isn’t eaten, this inner blemish will disqualify it for being taken as a hadas.
Summary:
- What is הרדוף in the sugiya? According to Tosfot it is a species which is prickly but not poisonous. According to Rashi, it is something that is poisonous for animals and minimally harmful to humans.
- Can something which is slightly harmful be eaten as maror? According to Tosfot, certainly not! According to Rashi, in the opinion of the מהר”ם חלוואה, it could be, since with regards to maror, there is no place for pleasantness and peace as its essence is to be a reminder of the suffering of Egypt.
- What is the relationship between Abayei and Rava? According to Tosfot, they completely agree, and although they each chose a different pasuk, they don’t argue about anything. According to Rashi, Abayei disqualifies it on the basis of its outside, as there is no need to eat the arba minim. According to Rava, there is a reason to disqualify it as one of the arba minim on the basis of a problem with eating, and not only on an external problem – the arba minim can’t be poisonous, and in this he argues with Abayei.
- We saw that in questions of interpretation, we need to look at the greater context and rules of interpretation beyond being exact in the words of the pasuk – דרכיה דרכי נעם והאמת והשלום אהבו. We also need to ask if we are dealing with a mitzvah which is a reminder of suffering or a mitzvah whose whole purpose is to bring us closer to Hashem.
(Translated by Daphna Ansel-Nizan)
