Sunday, November 17, 2013

Yoma 3a: How does Rashi define regel leAtzmo

Something I noticed on Yoma 3a:

Rashi (underlined, right) defines regel leAtzmo that Shemini Atzeres does not have the name of Succot upon it.

Our Tosafot (underlined, left) cites Rashi to define regel leAtzmo as that one does not sit in the Succah.

Tosafot Yeshanim (underlined, lower left) cites Rashi as that one says "Chag Shemini Atzeres Hazeh" in davening. Which seems to be an interpretation of our Rashi, that it does not have Shem Succot upon it.

What should we make of our Tosafot though? Is this a girsa issue, that our Tosafot had a different version of Rashi? And, is that more of a stretch than saying that our Tosafot is somehow an interpretation of our Rashi, say, that since it does not have שם סוכות upon it, one does not sit in a Succah? I would lean towards it being a different tradition in Rashi.


AryehS said...

Rashi himself affirms in Rosh Hashana 4b that regel leatzmo meant a different name, explicitly referring to his comment in Yoma, and Tosfos gets it right. See also Chagiga 17a where Rashi says its because of the different name and again, Tosfos there gets it right. So I doubt there was a different girsa in Rashi.

But see Sukkah 48a where Rashi says because we don't sit in the Sukkah. That must be Tosfos's source in Yoma. But he's riffing off of Rashi in Sukkah, not Yoma.

joshwaxman said...



Blog Widget by LinkWithin