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.

Daf Yomi Pesachim: Leaving at Ki Tov

I just started more seriously learning through Pesachim, this time around, for Daf Yomi. Eruvin was a killer, but I just finished that. So I am about 50 blatt behind.

I checked out the Artscroll app. It is nice. I like how I can focus just on the tzuras hadaf and read it, and just when I want to double-check that I have the nukkud right, or that I am translating it for myself correctly, I touch the word or phrase and phrase and see the pop-up. I also like how, when I click on a word of phrase, it will highlight for me the associated Rashi and Tosafot, and that when I click on a Tosafot, it will highlight the relevant section of gemara. I just clicked on a Rashi, and it highlighted the associated gemara as well as a Gilyon HaShas on that Rashi. Very need, and it will hopefully encourage users to stay on the actual daf.

Anyway, here is something on Pesachim 2a. I would like to respond to certain questions raised by Tosafot. The gemara is trying to advance evidence that Or means either night or day. And its first proof it this:

מיתיבי (בראשית מד, ג) הבקר אור והאנשים שולחו אלמא אור יממא הוא מי כתיב האור בקר הבקר אור כתיב כמאן דאמר צפרא נהר וכדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב

"They [the scholars producing the setama degemara] raised an objection [from a verse in Bereishit 44:3, about the brothers of Yosef, when they left Yosef's house, just after Yosef had commanded his steward to hide his goblet in Binyamin's sack]: 

ג  הַבֹּקֶר, אוֹר; וְהָאֲנָשִׁים שֻׁלְּחוּ, הֵמָּה וַחֲמֹרֵיהֶם.

3 As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their asses.

Thus, Or means day! Does it say the Or was morning? Rather, it says the morning was Or. And it is like one who says "Tzafra Nahar" [the day is light]. And this [their action?] is in accordance with Rav Yehuda citing Rav. Because Rav Yehuda cited Rav, 'a person should always enter with Ki Tov [=at Boker] and exit with Ki Tov."

The setama degemara here is referencing a statement of Rav Yehuda citing Rav which is found in Bava Kamma daf 60a-b:

Rab Judah stated that Rab said: A man should always enter [a town] by daytime and leave by daytime, as it say's, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.¹

The pasuk cited is in Shemot 12:22, about Makkat Bechorot:

כב  וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב, וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר-בַּסַּף, וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, מִן-הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף; וְאַתֶּם, לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ--עַד-בֹּקֶר.	22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side-posts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning.
כג  וְעָבַר ה, לִנְגֹּף אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת-הַדָּם עַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת; וּפָסַח ה, עַל-הַפֶּתַח, וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית, לָבֹא אֶל-בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף.	23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

This is either Hashem by Himself, with no shaliach, or else his angelic agents of destruction.

Tosafot write, in Pesachim 2a, as follows:

יכנס בכי טוב. אור"י דבפרק הכונס (דף ס ושם:) משמע דטעם הוי משום מזיקין דמפיק ליה התם מלא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו וקרא משום מזיקין קא מזהיר דמפקינן מיניה התם כיון שניתן רשות למשחית וכו' ולפי זה אפילו מעירו אדם צריך ליזהר שיצא בכי טוב והא דנקט כניסה תחלה היינו משום דאורחא דגמרא למינקט הכי כמו מטפס ועולה ומטפס ויורד בפרק עושין פסין (דף כא.) דנקט עליה תחלה ובפ' במה מדליקין (דף לד:) בין השמשות כהרף עין זה נכנס וזה יוצא וקשה הא דריש רב יהודה הא דרשה גופה מקרא אחרינא דלא תצאו בפרק הכונס (דף ס. ושם:) ואומר רשב"א דצריכי תרי קראי הבקר אור צריך לעיר אחרת ואפי' היכא דליכא למיחש למזיקין כגון אחי יוסף דהוו י"א והטעם מפני הפחתים וקרא דלא תצאו איצטריך לעירו ומפני המזיקין:

I will respond to their last point first:

 וקשה הא דריש רב יהודה הא דרשה גופה מקרא אחרינא דלא תצאו בפרק הכונס (דף ס. ושם:) ואומר רשב"א דצריכי תרי קראי הבקר אור צריך לעיר אחרת ואפי' היכא דליכא למיחש למזיקין כגון אחי יוסף דהוו י"א והטעם מפני הפחתים וקרא דלא תצאו איצטריך לעירו ומפני המזיקין:

"And it is difficult, that Rav Yehuda [citing Rav] darshens this derasha itself from a different pasuk, namely that [of Makkat Bechorot, in Shemot] of לֹא תֵצְאו, in perek HaKones [daf 60a]. And Rashba says that we need both verses, that of [Bereishit, Yosef's brothers] because of [going to] another city, such that it is even where one need not worry about mazikin [demons, evil spirits], such as the brothers of Yosef, who numbered 11, and the reason is because of the pits. Meanwhile, the verse refers to his own city {Josh: perhaps since one need not fear pits}, and because of the evil spirits."

I must confess that what bothers Tosafot does not bother me the slightest. The pasuk in Shemot is the prooftext for Rav's statement, as we see in Bava Kamma. The pasuk in Bereishit, mentioned in our gemara in Pesachim, is not a prooftext! Indeed, Rav and Rav Yosef know nothing about this pasuk. It is the setama degemara that is trying to determine the meaning of Or and brings in this pasuk, and then references this idea of Rav Yehuda citing Rav Yosef to explain the pasuk.

The idea is that the Shevatim kept the entirety of the Torah, including Rabbinic law, and so naturally followed the statement of Rav when leaving the abode of the vizier of Egypt. In other words, why did they leave in the morning? Because of Rav. But don't then turn around and take their action as a source for Rav's rule. It is a target, not a source. And indeed, the actual source sounds like a source for an injuction, לֹא תֵצְאו.

[A peshat explanation of this might be that daytime is the proper time to start a journey, and the pasuk is informing us that they left at their earliest possible opportunity because they so desperately wanted to escape that fraught situation. And then that plan was shattered.]

Also, the Rashba explained the distinction between the two prooftexts as that one was a concern for mazikin, while the other was a concern for pits. I would like to question this assumption, at the same time that I question the first part of Tosafot:

אור"י דבפרק הכונס (דף ס ושם:) משמע דטעם הוי משום מזיקין דמפיק ליה התם מלא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו וקרא משום מזיקין קא מזהיר דמפקינן מיניה התם כיון שניתן רשות למשחית

"The Ri said that in perek HaKones [Bava Kamma 60a-b] it imples that the reason is because of demons, because they derive it there from [the pasuk in Shemot] לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ, and that verse is because of mazikin that it warns, for we derive from it there [in Bava Kamma immediately above], 'once permission was given to the [Mashchis] Destroyer...'"

However, I do not believe that this reading can sustain a careful examination of the sugya in Bava Kamma 60a-b. The gemara there reads:

תאני רב יוסף מאי דכתיב (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר כיון שניתן רשות למשחית אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים ולא עוד אלא שמתחיל מן הצדיקים תחלה שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, ח) והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע בכי רב יוסף כולי האי נמי לאין דומין א"ל אביי טיבותא הוא לגבייהו דכתיב (ישעיהו נז, א) כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב שנאמר (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר 

ת"ר דבר בעיר כנס רגליך שנאמר ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ואומר (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך בעדך ואומר (דברים לב, כה) מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה 

R. Joseph learnt: What is the meaning of the verse, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning?²⁴  Once permission has been granted to the Destroyer, he does not distinguish between righteous and wicked. Moreover, he even begins with the righteous at the very outset, as it says:²⁵  And I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.²⁶  R. Joseph wept at this, saying: So much are they²⁷  compared to nothing!²⁸  But Abaye [consoling him,] said: This is for their advantage, as it is written, That the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.²⁹

Rab Judah stated that Rab said: A man should always enter [a town] by daytime and leave by daytime, as it say's, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.¹

Our Rabbis taught: When there is an epidemic in the town keep your feet inside [the house], as it says, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning,¹  and it further says, Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers and shut thy doors about thee;²  and it is again said: The sword without, the terror within shall destroy.³  Why these further citations? — Lest you might think that the advice given above⁴  refers only to the night, but not to the day. Therefore, come and hear: Come, my people, enter thou into thy chamber, and shut thy doors about thee.⁵  And should you say that these apprehensions apply only where there is no terror inside,⁶  whereas where there is terror inside⁶  it is much better to go out and sit among people in one company, again come and hear: The sword without, the terror within shall destroy,³  implying that [even where] the terror is'within'⁶  the 'sword'⁷  will destroy [more] without. In the time of an epidemic Raba used to keep the windows shut, as it is written, For death is come up into our windows.⁸

There are thus three different sources which interpret the pasuk ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר. There is Rav Yosef, Rav Yehuda citing Rav, and the brayta. Though they are juxtaposed because of interpreting the same pasuk, that does not prove that they are speaking about the same topic, namely the Mashchis.

Furthermore, what is the "Mashchis" of Rav Yosef? He is connecting to the peshat meaning of the pasuk, where there was a destructive force wiping out the Egyptian firstborn. That destructive force was either an angel from Hashem, or else Hashem Himself. And despite the target being the Egyptian firstborn, the Israelites were commanded to stay inside, lest they be harmed as well. The "Mashchis", "Destroyer", of the pasuk is not a sheid, a demon.

And Rav Yosef is extrapolating from this case to general cases where the Mashchis has been given authority to act. This, again, is not sheidim. Think instead of widespread disaster -- a tornado, a hurricane, pestilence. In such cases, he says, the righteous are taken along with the wicked, and even targeted first. This is a far cry from sheidim which happen to attack solitary people at night. So, one should not extrapolate from Rav Yosef's mention of a Mashchis to the conclusion that Rav was speaking about sheidim.

However, as I wrote above, this does not rule out shedim. After all, who says that there is any semantic connection between Rav and Rav Yosef, further than that they are interpreting the same pasuk? Indeed, Rashi there explains that Rav Yosef's concern includes shedim:

בכי טוב - בעוד חמה זורחת ילין במלון ולא ימתין עד שתחשך ולבקר לא ישכים לצאת עד שיאיר כי טוב לישנא מעליא האור כי טוב כלומר טוב הוא לצאת בו וליכנס בו מפני המזיקין והליסטין:

Because of mazikin and robbers. But note that it is not solely demons; it is also robbers. Basically, Rashi is helpfully explaining why someone would be concerned with going out at night.

If so, the same concern can apply to Yosef's brothers, even though they number eleven.

Is there any Targum Onkelos on Atarot v'Divon?

Summary: Not according to Rashi and Tosafot. So why do we have it in our Mikraos Gedolos?

Post: Parshat Matos contains the famous pasuk with no change in the Targum, atarot vedivon:

לב,ג עֲטָרוֹת וְדִיבֹן וְיַעְזֵר וְנִמְרָה, וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן וְאֶלְעָלֵה, וּשְׂבָם וּנְבוֹ, וּבְעֹן.

עֲטָרוֹת וְדִיבוֹן וְיַעְזֵר וְנִמְרָה, וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן וְאֶלְעָלֵה, וּשְׂבָם וּנְבוֹ, וּבְעוֹן.

This from Mechon-mamre, from the Temanim. Yet, in our Mikraos Gedolos, we have:

Ohev Ger explains:

"Ataros veDivon, etc. -- this entire pasuk is simple verse and targum, just like Reuven, Shimon. (So in מא"ד קע"ד and סביוניטה.) Also, the author of sefer יא"ר says nothing about it. And in sefer מא"ד they add in the margin that כללתא and מלבישתא, etc. {as in our Mikraos Gedolos}. And there are many variants which I have found in these names between different nuschaot which I have seen, and I did not see fit to record them, since it is clear to me that they are not from Targum Onkelos, but rather an addition taken from Targum Yerushalmi, as is the testimony of Tosafot (Berachot daf 8), and Rashi za"l clearly says, "And even Atarot and Divon which have no Targum."

The reference is to the gemara in Berachot daf 8a going into 8b:

אמר רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רבי אמי לעולם ישלים אדם פרשיותיו עם הצבור שנים מקרא ואחד  תרגום  ואפילו (במדבר לב, ג) עטרות ודיבון שכל המשלים פרשיותיו עם הצבור מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו

Or, in English:

R. Huna b. Judah says in the name of R. Ammi: A man should always complete his Parashoth together with the congregation,³⁴  [reading] twice the Hebrew text and once the [Aramaic] Targum, and even [such verses as] Ataroth and Dibon,¹  for if one completes his Parashoth together with the congregation, his days and years are prolonged.

Rashi there says:

ואפי' עטרות ודיבון. שאין בו תרגום:

And Tosafot there agrees, though notes that there is a Targum there in Targum Yerushalmi:

ואפילו עטרות ודיבון וכו'. פי' רש"י אפי' עטרות ודיבון שאין בו תרגום שצריך לקרותו שלשה פעמים בעברי. וקשה אמאי נקט עטרות ודיבון שיש לו מ"מ תרגום ירושלמי. היה לו לומר ראובן ושמעון או פסוקא אחרינא שאין בו תרגום כלל. ויש לומר משום הכי נקט עטרות ודיבון אע"ג שאין בו תרגום ידוע אלא תרגום ירושלמי וצריך לקרות ג' פעמים העברי מ"מ יותר טוב לקרות פעם שלישית בתרגום:

Based on that, he asks a question why not give the pasuk of Reuven and Shimon which has no Targum at all in any Targumic text. And therefore they shift and reinterprets, that the Targum one should say on Ataros veDivon is the Yerushalmi, since that way one gives a Targum, even if it is not the standard one of Onkelos.

I think that Rashi is actually closer to peshat in this gemara. It reads better into the text, and the idea is that even though there is no Targum so this adds nothing semantically, we treat it as ritual and nusach of the formula we are obligated to say.

And as to Tosafot's question, I am sure Rashi could come up with what to answer. For instance, who says that Targum Yerushalmi, and this particular translation in the Targum Yerushlami, was actually in existence in that time and that place. Thus, in terms of dating this Targum:

Opinions concerning the connection between the Targums Jerushalmi I and Jerushalmi II agree in general that both are to be traced back to different recensions of an old Jerusalem Targum. This is the view of Zunz (p. 73, and passim), and also that of Geiger, "Urschrift und Udersetzungen der Bibel" (Berlin, 1857), 454. Bassfreund (infra) reaches the conclusion that the basis both of the Fragmentary Targum and that of the Pseudo-Jonathan is a complete Jerusalem Targum of post-Talmudic origin, but that the two Targums, Jerushalmi I and II, presuppose the existence of the Targum of Onkelos. The Fragmentary Targum gives from this ancient Jerusalem Targum gives from this ancient Jerusalem Targum, according to Bassfreund, only matter supplementary to Onkelos, while Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum have been used in preparing the Pseudo-Jonathan. In the preface to his edition of the Pseudo-Jonathan (see below) Ginsburger tries to prove that both the Fragmentary Targum and the Pseudo-Jonathan may be traced back to a very ancient Palestinian Targum, which was not influenced by the Targum of Onkelos until a later date. TheFragmentary Targum, in Ginsburger's opinion, represents a variant collection, not to Onkelos (as Bassfreund thinks), but to another recensions of that ancient Jerusalem Targum. Ginsburger's views will have to be accepted as the more probable.

If so, Tosafot's question might not even be a question. But if we assume that such a targumic variant did exist, that still does not mean that Rashi cannot be right.

Here is one way I might answer Tosafot's question on behalf of Rashi. The point of Targum is to lend new insight to textual difficulties. The Targum to 'Reuven Shimon' admittedly adds nothing, but we still know exactly who Reuven and Shimon are. But Atarot and Divon are unknown. Indeed, that is why Targum Yerushalmi saw fit to update the list with the modern equivalents. And Onkelos does this on occasion as well, I think, for other pesukim. Ataros veDivon is a nice example because we might have wanted a Targumic explanation, but we just say the same words, with no explanation. Even so, it counts as 'Targum' and we fulfill an obligation of Shnayim Mikra.

One other point. Given that the gemara is rather clear, and that Rashi and Tosafot are rather clear, that there is no Targum Onkelos on this pasuk, how and why did this borrowing come about?

I would lay the blame / credit squarely in Tosafot's lap. People used Chumashim to fulfill their obligation of learning Shnayim Mikra veEchad Targum. But if the Targum as found in Onkelos will not enable one to fulfill his obligation, according to Tosafot, then what good is it? So transfer the targum from Targum Yerushalmi into the standard Targum, and people can use the Chumash to fulfill their obligation.

A puzzling Tosafot about C-sections: Can a baby be born rectally?

Ishim veShittot tells of an interesting anatomical discussion in Tosafot in Keritut 7b.

The Mishna there relates:

מתני' יש מביאות קרבן ונאכל ויש מביאות קרבן ואינו נאכל ויש שאינם מביאות [מביאות] קרבן ונאכל המפלת כמין בהמה חיה ועוף דר"מ וחכ"א עד שיהא בו מצורת אדם המפלת סנדל או שיליא או שפיר מרוקם והיוצא מחותך וכן שפחה שהפילה מביאה קרבן ונאכל ואלו מביאות ואינן נאכלות המפלת ואין יודע מה הפילה ושתי נשים שהפילו אחת ממין פטור ואחת ממין חובה א"ר יוסי אימתי בזמן שהלכו זה למזרח וזה למערב אבל אם היו שתיהן עומדות שתיהן מביאות קרבן ונאכל אלו שאין מביאות המפלת שפיר מלא מים מלא דם מלא גנינים המפלת כמין דגים וחגבים ושקצים ורמשים המפלת יום ארבעים ויוצא דופן ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן:

The discussion is whether there is an obligation to bring the korban of a yoledes, and there is a dispute regarding the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon.

Surprisingly, Tosafot do NOT define yotzei dofen as a Cesarean section, cutting open the mother's belly and extracting the baby. They rather propose and discuss two other possibilities. another possibility (See update). Why should this be?

I would suggest that it is because of the same thing Rambam discusses in his perush haMishnayos on Bechoros, in the eighth perek. There, we read the Mishna and Rambam's comment (see this parshablog post):

Mishnah: A child born via Cesarean section, and the one who comes after him, neither of them is the firstborn, not to inheritance nor to the kohen. Rabbi Shimon says: The first one to inheritance and the second one to the five selaim {to redeem him from the kohen}.

Rambam: What is possible to be in this is that the woman was pregnant with two fetuses, and her belly was ripped open and one of them came out, and subsequently the second one came out in the normal way {, that is, vaginally}. But that which some relate, that the woman lives after they rip open her belly, and she becomes pregnant and then gives birth, I do not know of any grounds for it, and it is a very strange matter. And the halacha is not like Rabbi Shimon.

Thus, it is clear that the woman survives the C-section, but in medieval times a woman did not survive a C-section. Nowadays, of course, women (once again?) survive them.

So it is possible that the Baalei HaTosafot were well-aware of this process of removing an infant from its mother via C-section, after her death, or causing her death, but did not consider it a possible meaning of yitzei dofen because the Mishna makes it clear that the mother survives. Or it is possible that they were unaware since the procedure had fallen out of practice because of its fatal effect on the mother.

At any rate, Tosafot write as follows, on the daf in Krisus:

יוצא דופן. פי' ע"י סם פתחו לכריסה והוציאו הולד. ור"י לוי פי' דיצא דרך בית הרעי ואין נראה מדקאמר בפ"ק דבכורות גבי דג טמא שבלע דג טהור כגון שנמצא דרך בית הרעי ש"מ שא"א לצאת דרך בית הרעי אא"כ בלע שנכנס דרך הוושט אבל מה שמשריץ בתוך מיעיו לא יצא דרך בית הרעי:

Roughly:
Leaves via the wall: To explain, via an drug acid [thanks, to Wolf2191; see comments] they open her belly and take out the child. And Ri Levi explains that it went out via the rectum. And this does not appear so, from the fact that we state in the first perek of Bechorot regarding a non-kosher fish which swallowed a kosher fish, such that it is found by the end of the digestive tract, by the rectum. We derive from this that it is impossible for it to exit via the digestive tract unless it entered via the throat, but that which became a sheretz within its belly does not go out via the tract leading to the rectum.

This is indeed strange. I am not sure how to translate ע"י סם פתחו לכריסה והוציאו הולד. This does not seem to be inducing natural labor, for they refer to kreisah rather than rachmah. And they make no mention of a scalpel for cutting open her belly, only a sam, a drug. This would be C-section via drug, which is strange. Update: via an acid.

The second suggestion, of Ri Levi, is stranger. I don't think it is indeed possible. Naturally, the method of disproving it is not via appeals to medical experts of the day, but proofs from a Talmudic text. But who says that fish anatomy is the same as human anatomy?! Indeed, birds lay eggs out of their rectum, as the vagina and rectum combine into the cloaca.