End of conversation that I heard and made be very proud:
--> What? Uncle Michael does lots of things that other people do.
--> I didn't say Uncle Michael doesn't do things that other people do. I said Uncle Michael doesn't do things because other people do.
So proud.
In parshas Chayei Sara this year, I learned a Rashi that I have read (I mean, I thought I had learned it, but...) dozens of times. Chapter 24, verse 57 -- in response to Eliezar saying he wants to take Rivka back to Isaac -- Rivka's mother and her brother say they need to call Rivka in to ask her. On that verse, Rashi comments:
מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּה/From here we learn that we may not marry off a woman without her consent.
Great. What's the problem? Well... in verse 51 Rivka's father and brother had already said to take her and go to let her be married to Isaac, as HaShem had said. So... if they had already made shidduch the night, not only does this not seem to prove the point, it seems that there was not, in fact, any issue with making the shidduch without the woman's consent. But... then why are they asking Rivka?
I didn't see anyone addressing this issue with Rashi's comment, so I decided to look up Rashi's source. Maybe there is some context that will help me? Nowadays you don't need to be an expert in Chazal, the Mkraos G'dolos (I have the red one, a gift from my son many years ago), but others have the source also. B'reishis Raba 60:12. Just the same statement, no context. One wee little change:
מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָיְתוֹמָה אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ/From here we learn that we may not marry off a orphan without her consent.
Well that is certainly a horse of a different color! So that's why they asked Rivka in the morning. Last night it was her father, Besuel, who made the shidduch. Besuel had died overnight (see Rashi about what happened to the poor, evil fellow). Cool, now I understand the medrash. However, why did Rashi change that word?
I had a thought, but I was nervous to say it out loud/publicize it in a TftD without some support. This time I looked harder and further. At the vasikin minyan we have a set of volumes with 11 commentaries on Rashi. Now I found what I was looking for. The Nachlas Yaakov says that Rashi changes the word to make the point that we posken like Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav -- others say like Rabbi Elazar -- that a father may not accept a marriage for his minor daughter until she is old enough to say, "Ploni is the one I want (to marry)". (Kiddushin 41a)
I have said for years that usually Rashi is quoting Chazal. I was wrong. Rashi is always paraphrasing Chazal. Moreover, Rashi is not simply telling you how to read this verse in its local context. Rashi is telling you how this verse fits into the entire world view of Chazal. That statement in Kiddushin is not based on a verse, it is just brought as a fact that was taught by Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav -- others say by Rabbi Elazar. Rashi, though has made a quite deep connection between the Written and Oral Torah. In general, that was the mission of the rishonim. Rashi is so brief and to the point, though, that it is easy to miss what he is doing.
Comments