Sanhedrin (92a) Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to anyone who amends the truth in his speech, it is as though he worships idols. As, it is written here, in the verse where Jacob sought to resist taking his father’s blessing from Esau: “And I shall seem to him a deceiver [metate’a]” (Genesis 27:12), and it is written there with regard to idol worship: “They are vanity, the work of deception [tatuim]” (Jeremiah 10:15).
Rashi says it is one who changes his speech speech so he is not recognized
המחליף בדבורו - משנה בדבורו שלא יהא ניכר:
However there is another gemorah in Bava Metzia (23b) which indicates that the phrase means to lie.
With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth: With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed.
Why did Rashi ignore the explanation of the gemora in his explanation here?
How can an average blog reader understand why Rashi didn't do x or y?
ReplyDeletePerhaps Gedolim might be able to answer, not a regular guy.
It's hard to know how to balance this.
ReplyDeleteA number of mitzvos where "One who keeps this is like one who keeps the whole Torah". A number of aveiros where "One who transgresses this is like one who transgresses the whole Torah." So if I keep one and transgress the other, where do I wind up?