What if the Maharal of Prague Had Access to Leipzig 1 and Other Manuscripts?
“What if the Maharal of Prague Had Access to Leipzig 1 and Other Manuscripts?”
On Shemos 23:19 – Rashi on ראשית בכורי אדמתך
By Eli Genauer
Summary: There is a statement in Rashi which appears in the overwhelming majority of early Rashi manuscripts, and in early printed editions. But because Gur Aryeh and others did not have access to these manuscripts, and because they felt that what Rashi said was incorrect, they ascribed the statement to a טעות סופר. Knowing that Rashi really did write these words might have changed their approach to this Pasuk.
שמות כ“ג
(יט) רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית ה’ אֱלֹקיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ
Rashi in Al HaTorah based on Leipzig 1:
ראשית בכורי אדמתך – אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן
Sefaria records it the same except it adds בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ at the end.
ראשית בכורי אדמתך. אַף הַשְּׁבִיעִית חַיֶּבֶת בְּבִכּוּרִים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר אַף כָּאן בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ.
Oz VeHadar Rashi HaMevuar records it as above without parentheses but comments that there are some who do not include this comment because one is not Chayav in Bikurim during Shemittah.
The discussion in their Miluim section records many opinions on this matter. It concludes by saying that this statement of Rashi contradicts a statement of his in Yevamot, thereby leaving the impression that the statement in Shemot 23:19 is questionable.
Artscroll Rashi Sapirstein Edition (1994) records these words in parentheses to indicate that there is a true doubt whether Rashi wrote them.[1]
Artscroll notes that “Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh argue that it cannot be Rashi’s work”, but that Nachalat Yaakov defends this version of Rashi.[2]
Chumash Ateret Rashi (Jerusalem 1998) records the words without parentheses but only cites Gur Aryeh who say that Rashi did not write them and Mizrachi who says that there are Seforim which don’t have them.
The position of Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh is based on the fact that they feel that the Halacha is that during the Shemitah year one is not obligated to bring Bikurim. Mizrachi cites some “Nuschaot” which do not have this comment and Gur Aryeh writes that this comment is בודאי טעות סופר
Mizrachi:
ראשית בכורי אדמתך אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים לכך נאמר אף כאן בכורי אדמתך. ברוב הספרים כתיב אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים. ונראה לי שאשר הביאם לזה הוא מפני שראו של גבי וביום השביעי תשבות פירש אף בשנה שביעית לא תעקר שבת ממקומה שלא תאמר כוּ ולגבי שלשה פעמים בשנה פירש ג“כ לפי שהעניין מדבר בשביעית הוצרך ללמד שלא יסתרסו ג’ רגלים ממקומן חשבו שלגבי בכורים נמי שלא יהיו הבכורים נדחין ממקומן ולכך אמרו אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים ואין הדבר כן שהרי במכילתא שנו גבי וביום השביעי תשבות נאמר כאן שבת בראשית לעניין שביעית שלא תסתרס עניין שבת בראשית ממקומה ולגבי ג’ פעמים בשנה שנו נאמר שלשה רגלים בשביעית שלא יסתרסו ג’ רגלים ממקומן ואלו לגבי ראשית בכורי אדמתך שנו למה נאמרה פרשה זו לפי שנאמר ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה אין לי אלא פירות משקין מניין ת“ל תביא בית ייּ אלהיך
מ“מ אבל בקצת נוסחאוּ אינו כתוב אלא בכורי אדמחך אדם נכנס לתוך שדהו כוּ
Gur Aryeh:
אף השביעית חייב בבכורים. בודאי טעות סופר הוא, דאיך שייך דיהיה השביעית חייב בביכורים, שאיך קורא אני כאן “ועתה הבאתי ראשית פרי האדמה אשר נתת לי” (דברים כו, י), דהא לא לו נתן, ואיך שייך שחייב בביכורים:
Yosef Da’at writes that these words are in some sefarim and not in other sefarim, (בספרים אחרים אינו ), and that “מהר״ל(גור אריה) מוחק ורא״ם(ר׳ אליהו מזרחי) מיישב״
Berliner in Zechor L’Avraham (Berlin 1867) lists only Erfurt #2 (which is now known as Berlin 1222) as a manuscript which doesn’t have these words (“ליתא בכתב יד ערפערט ב׳“). He also cites Mizrachi, Divrei Dovid and Gur Aryeh as saying these words are a ta’us sofer.[3]
Here is Berlin 1222 (13th-14th century) which doesn’t have the comment:
Berliner cites[4] Divrei Dovid דיהרנפורט 1689:
What needs to be determined is whether Rashi wrote these words or not. If he in fact did, one would then need to understand the background to Rashi’s comment but one would not be able to argue that it is a טעות סופר or put forth arguments against this Girsa “MiSevara”.
Gur Aryeh does not cite any books or manuscripts without these words, only that it was בודאי טעות סופר . Berliner cites only one manuscript without this Nusach. Divrei Dovid cites קצת ספרים which do not have it as does Yosef Da’at. Mizrachi says that ברוב הספרים כתיב אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים …… אבל בקצת נוסחאות אינו כתוב אלא בכורי…. Mizrachi does not say if those נוסחאות were books or manuscripts.
We started by citing Leipzig 1 which has this statement in Rashi. To claim that it was a טעות סופר would mean that this mistake ended up involving either Rav Shemayah or Rabbeinu Makhir. v These words are in 13 manuscripts from the 13th century I checked aside from Berlin 1222.[6] I feel it is easier to explain why these words were not included in one manuscript, (possibly for the reasons cited by Gur Aryeh and Mizrachi) than to argue that the words were not written by Rashi and were added by Sofrim later on.
[1] This comment is in parentheses in all Artscroll Chumashim, including the Stone Chumash. While the Artscroll series on Chumash is one of the only modern editions which has this comment in parentheses, it has enjoyed unparalleled distribution. According to its website, the Stone Chumash alone has been printed over a million times. “The Stone Edition of the Chumash, — with 1.5 million copies in print, is the Chumash of choice in the English-speaking world. Its flowing, inspiring translation and commentary speak to today’s Jews.”
[2] This is how it is presented in Yosef Hallel.
[3] It is unclear to me whether Mizrachi says that it is a טעות סופר. Yosef Da’at writes that ורא״ם(ר׳ אליהו מזרחי) מיישב while Berliner lists Mizrachi as one who says that the words are a טעות סופר. Artscroll seems to put Gur Aryeh and Mizrachi together in opinion.
[4] This is how it appears in Berliner 1905 (Frankfurt am Main).
[5] This manuscript was written in the 13th century by R. Makhir b. Karshavyah, who states that he produced it from a copy of the commentary transcribed and annotated by Rashi’s own secretary, R. Shemayah. R. Makhir not only copied Rashi’s base commentary from R. Shemayah’s manuscript, but he also reproduced many of the marginal glosses contained in R. Shemayah’s text, a good number of which R. Shemayah explicitly attributes to Rashi himself. (From Al HaTorah)
[6] Here is a group of manuscripts, aside from Leipzig 1 shown above, available through Al HaTorah “Selected Online Rashi Manuscripts-13th Century:”
https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Online_Rashi_Manuscripts
Oxford CCC165 (Neubauer 2440) (This one is from the 12th century):
Munich 5:
Hamburg 32 ( Steinschneider 37):
Hamburg 13 adds שלא תאמר הואל ופטורה מן המעשר תהא פטורה אף מבכורים״:
Berlin 1221:
Parma 3081:
Oxford Bodley Opp. 34 (Neubauer 186):
London 26917 (Neubauer 168) – same as Hamburg 13 with “שלא תאמר”:
Berlin Qu 514:
Florence Plut III 03:
Vatican Urbanati 1:
Paris 155:
Parma 2708:
Parma 2868 is the only manuscript in this group which doesn’t have these words of Rashi embedded in the text, but rather has them written on the side:
6 thoughts on “What if the Maharal of Prague Had Access to Leipzig 1 and Other Manuscripts?”
Very convincing argument.
Homeoteleuton would appear to be the most reasonable explanation for the omission of this dibbur in Berlin 1222 and the main body of Parma 2868, as the copyist likely skipped from one בכורי אדמתך to the next (especially as in each manuscripts these words are at the beginning and end of separate lines).
I don’t understand why you bother citing Sefaria. They’re hardly an authoritative source on the proper text of Rashi. If anything cite the default version of Rashi on Sefaria: “Pentateuch with Rashi’s commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934
prim”
Rabbi Kasher, who sought to uphold Rashi’s original text, then brings an idea offered by the Z’chor L’Avraham, an idea that resolves all the conflicts: When Rashi (in his commentary to Y’vamoth) says that there is no commandment to bring bikkurim during sh’mitta, he means as we implied above: individuals do not bring bikkurim, because they have no where from which to take them, but when Rashi (in his commentary to Exodus) says that there is a commandment to bring bikkurim during sh’mitta, he is referring to the communal offering (Leviticus 23:17) for the Festival of Pentecost (Shavu’oth), which is also called bikkurim in the language of scripture and the Talmud. This seems to be the best answer, and fits the gist of MT T’rumoth 3:23:
When t’ruma and the tithes are separated, we separate them in the proper sequence. How? Before everything, one separates bikkurim. Afterwards, [he separates] the great t’ruma, then the first tithe, and then the second tithe or the tithe for the poor. If a person separated the second [tithe] before the first, or the tithes before the t’ruma, or t’ruma before bikkurim, his actions are effective despite the fact that he has transgressed a negative commandment.
That is, the personal bikkurim are only designated from crops that are subject to tithing, but not from sabbatical crops, which do not need to be tithed, but in the Temple, the communal offering in honor of the holiday is offered even during sh’mitta.
see more here: https://avrahambenyehuda.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/bikkurim-during-the-shmitta-year/
The issue is that the continuation of Rashi is certainly about the personal bikkurim, and not about the Shavuot offering. It’s difficult to say he would start with one, and then continue כיצד but explain how the other works.
But if Rashi only really wrote אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן, then it does not add anything about a personal obligation. merely that somehow, bikkurim have to be brought during the seventh year.
But if Rashi only really wrote אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן, then it does not add anything about a personal obligation. merely that somehow, bikkurim have to be brought during the seventh year.