Tosafot on Megillah
I have recently spent some of my time studying the Tosafot on Megillah and I thought that a few comments wouldn’t hurt. First of all, E.E. Urbach in his Baalei HaTosafot says that the Tosafot on Megillah are those of “R. Yehudah Sirlion who used the Tosafot of his friends R. Elhanan and R. Yosef Clisson Ish Yerushalayim [he was one of the Baalei HaTosafot who moved to Israel, see E. Kanarfogel's article in JQR 76,3 (1986)]” (Urbach, p. 617). The following are some of the Tosafot which I found most interesting for the reasons explained below.
1. 3a s.v. vayalen Yehoshua: At the bottom of 3a a verse is quoted yet the Tosafot say that “לא כתיב בהאי קרא כן” rather the Tosafot say that in reality the Gemara conflates two different verses together to form a verse which doesn’t exist. They go on to say ודרך הש”ס הוא לקצר הפסוקים ולערבם יחד
2.4a s.v. nashim hayyavot: The most important Tosafot discussing the question of women obligation to read Megillat Esther and whether they can fullfill a man’s obligation (see here for a discussion of other relevant sources).
3. 14b s.v. shegilta shokah: The gemara says that Avigail “exposed her thigh and David went by its light (“והלך דוד לאורה”) three parasangs”. The Tosafot are a bit surprised by the possibility that such a righteous woman as Abigail would go ahead exposing her thigh and also what about it giving off so much light. Their answer is that, “דנמצא בספרים מדוייקים שנקוד בהם לאורה כלומר לאור שלה פירוש נתאוה לה דוד והלך באור חמימות שלש פרסאות”. In other words, the light wasn’t that of Abigail’s thigh but rather her beauty, or however you would like to interpret it, and David basically walked starstruck for three parsangs. This doesn’t answer how she could have exposed her thigh. Also, are we talking about vocalization which I can’t see how it would help identify what the light is referring to, or something similar to the dots above certain words in the Torah which point towards a different reading (see Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 43-46).
4. 19a s.v. al hasefer ubediyo: There is a question as to the proper way to write on parchment and a comment of Rabbeinu Tam is brought and in the middle it says that “the ashkenazim” responded to him. I wasn’t able to check Rami Reiner’s M.A. thesis or dissertation to see if he had anything to say about this Tosafot.
5. 23a s.v. had amar oleh uhad amar ein oleh and s.v. keivan demeishum kavod Torah: Both of these discuss a number of issues relating to the maftir aliyah such as whether it counts as one of the aliyot or is in addition to them, and also whether the person who reads the maftir repeats what the previous reader read or the continuation of what that previous reader read.
6. 26a s.v. veamaiy veha dekrachim: What I found interesting in this Tosafot was that they say that in another sugyah the makshan (arguer?) was mistaken on two points in his arguement.
7. 31a s.v. lemahar kariynan vezot haberachah: Here we see a discussion of which haftorah is to be read on Simhat Torah (the second day of Shemini Atzeret). According to the gemara it should be from I Kings 8:22 while the Tosafot are aware of the custom to read from the first chapter of Joshua, a custom which they call a שיבוש (“mistake”). (see Otzar HaGeonim, Megillah p. 63). A good example of us not following what is the clear opinion of the gemara (and yes, I know that on Simhat Torah a lot of what we do is questionable).
8. 31b s.v. rosh hodesh av: Similar to no. 7, a discussion of a difference between the haftorah which the Talmud says should be read if Rosh Hodesh Av falls on shabbat and the practice familiar to the Tosafot. In this Tosafot we read of a disagreement between Rabbeinu Tam and “Rav HaHovel”. Urbach once thought that this was referring to the Rambam but later felt that he just wasn’t sure who it is referring to (Urbach, 617-618).
Nothing conclusive, just a few thoughts.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Facinating notes, hopefully we can expect this for each holiday?
Dan Rabinowitz | Homepage | 03.10.06 – 9:39 am | #