He says that Rashi says Yaacov was buried (actually Rashi points to the word in the posuk saying that Yaacov expired but that it does not say he died, so he agrees that Yaacov expired) but at the same time Shmei says that Rashi says on the Gemorah that Yaacov is PHYSICALLY alive…never mind that that gemorah AND Rashi clearly state what being alive means and it is not that Yaacov is physically alive…to say that Rashi is saying on one hand that Yaacov was buried and on the other that he’s physically alive?! Rashi is not saying ” יעקב לא מת literally”. Does Rashi say the word “literally”? No, Menachem shmaya is saying that Rashi is saying the word “literally”.
A) I never said that Rashi was arguing on himself (in THIS case). All I said is that Rashi explains himself more in Taanis 5b than in Vayechi.
B) What do you prove from Rashi in Chumash writing ויגוע (“expired”)? If ויגוע means died, then what’s the difference between ויגוע and וימת?
The Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef all understand it literally, Yaakov didn’t die, his soul is still in his body.
They explain that the word ויגוע (“expired”) means “a deep sleep/faint” (ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף” “לא נסתלק רק גוע כמי שנתעלף”) which others mistook as death, which is why they enbalmed and buried him, which wasn’t an issue because he wasn’t moving anyway (“מה שנקבר ונספד הוא כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה”).
Another reason why they did all these things is so as not to degrade other tzaddikim who do die. (-עיון יעקב)
Coffee addict, you are so right that only a Lubavitche would argue that Rashi says one thing on the posuk and a different thing on the Gemarah as if Rashi is contradicting himself.
What dishonesty. I cannot take that….He tries to make it seem as if Rashi is arguing with himself and saying a different pshat on the Gemorah than the posuk!
If so, then meforshei haShas and meforshei Rashi must all be Lubavitchers, since we find examples of Rashi on Chumash arguing with Rashi on Shas ALL OVER THE PLACE, and this is acknowledged by all the meforshim!
Some examples:
Maharsha, Sanhedrin 65b:
גמרא בעל אוב אחד המעלה בזכורו כו’. ורש”י בחומש פירש דורש אל המתים זהו מעלה בזכור כו’ ע”ש ודבריו ע”פ הברייתא בספרי ושלא כברייתא זו דבשמעתין דכן דרכו של רש”י לפרש הפסוקים על פי היותר פשוטו של מקרא…
Rashi on Gemara explains אוב different than his explanation in Chumash.
This is the derech of Rashi, to explain the pesukim according to the simplest meaning (פשוטו של מקרא).
Maharsha, Sanhedrin 66a:
גמרא מה ת”ל איש איש לרבות בת טומטום כו’. ורש”י בחומש בפרשת משפטים כתב ומקלל אביו ואמו למה נאמר לפי שהוא אומר איש איש אשר יקלל גו’ אין לי אלא איש שקלל אשה מניין ת”ל ומקלל אביו גו’ סתם בין איש ובין אשה כו’ ע”ש והוא ע”פ המכילתא וכמה שכתבו שדרכו לדרוש בפירושו הדרשה יותר פשוטה במקרא…
Rashi in Chumash explains איש איש differently than the Gemara, because his derech is to explain the simplest pshat.
Maharsha, Sanhedrin 72a:
גמרא ת”ר אין לו דמים כו’ … וזה הוא דרכו של רש”י בחומש להביא דרשה היותר פשוטה…
Rashi’s derech in Chumash is to bring the simplest pshat.
Maharsha, Kiddushin 44b:
דרכו של רש”י ז”ל לפרש במקום זה כך ובמקום אחר שינה פירושו
Rashi’s derech is to explain one way in one place, and changes his pirush elsewhere.
Rashash, Shabbos 83a:
הגרע”א ז”ל בגליון הש”ס העלה פירוש רש”י בצריך עיון גדול ואנכי לא ידעתי מה העיון הגדול דשם פירש כשיטת רבינו תם, ואם משום שסותר את עצמו, זאת תמצא בפירוש רש”י ז”ל הרבה
“I don’t understand R’ Akiva Eiger’s question on Rashi. If it’s that Rashi contradicts himself, this is very common in Rashi’s pirush.”
Mizrachi, Bereishis 36:5:
“Torah mentions that Korach was the grandson of Eisav in two ways.
Rashi here says that it’s the SAME Korach who was a mamzer.
Rashi in Sotah says that there were TWO Korachs.
This is because here Rashi is explaining according to Bereishis Rabba, while there Rashi is explaining according to the story there in Gemara, which differs from the Midrash Rabba.”
Philosopher, Coffee, will you admit that you didn’t know the classic style of Rashi’s pirush, and that it was wrong to attack Lubavitch (in this case)?