More Discussions for this daf
1. Question on Review Question 1a 2. Kol Mar'eh and Re'ach 3. Me'ilah and Kavanah
4. Meilah By Seeing 5. Tanur - Orlah
DAF DISCUSSIONS - PESACHIM 26

Moshe White asked:

In the Daf Review Questions to Pesachim 26, the Kollel wrote:

>> (a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai used to sit in the shade of the Heichal and Darshen all day. Why is there no proof from here for Abaye, who holds that Rebbi Yehudah permits even 'Lo Efshar v'Ka Michaven'? (Note: presumably it was called Lo Efshar, because there was no other area large enough for him to Darshen). <<

Rashi says the "lo efshar" is b/c he had to darshen , not b/c no place would hold them - Rashi seems to bedavka avoid saying the 'lo efshar' was b/c of the size of the place, no?

moshe white

The Kollel replies:

You seem to have omitted a key word. Rashi says that he had to Darshen 'le'Rabim', by which he is obviously referring to what he wrote in the previous Dibur (where he specifically stated that a smaller space would not have sufficed). He was after all, the Nasi, who was Darshening, not to an elite group of Talmidim, but to all the people present.

To put it more bluntly, if a smaller place would have sufficed, then it would have been Efshar.

be'Virchas Kol Tuv

Eliezer Chrysler

Moshe White responds:

Thanks for your response - however, I still maintain my position - first of all, the last Rashi would have been sufficient if the 'lo efshar' was merely space concerns - and secondly, Rashi says 'milidrosh lerabim' - not 'lidrosh lerabim' - 'milidrosh' seems to be mashma since there was a neccessity to teach everyone the halachos - so we could matir using the tzel of hekdesh - but if he would be saying, say, a shiur on ktzos, we would make him divide into smaller groups and it would be assur to use the larger open area -i.o.w. the gorem of lo efshar is the obligation to educate the am in the hilchos hachag - ken nireh le'aniyus dyti

The Kollel replies:

I am not clear what you are trying to say. Rashi stresses the large numbers in the first Dibur, and repeats them in DH 'Lo Efshar', and it is obvious that that is how he interprets 'Lo Efshar', and that is how I saw it explained by others.

He says 'mi'Lid'rosh le Rabim' (rather than 'li'Drosh') because he means that it was not possible not to Darshen be'Rabim (as is often implied by the letter 'Mem').

be'Virchas Kol Tuv

Eliezer Chrysler.