The Gemara brings a Mishnah that says Nisuch ha'Mayim takes place all seven days of Sukkos and asks who follows that opinion. The gemara then asks on R' Yehosuha, R' Yehudah ben Beseirah and R' Akiva but does not ask if its good according to R' Eliezer. Rashi says (Eleh R' Yehoshua Hee) "they don't ask whether Rabbi Eliezer reasons like this, because certainly it's fine according to Rabbi Eliezer." This is good for Rashi who on the previous daf just says the difference between Lulav and Nisuch ha'Mayim is whether one begins in the day or the previous night. But this seems to me to be a problem with Tosfos. One of the explanations by Tosfos (Ibo'i Lehu R' Eliezer) is that the difference is the following. "If he learns from Lulav, he holds that one cannot learn from Nisuch ha'Mayim, for it was not on the first day." Then Tosfos (Mar R' Avahu) doubles down on this reason by explaining R' Avahu's teaching to mean that R' Eliezer holds that Nisuch began only on the second day.
SO EITHER: How can Tosofos say this when it is clear that R' Eliezer holds Nisuch ha'Mayim is on the first day by the fact that the gemara does not question on him on Daf3a. Or why is Tosfos not bothered by the exclusion of R'Eliezer on Daf3a because according to him he would only hold Nisuch ha'Mayim is for 6 days?
Ely, Florida, USA
Ely, Yeyasher Kochacha! Your question is asked by Rebbi Akiva Eiger on Tosfos 2b (Iba'ei Lehu Rebbi Eliezer).
1) Rebbi Akiva Eiger answers that in fact Tosfos is deliberately avoiding Rashi's approach because he disagrees with Rashi. Tosfos is disturbed by the same question as Rashi on 3a, but he gives a directly opposite solution. The problem disturbing Tosfos is why the Gemara did not ask on 3a about whether the Mishnah -- that says that Nisuch ha'Mayim lasts for seven days -- can follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rashi solves this problem by asserting that it certainly does follow Rebbi Eliezer, so it is not even necessary for the Gemara to state this. Tosfos learns exactly the opposite, and understands that the Mishnah can certainly not follow Rebbi Eliezer, which is why it was not even necessary for the Gemara to say that it is not like Rebbi Eliezer because it is obvious that it cannot be.
2) Rebbi Akiva Eiger writes that the reason it is so obvious according to Tosfos that Nisuch ha'Mayim cannot be seven days according to Rebbi Eliezer is because if there was Nisuch ha'Mayim on the first day of Sukos, then Rebbi Eliezer would say that one should start mentioning rain on the previous night. Since the intention of Nisuch ha'Mayim is to arouse the good will of Hash-m, one should start arousing that good will the night before. The fact that according to Rebbi Eliezer one only starts mentioning rain on the first day, not on the first night, proves clearly that Nisuch ha'Mayim itself only starts on the second day. Since the Ritzuy should always start before the actual Nisuch ha'Mayim, this is why we start mentioning rain in the Tefilah a day before the Nisuch ha'Mayim.
3) However, Rebbi Akiva Eiger impies that he is not so satisfied with this answer, as he writes that the matter requires further study.
4) The Tzelach also asks your question, Ely, so possibly I will write about the Tzalach's answer in a subsequent reply.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rabbi Bloom,
Thank you for answering my question, your detailed responses have tremendously benefited my learning. While I do have a Yeshiva background I am not fully able to delve into the Gemara without the help of aids (that is why I love your Tosfos outlines) and that is why I was not aware of the R' Akiva Eiger (it was not on your site or in Artscroll).
Having seen your response and thinking it over some more I would like to offer a response to the question to see if it can work, not work, or maybe someone else has already said it. I would like to suggest the following:
I believe the Gemara on Daf 3a is coming with the assumption that when we begin to say Mashiv ha'Ru'ach u'Morid ha'Gashem that is when Nisuch HaMayim began.
Tosfos "Ibo'i Lehu R. Eliezer" gives two different explanations as what the possible difference can be. I believe the 2 explanations are referencing where we learn it out from.
Explanation #1: The difference is the following. If he learns from Lulav, he holds that one cannot learn from Nisuch ha'Mayim, for it was not on the first day; If he learns from Nisuch ha'Mayim, he holds that it was on the first day; THIS IS IF WE ARE GOING TO LEARN IT FROM TRADITION NOT THE BARAISA
Explanation #2: If he learns from Lulav, he holds that [we begin mentioning rain] only during the day, for it says "u'Lkachtem Lachem ba'Yom [ha'Rishon]"; If he learns from Nisuch ha'Mayim, he holds [that we first mention] even at night. THIS IS IF WE ARE GOING TO LEARN IT FROM THE BARAISA
Comes Tosfos "R' Avahu" and says he holds Lulav because Nisuch Hamayim was not on the first day which means Tosfos learns it out from "Gemara Gamir La." This is why Tosfos is not bothered by the omission from Daf 3a because it for sure can't be R'Eliezer because he says you begin to say Mashiv ha'Ru'ach u'Morid ha'Gashem on the first day even though Nisuch HaMayim was on the second. The Gemara doesn't ask on him because R' Eliezer clearly doesn't hold that we begin to say Mashiv ha'Ru'ach u'Morid ha'Gashem when Nisuch HaMayim begins.
Rashi explains the difference similar to Tosfos, ("Gemara Gamir La" - Lo Lamda Eleh MLulav, "Masnisa Shmia Lei" - R' Eliezer Gamar Lulav) but unlike Tosfos, Rashi learns it from the Baraisa (as we see in Rashi "Eleh R' Yehoshua Hee" were he uses the words Mishas Hanachaso which is from the Baraisa). From the Baraisa, R' Eliezer holds we say it in the morning because of Lulav but Nisuch HaMayim is still the first night so it would be "Vadai R' Eliezer Shapir" because we begin to say Mashiv ha'Ru'ach u'Morid ha'Gashem when Nisuch HaMayim begins, therefore, Rashi is not bothered by the omission either.
Looking forward to your reply,
Ely Weisz
Ely, it makes me very happy that you have found my comments useful, and I daven that I will always be able to help out, bs'd.
1) You say a very interesting Chidush, that the two explanations in Tosfos (Iba'ei Lehu Rebbi Eliezer) differ whether we learn it from tradition or from the Beraisa: Explanation #1 learns it from tradtion, whilse explanation #2 learns it from the Beraisa. Do you have a proof for your Chidush?
2) I do not understand why you say that Tosfos (Rebbi Avahu) learns it from tradition. Tosfos is commenting on the first part of the statement of Rebbi Avahu, that Rebbi Eliezer learned it from Lulav, before the Gemara cited the two opinions about whether it was from tradition or from the Beraisa, so how can one say that Tosfos learned it from tradition when the Gemara has not yet mentioned tradition?
3) Your Diyuk from Rashi, that he learns it from the Beraisa, is a very good one!
Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
Rabbi Bloom,
Once again thank you for your response and thank you for pushing me to defend my chiddush so that I can delve into the topic some more. I do not have any hard proof (like from another Tosfos, my knowledge of Shas is limited) I can only go by what's in front of me on Daf 2b. I would like to try to offer 2 different approaches to your raised difficulties.
1ST APPROACH
1) We see Rashi holds the difference as follows - "Gemara Gamir La" - Lo Lamda Eleh MLulav, "Masnisa Shmia Lei" - R' Eliezer Gamar Lulav.
Rabbeinu Gershom on the bottom has the same difference - "Gemara Gamir La R' Avuha Lo Lamda Eleh M'Lulav, Mmasnisan Shmia Lei DR' Eliezer Gamar MLulav". It only makes sense to assume that Tosfos holds the same. I believe unlike Rashi who is explaining the Gemara line by line or phrase by phrase, Tosfos (Ibo'i Lehu R. Eliezer) is not just explaining the Dibbur Hamaschil but is giving a synopsis of the entire case. Built into his explanation of the Gemara's question on R' Eliezer is this difference. Why else would he have a nafka mina to explain the question on how exactly R' Eliezer learns from Lulav in this Tosfos (his explanation should be more like Rashi's) instead of waiting to explain this difference when the Gemara mentions it later on (like Rashi and Rabbeinu Gershom).
2) Tosfos does not need to wait until the Gemara cites the two opinions about whether it was from tradition or from the Baraisa because he already explained it in the previous Tosfos when he gave a summary of the whole Gemara (as I said above, Tosfos is not going line by line or word for word like Rashi). Rather in the Tosfos "R' Avahu" he is telling you where we should learn it out from.
2ND APPROACH
We can prove that this is Tosfos's explanation based on the Tosfos "R' Avahu." I believe Tosfos is commenting on the words "Eleh MLulav" which is what "Gemara Gamir La" refers to (as we see in Rashi & Rabbeinu Gershom). We can learn from association the following: If R' Avahu saying that R' Eliezer "Lo Lamda Eleh MLulav" according to Tosfos means that he holds Nisuch Hamayim cannot be on the first night, and if "Lo Lamda Eleh MLulav" is "Gemara Gamir La" then it must mean that "Gemara Gamir La" refers to the fact that Nisach Hamayim was not on the first night. Therefore when Tosfos explains the nafka mina, his first explanation is "Gemara Gamir La"- tradition, and his second explanation is the Baraisa.
Thank you again and Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,
Ely Weisz