1

In some places, Rashi translates בירה as a "מגדל [גדול]‏", a "[large] tower" (Bava Kamma 61b, Taanis 16a). In other places he translates it as a "בית גדול", a "large house" (Bava Kamma 22a, Gittin 55a). In still other places, he translates it as a "טרקלין גדול", a "large palace" (Makkos 5a).

Why does Rashi translate the exact same word differently in different places? If he just means that a בירה is a large building, why doesn't he translate all of them as just that - a בנין גדול?

DonielF
  • 34,262
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143
  • 2
    Perhaps it fits the context – Dr. Shmuel Apr 12 '19 at 00:05
  • @Dr.Shmuel Some of them don't seem to matter whether it's a palace or a house or a tower. In any event, calling it a large building would fit in all of these contexts. – DonielF Apr 12 '19 at 00:05
  • I would really like to hear your general approach to the interpretation of the Talmud - how clear, consistent, logical and traditional it should be in your eyes. When I describe it as art lacking rules and limitations I got scolded (not by you). So please tell why you see it as exact science? – Al Berko Apr 12 '19 at 10:40
  • Can you ask the same question on Unkelos translation of the Torah? He also translates the same word differently in different places. – Al Berko Apr 12 '19 at 10:41
  • @AlBerko Can you give an example of אונקלוס translating one word differently in different places? As far as I’ve seen he’s actually extremely consistent. My general approach is that different Rabbis have whatever their approach is, which varies by the Rabbi, and that approach is then applied in all of their discussions. In the few instances where they break from this approach, the question to be asked is why. Consider Beis Shammai almost always being stringent - why in some cases are they lenient? – DonielF Apr 12 '19 at 12:25
  • Sure - the famous קיחה is translated in (at least) three different ways - I've checked that when learning Kiddushin. But you can surely say 'it's a different meaning". – Al Berko Apr 13 '19 at 20:48
  • I would agree with your approach if every Rabbi would present his approach. I don't see any. Being stringent alone is not an approach, Rashi doesn't have one in my view, he scatters over hundreds of different sources and schools. He's very inconsistent and does not care to explain himself in different places. I think that was the reason his own descendants (like some Tosfos) felt the freedom to openly contradict him. – Al Berko Apr 13 '19 at 20:54
  • @AlBerko 1. Can you source where and how he translates קיחה differently? 2. Or the Baalei Tosfos argued on him because they though he was wrong, like all the Tannaim and Amoraim argued on each other. Just because a Rabbi doesn't explicitly say what his approach is doesn't mean that he doesn't have one. For instance, Beis Shammai never say that they look at the world through the lens of Middas HaDin, nor do Beis Hillel say that they look at it through the lens of Middas HaRachamim, yet the Ariza"l understood that that's where they were coming from. – DonielF Apr 14 '19 at 02:34
  • Rashi to Taanis is arguably not Rashi – Dr. Shmuel May 27 '19 at 13:45
  • @Dr.Shmuel 1. I’d never heard of that before. Where did you get that from? 2. He translates it in Bava Kamma the same way he does in Taanis, and in a different place in Bava Kamma he translates it differently. So even if Taanis isn’t him, you can still ask the contradiction. – DonielF May 27 '19 at 14:36
  • @DonielF yes %100 true. I just figured I’d mention that I come here from msh unanswered in this tag. I’ll see if I can track it down but I’m pretty sure Taanis was one of them. – Dr. Shmuel May 27 '19 at 14:38
  • https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/15520/16706 check there maybe – Dr. Shmuel Jun 05 '19 at 04:27

0 Answers0