The gemara discusses whether the beis din is allowed to add an extra month to avoid the issue of korban pesach having to be brought in tu'mah. The gemara concludes that according to R. Yehuda who says that tu'mah is הותרה בצבור, even if they attempted to make a leap year, it wouldn't be binding. The rationale is explained by Rashi, that since it is completely hu'trah, and is therefore unnecessary, it is tantamount to being me'aber the year for no reason at all. It is clear from the gemara that the opinons who hold that it would be binding, would have to hold that tu'mah is דחויה בצבור, which means as rashi explains - בקושי הותרה וכו' וכל כמה דאפשר להדורי לעשותו בטהרה מהדרין. The difficulty is with the conclusion of the gemara that R. Shimon and the Tana Kamma seem to both hold that the addition of an extra month is binding, but argue whether it is li'chatchila, or just bi'dieved. R. Shimon's opinion is very understandable. He holds that since tu'mah is only di'chuya, not hu'tra, we try to avoid it and create a leap year to avoid it. But what is the peshat in the opinion of the Tana Kama? Since he also agrees that tu'mah is di'chuya, rather than hu'tra, which is evident from the fact that he holds it is binding (because if it were hu'tra, it would be considered completely unnecessary, therefore not binding), why would he hold that they can't do it li'chatchila?
No comments:
Post a Comment