Shavuot and the Sin of Adam and Eve

Rosh HaShanah 16a:

תניא א"ר יהודה משום ר"ע...ומפני מה אמרה תורה הביאו שתי הלחם בעצרת מפני שעצרת זמן פירות האילן הוא אמר הקב"ה הביאו לפני שתי הלחם בעצרת כדי שיתברכו לכם פירות האילן

It was taught: Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: For what purpose did the Torah say to bring the two loaves on Shavuot? Because Shavuot is a time for the fruit of the trees. Says the Holy One, blessed be He, "Bring before Me the two loaves on Shavuot, so that for you will be blessed the fruits of the trees.

What is the connection between bringing bread, made of wheat, and representing the blessing of fruit? Many ask this question. For example, Maimonides in the commentary to Rosh Hashana attributed to him states:

ואם תשאל ומה ענין פירות האילן לשתי הלחם יש לומר שהשם דומה לפירות האילן שפירות האילן נקראו בכורים כדכתיב מראשית כל פרי האדמה ושתי הלחם נקראו בכורים כדכתיב חלות תהינה חמץ תאפנה בכורים להי כלומר הביאו בכורים כדי שיתברכו לכם בכורי הפירות.

Question: What do the fruits of trees have to do with the two loaves? Answer: The [name of the] two loaves is similar to the [name of the] fruits of the tree, for the fruits of the tree are called "bikkurim", as it says, "the first of all the fruits of the ground." And the two loaves are called "bikkurim", as it says, (Leviticus 23) "they shall be baked with leaven, for first-fruits unto the LORD." Meaning, bring these bikkurim so that you can be blessed with the bikkurim of fruit.

This might be pshat. However, Rashi:

שתי הלחם. ירצו על פירות האילן שהן מתירין להביא בכורים שאין מביאין בכורים קודם לעצרת דכתיב (שמות לד) בכורי קציר חטים ואני שמעתי דרבי יהודה לטעמיה דהא אזלא כמאן דאמר בסנהדרין (דף ע:) עץ שאכל אדם הראשון חטה היתה

[What does the two loaves have to do with fruits?] The two loaves: were offered for the fruits of the trees, for they permit people to start bringing their first fruits, for the first fruits were not brought before Shavuot, as it states [Exodus 34:22] "... first fruits of the wheat harvest." And I heard [an idea] that Rabbi Yehudah is going according to his reasoning, as the one who said in Sanhedrin 70b, "The tree that Adam HaRishon ate from was wheat."

I want to focus on the second answer. Rashi is evidently saying that at least according to Rabbi Yehudah, "wheat" can be considered a "fruit" in some senses to represent the blessing of fruit. How could wheat ever be considered a fruit? Some suggest that wheat grows in the same cycle as fruit, yearly. Others point to the midrashim indicating that wheat used to be huge fat trees of wheat, and making bread was easy. So the tree was a fruit.

[I'll just add the Abudraham in Tefilot Pesach has similar answers: ויש מקשים על הא דאמרינן הביאו לפני שתי הלחם בעצרת כדי שיתברכו לכם פירות שבאילן שכל אותן האחרים הוא הקרבן ממין המתברך אבל שתי הלחם אינם ממין אילן. ומתרצים כמאן דאמר (ברכות מ, א) חיטה מין אילן הוא. ואתיא נמי כמאן דאמר (שם) עץ שאכל ממנו אדם הראשון חטה היתה. ויש מתרצים תירוץ אחר כי שתי הלחם הם בכורים שעל שמם נקרא עצרת יום הבכורים ואמר הקב"ה הביאו לפני שתי הלחם הזה המין המובחר והטוב מכל מיני הצמחים לצורך חיי האדם כדי שיתברכו לכם שאר כל מיני האילן שהביאו מהם בכורים]

I'd like to suggest it refers specifically to the seeds in the spikelet of the wheat, a "fruit" of the wheat stalk. Looks like this:

The wheat seeds themselves look something like this:

It could be that wheat seed eating was common, and so no explanation was necessary for why wheat products could represent other fruits and nuts.

A book called Parperet HaTorah (not to be confused with Parperet LaTorah) found on Hebrewbooks points out that Rashi's answer is difficult. How can Rashi claim that Rabbi Yehudah is just being consistent in both Rosh HaShanah and Sanhedrin (and Berachot but not quoted here) when in Rosh HaShanah, he is quoting Rabbi Akiva? That would require placing Rabbi Yehudah's opinion of the definition of wheat onto Rabbi Akiva, something we ostensibly have no evidence for.

He finds a Tosafot Shabbat 66a that answers a question by saying that Rabbi Akiva holds the same thing that Rabbi Yehudah does about wheat as fruit:

ונראה בזה דגם ר“ע לשיטתו אזיל דהגמ‘ בשבת דף סו. מביאה משנה בכלים פי“ז מי“ז דתנן כוורת של קש ושפופרת של קנים רבי עקיבא מטמא ור‘ יוחנן בן נורי מטהר והקשו התוס‘ איך מטמא ר“ע הרי לא חזי לישיבה ולא מטמא מדרס, ולענין טמא מת הא לא כתיב בפרשה אלא כלי עץ ועור ובגד ושק ותירצו דקש נמי חשיב של עץ כדאמר פרי שאכל ממנו אדם הראשון חטה היה יעויי“ש בדבריהם, ומבואר שגם ר“ע ס“ל שעץ שאכל ממנו אדה“ר חטה היה, וא“כ גם ר“ע לשיטתו.

 It seems that Rabbi Akiva also hold like that opinion, as the Talmud Shabbat 66a brings a Mishnah from Kelim 17:17 that it was taught, "A straw mat or a tube of reeds, Rabbi Akiva declares capable of impurity, and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri declares incapable." Tosafot ask, how can Rabbi Akiva declare [straw] impure, it is not fit for sitting upon, an doesn't make unclean as a midrash, and for the impurity of the dead, the Torah only writes about wood, leather, cloth, baggage! They answer that straw is also considered wood, as it says, the fruit that Adam HaRishon ate from was the wheat, see their words there. It follows, then, that Rabbi Akiva also holds that the tree Adam HaRishon ate was wheat, so then Rabbi Akiva is going "leshitaso" [here as well].

There is another source that indicates a connection between the sin of Adam and Eve, and Shavuot. For example, Megillah 31b states:

תניא, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: עזרא תיקן להן לישראל שיהו קורין קללות שבתורת כהנים קודם עצרת, ושבמשנה תורה קודם ראש השנה. מאי טעמא? אמר אביי ואיתימא ריש לקיש: כדי שתכלה השנה וקללותיה. בשלמא שבמשנה תורה איכא כדי שתכלה שנה וקללותיה, אלא שבתורת כהנים, אטו עצרת ראש השנה היא? - אין, עצרת נמי ראש השנה היא, דתנן: ובעצרת על פירות האילן.

It has been taught: R`Simeon B`Eleazar says: Ezra made a regulation for Israel that they should read the curses in Leviticus before Shavuot and those in Deuteronomy before New Year. What is the reason? Abaye (or you may also say Resh Lakish) said: So that the year may end along with its curses. I grant you that in regard to the curses in Deuteronomy you can say, 'so that the year should end along with its curses'. But as regards those in Leviticus - is Shavuot a New Year? - Yes; Shavuot is also a New Year, as we have learnt: 'On Shavuot is the new year for [fruit of] the tree'.

Again we see that the sin with regard to the creation of the world, is connected to Shavuot's new year of the fruit of the tree.

The concept that Shavuot is somehow connected to Adam HaRishon and the sin of the tree is fascinating. That Shavuot represents the giving of the Torah is one thing, and that Adam's sin represents the giving of knowledge of good and evil is another. Does Torah-learning rectify this knowledge? What is this knowledge, after all?

This rabbi, Rabbi Lebhar, suggests that the process of counting the omer is a procession of man becoming civilized. He starts with the barley offering of the second day of Pesach, animal food, and ends 50 days later with wheat, which represents the pinnacle of human work - taking wheat, grinding it, cooking it. Before the sin, we could have just had the food. Now we have to work at it. We want to show that we are working on ourselves through Torah to become the best we can be as a human species. Nice derasha. Maybe.

Rav Tzadok on Bechukotai says similarly, but a bit differently, that we rue the fact that no longer can we devote all of our time to Torah and worship, but now have to work for our bread. We want to get back to a time when we didn't have to work:

  עזרא תיקן להם לישראל שיהיו קורין קללות שבתורת כהנים קודם עצרת וכו' כדי שתכלה שנה וקללותיה וכו' אלא שבתורת כהנים אטו בעצרת ראש השנה היא אין עצרת נמי ראש השנה היא דתנן בעצרת על פירות האילן (מגילה ל"א ב), וצריך להבין הא עיקר מאכל האדם הוא הלחם כמו שנאמר (דברים ח', ג') כי לא על הלחם לבדו יחיה האדם ובפסח העולם נידון על התבואה (ראש השנה ט"ז א) והיה לו לתקן שיקראו קודם פסח מהאי טעמא. ואם משום דלפי סדר הפרשיות מיקלע בחוקותי קודם עצרת ולא קודם פסח הא מלשון עזרא תיקן לא משמע שהוא מפני סדר הפרשיות, ובאמת לבני מערבא דמסקי אורייתא לתלת שנין כמו שאמרו במגילה (כ"ט ב) לא מיקלע בחוקותי קודם עצרת היה לו לעזרא לתקן שיקראו התוכחה קודם פסח. גם לפי מה שאמרו בגמרא (ראש השנה ז' ב) ט"ז בניסן ראש השנה לעומר ו' בסיון ראש השנה לשתי הלחם. והנה שתי הלחם הוא ראש השנה להתיר החדש במקדש אבל כבר הותר לאכילת הדיוט מט"ז בניסן מזמן הקרבת העומר ובמקדש לא שייך תכלה שנה וקללותיה. ויתכן יותר לתקן שיקראו קודם פסח שאז ראש השנה להתיר אכילת הדיוט מחדש, גם מה שתיקן עזרא שיקראו שבתורת כהנים קודם עצרת ושבמשנה תורה קודם ראש השנה ולא להיפוך בודאי יש שייכות לכל פרשה לזמנה.

  אך הענין שקודם הקלקול מאדם הראשון ניתן רק פרי העץ למאכל אדם וכמו שנאמר (בראשית ב', ח') ויטע גן בעדן ונטיעה היא באילנות אך אחר הקלקול ואכלת את עשב השדה רק כיון ששמע אדם הראשון הזיעו פניו ואמר מה אני נקשר לאבוס כבהמה אמר לו הקב"ה בזעת אפך תאכל לחם (בראשית רבה כ', י') והיינו שיהיה לו טורח לעשות מחטה לחם. וכמו שאמרו (ברכות נ"ח א) כמה יגיעות יגע אדם הראשון עד שמצא פת לאכול חרש וזרע וכו' אבל קודם הקלקול אף חטה היה מין אילן והיה גדל עליו גלוסקאות כמו שיהיה לעתיד (שבת ל' ב) ועתידה חטה שתתמר כדקל (כתובות קי"א ב) וכמו שמצינו שיש אילן שקמה המתקיים שש מאות שנה כמו שאמרו במדרש (תהלים צ') על מה שנאמר (ישעיה ס"ה, כ"ב) כימי העץ ימי עמי (ועיין בראשית רבה (י"ב, ו') אך שם מיירי לענין קומה כמו שפירש המתנות כהונה בשם פירוש רש"י) והאילנות שנטע הקב"ה בעצמו בגן עדן היה מתקיים לעולם ולא היה צריך שום נטיעה ועבודה. ואדם הראשון ניתן בגן עדן לעבדה ולשמרה לעבדה בפקודין דעשה ולשמרה בפקודין דלא תעשה (זוהר ח"א כ"ז. ותיקוני זוהר תיקון כ"א) ורק אחר הקלקול נאמר לו בזעת אפך תאכל לחם שיהיה נצרך לעבודה וטורח וכמה יגיעות יגע וכו', ובעצרת שהוא זמן מתן תורה דכתיב (תהלים פ"ב, ו') אני אמרתי אלהים אתם שיהיה התיקון כמו קודם החטא שלא יהיה מיתה (עבודה זרה ה' א) וכתיב (שמות י"ט, ו') ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגו' שאז לא היו ישראל רק פנוים לתורה ועבודה כמו קודם הקלקול, והיה מתבטל אז כל היצר הרע וקלקול הנחש וממילא מאכל אדם היה רק פירות האילן כמו שהיה קודם קלקול אדם הראשון, ורק אחר החטא חיבלתם מעשיכם אכן כאדם תמותון מכל מקום כשבא עצרת הוא הזמן בכל שנה לתקן הקלקול הראשון מאדם הראשון וכמו שהיה במתן תורה וזהו בעצרת על פירות האילן, וזה שאמרו בגמרא (ראש השנה ט"ז א) הביאו לפני שתי הלחם בעצרת כדי שיתברכו לכם פירות האילן ופירש רש"י דר' יהודה לטעמיה דאמר בסנהדרין (ע' ב) עץ שאכל אדם הראשון חטה היתה ולפי האמור מובן שבעצרת הזמן שיתברכו פירות האילן שיתוקן קלקול אדם הראשון ויהיה מאכל אדם פירות האילן וכמו שהיה קודם הקלקול: 

Perhaps its as simple as supposing that Torah is the elixir to the evil inclination that is in man because of the sin, as Kiddushin 30b states:

בראתי יצר הרע בראתי תורה תבלין כנגדו

I created the evil inclination, and I created Torah as the elixir against it

And indeed, in Kiddushin 21b states that:

לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע

The Torah only speaks in opposition to the evil inclination.

Indeed, Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana 4:8 records that Torah took away the sins of the people, as Rav Kitov points out:

ר' משרשיא בשם ר' אידי בכל הקרבנות כתיב חטא ובעצרת אין כתיב חטא אמר להן הקב"ה מכיון שקיבלתם עליכם עול תורה מעלה אני עליכם כאילו לא חטאתם מימיכם

But there may be another way. Maimonides, in Guide for the Perplexed 1:2, understands the story of the tree in a very interesting way:

Years ago a learned man propounded as a challenge to me a curious objection... This is what the objector said: It is manifest from the clear sense of the biblical text that the primary purpose with regard to man was that he should be, as the other animals are, devoid of intellect, of thought, and of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil. However, when he disobeyed, his disobedience procured him as its necessary consequence the great perfection peculiar to man... Now it is a thing to be wondered at that man’s punishment for his disobedience should consist in his being granted a perfection he did not possess before, namely, the intellect... 

[The answer:] For the intellect that God made overflow unto man and that is the latter’s ultimate perfection, was that which Adam had been provided with before he disobeyed. It was because of this that it was said of him that he was created in the image of God and in His likeness. It was likewise on account of it that he was addressed by God and given commandments, as it says: "And the Lord God commanded, and so on" (Genesis 2:16). For commandments are not given to beasts and beings devoid of intellect. Through the intellect one distinguishes between truth and falsehood, and that was found in Adam in its perfection and integrity. Good and bad, on the other hand, belong to the things generally accepted as known, not to those cognized by the intellect. For one does not say: it is good that heaven is spherical, and it is bad that the earth is flat; rather one says true and false with regard to these assertions... However, when he disobeyed and inclined toward his desires of the imagination and the pleasures of his corporeal senses, inasmuch as it is said: "That the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes" (Bereishit 3:6), he was punished by being deprived of that intellectual apprehension. He therefore disobeyed the commandment that was imposed upon him on account of his intellect and, becoming endowed with the faculty of apprehending generally accepted things, he became absorbed in judging things to be bad or good.

Truth and falsehood is innate, objective. Facts. Good and bad are externally contextual, subjective.

Good and bad, Maimonides says, is based on society. It is bad to be naked. It is good to be clothed. Nothing objectively wrong with nakedness, nothing objectively right with clothes. This was Adam and Eve's realization, and that's why their reaction is to be embarrassed and find clothes. They have now muddled their intellectual comprehension of facts, with emotional and societal pulls - conventions.

Perhaps the Torah represents an idealized knowledge of the world, that is unmuddled by the human experience. We want a day that we can return to this. We bring the two loaves, the wheat of good and bad, in hope of rectifying this mistaken attitude. We celebrate the Torah's giving, and learn much on that day(s) to rectify the muddling of truth.

I asked Rabbi Pesach Wolicki, this was his answer, in short:

Here's a short version: the different opinions re: what the fruit of the sin was are different opinions re: the fundamental cause of sin. Wheat represents human intellect and creativity. This is evident from a number of Gemaras (e.g. a child can only say Abba and Ima when he has tasted grain) Human intellect can and does cause great human problems - it is also the most exalted human characteristic - this is Torah. The shtei halechem represent the 2 luchot as well as Humanity as opposed to animals (maachal adam vs. maachal beheimah) Thus, the shtei halechem are the tikun of the cheit if we see the cheit as being a sin based in human thinking.

An esoteric reading of Ibn Ezra on Bechukotai

Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 26:13

וריקי מוח אמרו: כי הקללות רבות מהברכות ולא אמרו אמת, רק נאמרו הברכות כלל ונאמרו בקללות פרטים לירא ולהפחיד השומעים. והמסתכל היטב יתברר לו דברי.

"The empty of mind say that the curses are more numerous than the blessings, and they have not said the truth. Rather, the blessings were said in generalities, and the curses were said in detail to inspire fear in the listeners. And one who looks into this well will have clarity of my words."

Were I inclined to be an esoteric reader of Ibn Ezra, he's saying the entire blessings and curses were written later, when they were already in Israel, to scare them into keeping the law. That's of course not what he's saying.

Rosh Chodesh, the time for Torah

Bamidbar begins with

1. The Lord spoke to Moses in the Sinai Desert, in the Tent of Meeting on the first day of the second month, in the second year after the exodus from the land of Egypt, saying.

א. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר:

Ehrlich (page 252 of Mikra Kipshuto) points out that Rosh Chodesh is consistently the day that the prophet or leader would announce or inaugurate holy things. Sometimes they would be Torah things, and sometimes they would inaugurate a holy thing. Let's look at his other examples. We find out that just a month prior, the Mishkan was set up on Rosh Chodesh, Exodus 40:17

17. It came to pass in the first month, in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Mishkan was set up.

יז. וַיְהִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן:

When Moses begins to speak to them again, the long speech that starts in Deuteronomy, it makes sure to tell us it was Rosh Chodesh, Deuteronomy 1:3

3. It came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel according to all that the Lord had commanded him regarding them;

ג. וַיְהִי בְּאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּעַשְׁתֵּי עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ דִּבֶּר משֶׁה אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֹתוֹ אֲלֵהֶם:

He points out that the four sayings of Ezekiel occurred on the first of the month (Ezekiel 26:1, 29:17, 31:1, 32:1):

1. It came to pass in the eleventh year on the first of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

א. וַיְהִי בְּעַשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הָיָה דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר:

17. And it came to pass in the twenty-seventh year in the first [month], on the first of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

יז. וַיְהִי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וָשֶׁבַע שָׁנָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הָיָה דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר:

1. Now it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third [month], on the first of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

א. וַיְהִי בְּאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הָיָה דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר:

1. Now it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, on the first of the month, that the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

א. וַיְהִי בִּשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בִּשְׁנֵי עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הָיָה דְבַר יְהֹוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר:

The question the husband of the Shunemite woman asks strongly implies that Rosh Chodesh was a time to see the prophet (II Kings 4:23):

23. And he said, "Why are you going to him today; it is neither the New Moon nor the Sabbath." And she said, "It's all right."

כג. וַיֹּאמֶר מַדּוּעַ אַתְּ הֹלֶכֶת אֵלָיו הַיּוֹם לֹא חֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא שַׁבָּת וַתֹּאמֶר שָׁלוֹם:

I would also add when Ezra read the Book of Moses to the people, Nehemiah 8:2.

2. And Ezra the priest brought the Law before the congregation, both men and women, and all who could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month.

ב. וַיָּבִיא עֶזְרָא הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַתּוֹרָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּהָל מֵאִישׁ וְעַד אִשָּׁה וְכֹל מֵבִין לִשְׁמֹעַ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי:

Ehrlich continues that it seems that it wasn't just to hear from the prophets, but also to start or inaugurate holy things as well. His examples are the example of Exodus 40:17 above, but also when the Levites came to sanctify the Temple in the days of Chizkiyahu (II Chronicles 29:17):

17. They commenced on the first of the first month to sanctify, and on the eighth day of the month they came to the vestibule of the Lord; and they sanctified the House of the Lord for eight days, and on the sixteenth day of the first month, they finished.

יז. וַיָּחֵלּוּ בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן לְקַדֵּשׁ וּבְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנָה לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּאוּ לְאוּלָם יְהֹוָה וַיְקַדְּשׁוּ אֶת בֵּית יְהֹוָה לְיָמִים שְׁמוֹנָה וּבְיוֹם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן כִּלּוּ:

As well as Ezekiel's vision for the sanctification of the Temple (Ezekiel 45:18):

18. So says the Lord God: In the first month, on the first of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish, and you shall purify the altar.

יח. כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ תִּקַּח פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְחִטֵּאתָ אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ:

And also when Ezra decided to bring people back to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:9):

9. For on the first of the first month was the commencement of the ascent from Babylon, and on the first of the fifth month, he arrived to Jerusalem according to the good hand of his God upon him.

ט. כִּי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּא יְסֻד הַמַּעֲלָה מִבָּבֶל וּבְאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי בָּא אֶל יְרוּשָׁלִַם כְּיַד אֱלֹהָיו הַטּוֹבָה עָלָיו:

(I'm sure there are many examples of this. It could be that the first of the month is easy to right, it's kind of like rounding out the numbers and seems less random. But that would mean that if the Bible specifies the day something occurred that wasn't the first, it would be ultra-significant.)

This may be significant to how we view this piece of give-and-take when the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3a finally comes to a concluding proof-verse for the new year of kings starting in the month of Nisan from Chronicles, which is probably the weakest place to find proofs.

אלא אמר ר"א מהכא ויחל לבנות בחדש השני בשני בשנת ארבע למלכותו מאי שני לאו שני לירח שמונין בו למלכותו מתקיף לה רבינא ואימא שני בחדש א"כ שני בחדש בהדיה הוה כתיב ביה ואימא בשני בשבת חדא דלא אשכחן שני בשבת דכתיב ועוד מקיש שני בתרא לשני קמא מה שני קמא חדש אף שני בתרא חדש

"Rather, Rabbi Eliezer says: From here: (II Chronicles 3:2) "He began building on the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign..." What is "in the second"? It is surely the second month from which his reign is counted from [i.e. the second month after Nisan, Iyyar]!  

Ravina asked [a logic-based question]: "I'll say it is the second of the month!"  

If that were true, it should have said explicitly "the second of the month".  

"I'll say it is the second day of the week." 

Firstly, we don't ever find it written "second day of the week". And furthermore, we make an exegetical connection between the latter "second" to the former "second". Just like the former "second" refers to a month, so too the latter "second" refers to a month [in this case, since the rosh hashana of his reign].

If Ehrlich is correct, the real actual reason we can figure it does not refer to the day of a month, is because the beginning of holy things always begins on Rosh Chodesh. The reason, presumably, the Talmud does not say that is either, they never picked up on this "fact", or that they are really trying to prove from the verses alone when Rosh Hashana for kings really starts.

We find their affinity for straight verse proofs from their hava amina suggestion on 2b that perhaps Moses' speech in Deuteronomy preceded Aaron's death, even though Aaron's death in described many chapters earlier in Numbers. We could say that "ein mukdam" is assumed by the Talmud, but if its debatable amongst the rishonim, its difficult to assume that the Talmud takes a definite stand on it. Rather, I believe the Talmud is really just trying to find based on the verses itself the strongest possible proof. In the end, it needs to rely on a hekesh, which is not the best for what they're searching for, but it will do.

If you look at the Yerushalmi, it first states where it is from, Chronicles, and the hekesh, and then goes through some rigamarole, but it stands in stark contrast to the whole give and take of the Bavli. I used to say that halacha l'moshe misinai can be seen as a last resort something the rabbis were sure was quite ancient. Rabbi Herschel Schachter had said as much in a Q&A. Why would he say that? Because if you look for example at the gemara trying to source the various halachot of tefillin in the Bavli, it searches for verse after verse and ends up with halacha l'moshe misinai. So it seems like a giving up tactic. However, having see the Yerushalmi, I can suppose that it is simply the Bavli's style to look for verses first, describe really why it rejects them, before it arrives at the answer it knew all along.

How Far A Rashi Pashtan Must Go

In a previous post, I wrote about some adherents to the view that Rashi only ever comes to solve for pshat questions, no exceptions. As was rightly pointed out to me by Rav Herczeg in an email, I made it seem as if Nechama Leibowitz was an innovator of this method of analyzing Rashi, when in fact it preceded her by many generations, and this is the method of many meforshei Rashi. I have since corrected that, but it is definitely true that she popularized it. Anyway, I call such a commentary, a "Rashi Pashtan". If one examines the footnotes in the Artscroll Rashi, one can see the great deal of work Rav Herczeg put into answering many of the questions by using these meforshim to answer these questions.

Maskil L'David was such a Rashi Pashtan. His commentary to Rashi on Leviticus 19:18 is very instructive to us to show how sometimes commentaries have to go far afield to answer the questions on Rashi.

So let's see this Maskil L'David. But first, a reminder of the question:

Rashi writes:

You shall love your neighbor as yourself: Rabbi Akiva says: “This is a fundamental principle of the Torah.”

ואהבת לרעך כמוך: אמר רבי עקיבא זה כלל גדול בתורה:

 What pshat question is Rashi dealing with? Is there something wrong with the verse that this comment is correcting, and if so, how?

The Maskil L'David says something that is a chiddush on many levels. Not only for Rashi, but for the verse, and for Rabbi Akiva's statement as well.

He writes:

ואהבת ללעך כמוך: אמר ר״ע וכו׳ פירש״י בפ׳ במה מדליקין שכל המצות הנאמרות בתורה נכללו בזה דרעך זה הקדוש ברוך הוא דכתיב רעך ורע אביך אל תעזוב ואל תעבור על דבריו שהרי שנאוי לך שיעברו על דבריו ע״ש ולפי״ז מובן למה הוצרך רש״י להביא הרבר בשם בעליו לפי שבא לפ׳ דלרעך זה הקב״ה ואי לאו לאמרוה רז״ל לא הוה מפ' הכי מדדיה דלאו אורח ארעא אלא שרז״ל ברוח קדשם קבלו שזו כוונת הכתוב והיינו דאמר מה אמר רבי עקיבא זה כלל וכו׳ כלומר ואי לאו לאמרה ר״ע לא הוה אמינא לה

The Talmud Shabbat 31a has the famous differences between Shammai's method and Hillel's method. When a guy came to Shammai wanting the entire Torah on one foot, Shammai pushed him away with a ruler. Hillel told him,

דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד זו היא כל התורה כולה ואידך פירושה הוא זיל גמור

That which is hateful to your friend you shall not do, that is the entire Torah, the rest is its commentary, go and learn.

Rashi writes on those words,

ריעך וריע אביך אל תעזוב (משלי כז) זה הקב"ה אל תעבור על דבריו שהרי עליך שנאוי שיעבור חבירך על דבריך ל"א חבירך ממש כגון גזלה גנבה ניאוף ורוב המצות: 

(Proverbs 27:10) "Your fellow and the fellow of your father do not forsake." That is God. Do not transgress his word, that it would be hateful to you for your fellow to trasgress your word. Alternatively, literally "your fellow", meaning [don't] steal, rob, have adultery, and most commandments.

Rashi is answering the question of why Hillel changed the phrase of the verse into a negative commandment, by giving two options of what he is saying. The second one we are familiar with, that he is paraphrasing the verse and makes it refer to negative commandments bein adam lechaveiro such as stealing. 

But the first one has Hillel saying that the entire Torah is not to transgress God's word!

The Maskil L'David thinks that's what Rashi is doing on our verse. He is quoting Rabbi Akiva to say that the verse is referring to God! You shall love God as yourself, and not violate his command because you would not want your friend to violate your command! And the reason why he felt the need to quote Rabbi Akiva in name is because had Chazal not said it, you would not have believed that was the meaning of the verse!