Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 59

Sun, 18 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Skeptics (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Was Lavan daft, dense or what? (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: A few notes on Parshas Vayetzei (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: A few notes on Parshas Vayetzei (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: A few notes on Parshas Vayetzei (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: SEMI CIRCLE MENORAH (Micha Berger)
• 8. "she?ain mevarchin baTorah techilah" (hlampel@koshernet.com)
• 9. Re: SEMI CRICLE MENORAH (Menachem Posner)
• 10. Re: Was Lavan daft, dense or what? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Was Lavan daft, dense or what? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 12. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Daniel Eidensohn)

On Nov 14, 2007 4:01 AM, david guttmann <david.guttman@verizon.net> wrote:

> RRW writes ;
>
> >That is perhaps why the Kafich's "leidah es Hasehm" is supeior over
> "lehaamin..."  because knowing/experiencing is superior than either
> logical
> belief or even "blind belief."When one KNOWS that one is a parent or a
> spouse there is no need to "believe" taht one has a relatiosnhip!
> Similarly
> when one experiences God
> logic is unnecessary, rather one relates to God..
>
> RMB writes:
>
> >I find it very difficult to believe that that's the distinction R'
> el-Qafeh was making in insisting the Arabic should be translated as
> yedi'ah
> rather than emunah.
>
> I have to agree with RMB in this as far as Rambam's position. He clearly
> sees experience ONLY after philosophical attainments as he tells us in
> Yesodei Hatorah 4:12 Teshuvah 10:6 and other places.
> David Guttmann
>
>
RRW responds:
While  I concede that the Rambam was into philosophy etc. I think WADR you
are focusing on the tree and not the forest, the means and not the end

The Tachils  accocrding to Rambam  is "da'as es hashem"  [as in
Yirmeyahu  "hakseil vado'a osi"
Yeshaya: "D'aas es Hasehm kemyaim layam kechashin.
Shir Hashirim in toto, etc.

The Tachliss aisi is a form of GNOSIS. Philosophy is the Rambam's path.
Mysticism is  his son's path  in that he reportedly embraced some
"Suif-istic" values. But aisi Rambam and his son's goal remains the same.

If this concept has not been articulatedd before, then I would be surprised.
If so, then it represents a paradigm shift. People have pigeon-holed the
Rambam as a "mere" philosopher. He was much more than that, and this goes to
my points re: Rambam being a mystic [although not a Qabbalist].  The Moreh
was embraced by many as more of a mystical  text than a philosophic one.  in
fact, iirc Pines in his intro takes issue with classifying the Moreh as a
philosophical text at all.

Just because KNOWING  GOD includes mental/intellectual aspects does not mean
that is the GOAL the Matarah of KNOWING GOD. It is merely the intellectual
pre-requisite.


It is obvious to me that merely philosophizing that simply pedestrian
knowledge that "God is there" is NOT the point of the Rambam beyond an
elementary level.  That would be tantamount to saying that reading a bio of
one's spouse is KNOWLEDGE in terms of their relationship. Knowledge as used
by Torah and Rambam indicates to me a far more intimate relationship than
mere philosophy. The  GOAL of marriage is not the wedding. The GOAL is more
about attending the grandchildren's wedding.  Requiring a wedding to get
there does not mean that this is the final tachlis at all!

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071116/8f0aff18/attachment-0001.html 

Lavan benefited from an experience we all strive for, but know that, living in 
times of hester panim, we cannot expect: direct revelation. Before reaching 
Ya'aqov's camp, G"d appeared to Lavan and told him to abstain from talking to 
Ya'aqov either good or bad.

However, moments after relating that incident to Ya'aqov, he asks "lamah 
ganavta et elohai?!" Is Lavan out of his mind? He just experienced 
Revelation, and he asks for his idol?! How can he?

I believe that the answer is obvious: reshaim, afilu 'al pit'hah shel gehinnam 
einam 'hozrim bitshuvah. If Lavan wants AZ, he will justify AZ no matter what 
the proofs against it, including miraculous revelation.

Sometimes, we hope for a sign that will confirm our belief more than can be 
expected in hester panim, if only to prove the atheist wrong. Purported 
atheists often challenge  believers with the question why G"d doesn't show 
himself more clearly. However, teaches the Torah, experience shows us that 
such signs are usually irrelevant. Lavan, and in a different way, Dor 
haMidbar, had proofs aplenty, yet, it didn't prevent them from sticking to 
their heresies. Bederekh she'adam rotzeh leilekh, molikhin oto.

KT & good week,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RZS writes:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> 
> > Question: How did HKBH let Y'aaov Avinu have relations with Le'ah that
> > night when his Kesubbah said Rachel - which meant his bi'ah was assur.
> 
> 1. It's an explicit Tosfos that this applies only to food, not to
> other issurim.


Agreed (sources for those who want to look it up are inter alia, gitten 7a
d"h hashta behemtan shel tzadikim").  And Rabbanu Tam feels constrained to
provide this answer due to the various sins that various tzadikim are said
to have done in other places in Shas (Shabbas 12b, Chagiga  16b).

But my question on this is - how about the pasuk from Mishlei that is
brought in Yevamos 121a "lo yune l'tzadik kol avon [Mishlei 12:21] which
Rashi explains there in Mishlei as meaning that he will not be caused to
stumble into an averah unintentionally?

And in particular:

a) How would Rabbanu Tam explain this pasuk - and note that certainly when
applied in Yevamos 121a it is deemed to relate to a sin other than of eating
forbidden food (in fact inappropriate excommunication)?

b) Why is it that all over Shas they bring the reference to Rav Pinchas Ben
Yair and his donkey from Chullin 7a-b "hashta behemtan shel tzadikim
tzadikim atman lo kol sheken", when they could bring a Pasuk from Nach that
says it far more explicitly?

Anybody know any sources that comment on this and how the two interrelate?

> --
> Zev Sero     

Regards

Chana

 
 
From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:zev@sero.name) 

>>Rivkah wasn't looking after any sheep.  She was going to  the well to
draw water for the family,....
Though given Rivkah's age, I  imagine there was probably another woman
of the household sent to draw the  water for dinner, while Rivkah
tagged along with a small pitcher, to  "help".<<

>>>>>

A little girl tagging along with her toy pitcher wouldn't/couldn't have  
watered Eliezer's camels -- who had just come on a long trip and probably hadn't  
had a drink in days.





--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071117/a51bb15f/attachment-0001.htm 

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> From: Zev Sero zev@sero.name <mailto:zev@sero.name>
..
>> Though given Rivkah's age, I imagine there was probably another woman
>> of the household sent to draw the water for dinner, while Rivkah
>> tagged along with a small pitcher, to "help".

> A little girl tagging along with her toy pitcher wouldn't/couldn't have 
> watered Eliezer's camels -- who had just come on a long trip and 
> probably hadn't had a drink in days.

Actually, they'd only been traveling for one day - "hayom yatzati vehayom
bati" - so they probably weren't very thirsty.  It would still have been
a big job for such a small girl, and demonstrated her trait of chessed,
but the total volume of water drawn may not have been all that much.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 
_zev@sero.name_ (mailto:zev@sero.name)  writes:

>>Actually, they'd only been traveling for one day - "hayom  yatzati vehayom
bati" - so they probably weren't very thirsty.  It  would still have been
a big job for such a small girl, and demonstrated her  trait of chessed,
but the total volume of water drawn may not have been all  that much.<<

-- 
Zev  Sero                

 
 
>>>>>
That's a stretch.
I don't believe she was a little girl tagging along after an older woman  who 
was doing the real work, there is absolutely no source for that.  Even  if 
she was only three (about which I believe there are different opinions) and  
even if the trip only took one day (again, different opinions) the text is clear  
that she was big enough to do real work and that she poured a LOT of  water.  
She had to fill troughs, remember.

 

--Toby Katz
=============


 

--Toby
--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071117/a97fa115/attachment-0001.html 

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:17:40PM -0700, Daniel Israel wrote:
: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:08:14 -0700 Menachem Posner 
: <menachemp@juno.com> wrote:
: >Does anyone know of a definitive ruling as to whether a Chanukah 
: >menorah may or may not be shaped in a semi circle? Or rather, why 
: >is it that no orthodox Jews ever use such Menorahs since there is 
: >no apparent reason why not to?

: R' Seth Mandel posted an excellent discussion of the shape of the 
: Menorah in the BhM on Avodah, you can find it in the archives:
: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n065.shtml#12


I thought the original question  was about the shape of a Chanikiyah's
lamps -- need they be arranged in a line or is a semicircle also okay.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In one of his igros (R' Shielat's ed. p.212, Sh'ayla
17), the Rambam explains a familiar 
Chazal in an unfamiliar way. The Chazal (Nedarim 81a)
asks, "mipnei mah talmidei chachamim 
einan metsuyin la-tsies Torah mi-b'nayhem--Why
doesn't Torah come from the sons of 
talmidei chachamim?" and it answers, "mipnei she'ain
mevarchin baTorah techilah." 
(Elsewhere this is a reason given for the churban
Besi HaMikdash.) 

The usual understanding of "she'ain mevarchin baTorah
techilah" (as per Rashi and others on the Gemora) is
that they fail to say birkas haTorah. This
explanation has some difficulties: Did they fail to
say this bracha in particular? Why? And what is the
point of the word "techillah"?

Rambam's explanation is different, does not have this
difficulty, and fits the words beautifully: According
to the Rambam, the context is being called up for
aliyos at krias HaTorah. 
The criticism is that when the talmidei chachamim
were called up for the first aliyah, they were
moichel the kavod (allowing a kohein am haAretz to
have the first aliyah instead).-But this was a 
matter of misplaced modesty that actually
demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the honor 
of being called to be the first to make a berachah on
the Torah! This is peshat in, 
"mipnei she'ain mevarchin baTorah techilah."-They do
not make the first beracha [said by the first oleh
l'kriass haTorah] on the Torah. Incredible, no?

Zvi Lampel

Allow me to clarify my question. I was not asking about the shape of the arms of the menorah since that has not halachic status. Rather, I was a asking whether having the lights arranged in a straight row is preferred to a semi-circular or curved arrangement. In other words, is a semi circle problematic in terms of being k’madurah?
 
Incidentally, I understand that the Lubavitcher rebbe’s preference of straight arms over circular ones was only since he saw the circular ones as an outgrowth of non-Jewish, mistaken beliefs (such as Shaar Titus) not as a requirement in the mitzvah of Chanukah. In fact the Chabad Minhag is to use a menorah with a back, and no arms, so that there is no ambiguity as to which side is the right side.

_____________________________________________________________
Click to get freedom from your annoying glasses. Save on LASIK surgery.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifdpH74a2txAMowfKaMfA1DExDc0XiZmetF3WN6eImyozQRE/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071118/dd0aaa17/attachment.htm 

Arie Folger wrote:
> Lavan benefited from an experience we all strive for, but know that, living in 
> times of hester panim, we cannot expect: direct revelation. Before reaching 
> Ya'aqov's camp, G"d appeared to Lavan and told him to abstain from talking to 
> Ya'aqov either good or bad.
> 
> However, moments after relating that incident to Ya'aqov, he asks "lamah 
> ganavta et elohai?!" Is Lavan out of his mind? He just experienced 
> Revelation, and he asks for his idol?! How can he?

Pagans never had a problem acknowledging Hashem's existence and power.
On the contrary, they were quite prepared to accept that any god they
heard of was probably just as real as the ones they knew and worshipped.

As R Avigdor Miller pointed out, Izevel harsha'ah didn't call her sons
Achazbaal and Baalram, but Achazyahu and Yehoram; she was perfectly
willing to worship and honour the god of her husband's subjects, and
couldn't for the life of her understand why they weren't willing to do
her the same courtesy.  She must have thought they were being rude and
rebellious, and needed to be taught a lesson.

Similarly when Lavan made the cairn as a boundary between his domain
and Yaakov's, he proposed that the agreement be judged by both sides'
gods.  What could be more logical to the pagan mind?  But the Torah
tells us that Yaakov didn't accept this proposal, and swore only by
Hashem.

So Lavan wasn't surprised to be visited by his nephew's god, and took
heed of the warning he got.  He didn't attempt to do anything to
Yaakov.  But nor did he see any reason to stop worshipping his own
gods, whom he had no reason to believe less powerful than lehavdil
ours.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

There is a more direct answer to your question from archeology and 
anthropology. The household gods were not just objects of worship but 
their possession was also critical for authority and inheritance rights. 
It was equivalent to identity theft - losing the deed to the farm, 
stocks as well citizenship papers etc. Lavan's concern was not 
theological. That is perhaps why they were stolen in the first place.

Arie Folger wrote:
> Lavan benefited from an experience we all strive for, but know that, living in 
> times of hester panim, we cannot expect: direct revelation. Before reaching 
> Ya'aqov's camp, G"d appeared to Lavan and told him to abstain from talking to 
> Ya'aqov either good or bad.
>
> However, moments after relating that incident to Ya'aqov, he asks "lamah 
> ganavta et elohai?!" Is Lavan out of his mind? He just experienced 
> Revelation, and he asks for his idol?! How can he?
>
> I believe that the answer is obvious: reshaim, afilu 'al pit'hah shel gehinnam 
> einam 'hozrim bitshuvah. If Lavan wants AZ, he will justify AZ no matter what 
> the proofs against it, including miraculous revelation.
>
> Sometimes, we hope for a sign that will confirm our belief more than can be 
> expected in hester panim, if only to prove the atheist wrong. Purported 
> atheists often challenge  believers with the question why G"d doesn't show 
> himself more clearly. However, teaches the Torah, experience shows us that 
> such signs are usually irrelevant. Lavan, and in a different way, Dor 
> haMidbar, had proofs aplenty, yet, it didn't prevent them from sticking to 
> their heresies. Bederekh she'adam rotzeh leilekh, molikhin oto.
>
> KT & good week,
>   

regarding sources of tzadikim being protected from sin. Some are found 
in my sefer Daas Torah page 269-271

*Ramban**[i]* <#_edn1>*(Makkos 5b):* */I swear that I mistakenly had an 
innocent man executed. /*This raises an obvious question. Our sages tell 
us concerning a tzadik that no sin occurs to them through the action of 
their animals?and they themselves are protected from sin. How was it 
possible that he mistakenly executed an innocent man? The correct answer 
to this question is that the executed man was in fact wicked and 
deserved to die for a different crime. This is what our sages tell us 
happened to R? Eliezar ben R? Shimon who also executed an innocent man. 
He later found out that the executed man was deserving of death for many 
other crimes he had committed. I explained this in detail in my 
commentary to the first chapter of Chullin.

*Ritva**[ii]* <#_edn2>*(Makkos 5b):* How could this tzadik have executed 
an innocent man since our sages tell us that no problems come about even 
from the animals of a tzadik? The one executed was deserving of death 
for a different crime. This is similar to the case of R? Eliezar ben R? 
Shimon who caused the death of a person?only to find out later that the 
dead man had been deserving of death for a number of other crimes.


    Tzadik not protected from accidental sin if he deliberately
    transgresses a prohibition

*Ran**[iii]* <#_edn3>*(Shabbos 12b):* R? Yishmael read on Shabbos by the 
light of an oil lamp?and ended up sinning by tilting it to improve the 
light. This raises the question as to how this could happen to a tzadik 
like R? Yishmael. Chullin (6a) states that G?d does not transgression to 
occur even through the animals of the righteous so surely a tzadik 
himself is protected from transgression? It is possible that the case of 
R? Yishmael is different since he transgressed the decree of his 
colleagues who prohibited reading by an oil lamp on Shabbos. Therefore 
he would not be protected against sin.

*Ran**[iv]* <#_edn4>*(Chullin 7a): *Our sages say that G?d doesn?t bring 
about transgression even by the animals of the tzadikim. This assertion 
seems to be contradicted by the fact that R? Yishmael?who was one of the 
greatest sages?utilized an oil lamp on Shabbos for reading and ended up 
violating Shabbos by tilting the lamp (Shabbos 12b). In addition Makkos 
(5b) Yehuda ben Tabai admitted mistakenly causing an innocent man to be 
executed in violation of the halacha. We also find in Yevamos (96b) that 
R? Eliezar accidentally ripped a Torah scroll when he was angry? A 
possible answer to this apparent contradiction is that a tzadik doesn?t 
accidentally sin or cause others to sin except when he transgressed some 
prohibition. Therefore concerning these great sages?R? Yishmael and R? 
Eliezar they had transgressed some prohibition. R? Yishmael violated the 
prohibition of the other sages against reading with an oil lamp on 
Shabbos. R? Eliezar became angry and thus was susceptible to sin. R? 
Yehuda ben Tabai?s victim might have been deserving of death from Heaven 
for some sin and G?d chose R? Yehuda to be the agent of his death. Thus 
it would be similar to what happened with R? Eliezar ben R? Shimon.**

*Ramban**[v]* <#_edn5>*(Chullin 7a): *Our sages say that G?d doesn?t 
bring about transgression even by the animals of the tzadikim. However 
this assertion of protection from sin seems problematic from a number of 
sources. For example it is reported in Shabbos (12b) that R? Yishmael 
read by the light of an oil lamp and tilted it in violation of the laws 
of Shabbos? In addition Makkos(5b) reports that either Yehuda ben Tabai 
or Shimon ben Shetach erred and had someone executed in violation of the 
halacha. We find in Yevamos (96b) that R? Eliezar accidentally ripped a 
Torah scroll when he was angry? Rabbeinu Tam answers this question by 
saying the rule only applies to prohibited food?because it is personally 
embarrassing to the tzadik as we see from Gittin(7a) but it doesn?t 
apply to violate the halacha. However this answer of Rabbeinu Tam makes 
no sense at all. In fact Kesubos (28b) directly contradicts his 
assertion. ? In fact the principle is that just as a the animal of a 
tzadik does not do something which causes other?s to sin?surely the 
tzadik himself will not accidentally cause others to sin because of his 
actions. However the tzadik himself can sin?since there is no one who 
doesn?t sin. Because there is a principle that if someone wants to 
purify himself he receives Divine assistance?the tzadik will not 
accidentally cause others to sin. However in the case of R? Yishmael he 
transgressed by ignoring the prohibition of his colleagues not to read 
by the oil lamp on Shabbos. Therefore he himself could sin in the matter 
and tilt the oil lamp. Similarly R? Eliezar and his colleagues could 
accidentally tear a Torah scroll because they allowed themselves to 
become angry. Our sages tell us that whoever becomes angry will come to 
sin because all manner of Gehinom takes over the angry person (Nedarim 
22a). Concerning R? Yehuda ben Tabai who had a false witness 
executed?not in accordance with the halacha?perhaps the dead man 
deserved death for another crime. Thus G?d arranged that R? Yehuda ben 
Tabai should execute him in the same way that R? Eliezar ben R? Shimon 
accidentally caused some one to be executed by the Romans?and it was 
ascertained that the dead man had deserved to die for a number of other 
crimes. There is difficulty with this explanation found in Bereishis 
Rabbah (60:8) where R? Zeira ate untithed fruits that had been sent to 
him by R? Yermiyahu?each thought the other would take the tithes from 
the fruit. Thus R? Zeira actually sinned and R? Yermiyahu caused him to 
sin. It could be answered that both of them had been negligent in their 
conduct and thus the consequences were deserved. Nevertheless this seems 
to be a direct contradiction to the view of Rabbeinu Tam that a tzadik 
is protected from eating something prohibited or causing others to eat 
something prohibited.


    Tzadik less spiritual than R? Pinchas? donkey is not protected

*Tosfos**[vi]* <#_edn6>*(Chullin 5b):* Our sages say that G?d doesn?t 
bring about transgression even by the animals of the tzadikim. However 
this assertion of protection from sin seems problematic from a number of 
sources. R? Yehuda ben Tabbai caused an innocent man to be executed 
(Makkos 5b). R? Yishmael read by the light of oil lamp on Shabbos and 
ended up sinning by tilting it (Shabbos 12b). The Ri said that the 
protection from sin is only for eating something prohibited because it 
is an embarrassment to the tzadik to eat something prohibited. There is 
an apparent exception to this interpretation from Kesubos (28b) that 
states that a slave was mistakenly elevated to the priesthood and the 
gemora asks how it could happen since even the animal of the righteous 
don?t err. But that case would also involve eating prohibited food if he 
married a woman with food that only a cohen and his wife are allowed to 
eat and she will end up eating prohibited food. However most editions of 
the Talmud do not have this case stated. That is because the principle 
really only applies to the tzadik himself not someone he caused to eat 
prohibited food?. However there are a number of cases cited in the 
gemora where the tzadik himself ate prohibited food? All of these 
involved eating something which is generally permitted but is prohibited 
for specific times. We see in Bereishis Rabbah (60:8) that R? Yirmiyahu 
caused R? Zeira to eat untithed food. This incident is report also in 
Shekalim (8a) and R? Zeira explains that he and R? Yirmiyahu were on a 
lower spiritual level than even the donkey or R? Pinchas ben Yair and 
thus the principle did not apply to them.

*Tosfos**[vii]* <#_edn7>*(Shabbos 12b)*:?Rabbeinu Tam said that the only 
time the gemora asks how could a tzadik sin since even the animals of a 
tzadik are protected from sin?concerns eating prohibited food which is 
an extreme embarrassment to the tzadik? The apparent exception involve 
eating something which is inherently permitted but under certain 
circumstances it is prohibited. The apparent exception to this when R? 
Yermiyahu sent untithed fruit to R? Zeira who ate them thinking that 
they had been tithed, was answered that they were on a lower level than 
the donkey of R? Pinchas ben Yair and thus the principle did not apply 
to them.


    Tzadik protected from sin only for inherently forbidden food

*Tosfos**[viii]* <#_edn8>*(Chullin 5b):* Our sages say that G?d doesn?t 
bring about transgression even by the animals of a tzadikim. However 
this assertion of protection from sin seems problematic from a number of 
sources. R? Yehuda ben Tabbai caused an innocent man to be executed 
(Makkos 5b). R? Yishmael read by the light of oil lamp on Shabbos and 
ended up sinning by tilting it (Shabbos 12b). The Ri said that the 
protection from sin is only for eating something prohibited because it 
is an embarrassment to the tzadik to eat something prohibited. There is 
an apparent exception to this interpretation from Kesubos (28b) that 
states that a slave was mistakenly elevated to the priesthood and the 
gemora asks how it could happen since even the animal of the righteous 
don?t err. But that case would also involve eating prohibited food if he 
married a woman with food that only a cohen and his wife are allowed to 
eat and she will end up eating prohibited food. However most editions of 
the Talmud do not have this case stated. That is because the principle 
really only applies to the tzadik himself not someone he caused to eat 
prohibited food?. However there are a number of cases cited in the 
gemora where the tzadik himself ate prohibited food? All of these 
involved eating something which is generally permitted but is prohibited 
for specific times. We see in Bereishis Rabbah (60:8) that R? Yirmiyahu 
caused R? Zeira to eat untithed food. This incident is report also in 
Shekalim (8a) and R? Zeira explains that he and R? Yirmiyahu were on a 
lower spiritual level than even the donkey or R? Pinchas ben Yair and 
thus the principle did not apply to them.

*Tosfos**[ix]* <#_edn9>*(Shabbos 12b)*:?Rabbeinu Tam said that the only 
time the gemora asks how could a tzadik sin since even the animals of a 
tzadik are protected from sin?concerns eating prohibited food which is 
an extreme embarrassment to a tzadik? The apparent exception involve 
eating something which is inherently permitted but under certain 
circumstances it is prohibited. However this explanation is contradicted 
by fact that R? Yermiyahu sent untithed fruit to R? Zeira who ate them 
thinking that they had been tithed. The explanation to this was that 
they were on a lower level than the donkey of R? Pinchas ben Yair and 
thus the principle did not apply to them.

*Tosfos**[x]* <#_edn10>*(Chagiga 16b):* Why didn?t the gemora ask how R? 
Yehuda ben Tabai could have an innocent man executed since even the 
animal of a tzadik is protected from sin as we find in Gittin (7a) and 
Chullin (5b)? We can answer that the question is only relevant when a 
tzadik eats prohibited food which is an embarrassment to him. However 
food which is inherently permitted except at specific times is not a 
problem since it is not so embarrassing as we see in Rosh HaShanna (21a) 
and Pesachim (106b).

*Tosfos**[xi]* <#_edn11>*(Gittin 7a )*: Rabbeinu Tam said that the only 
time the gemora asks how could a tzadik sin since even the animals of a 
tzadik are protected from sin?concerns eating prohibited food which is 
an embarrassment to a tzadik. Thus the question is not raised concerning 
R? Yishmael (Shabbos 12b) and R? Yehuda ben Tabai (Chagiga 16b). 
Concerning the apparent refutation of this from Kesubos (28b) where a 
slave was elevated to the priesthood by mistake and the gemora asks how 
it could happen since an error doesn?t happen even from an animal of a 
tzadik?Rabbeinu Tam views this text as mistaken. It could nevertheless 
be answered by noting that erroneously treating a slave as a priest 
could lead to the slave?s wife and children eating teruma?which is 
clearly prohibited. However this answer is not adequate since it is not 
a case where the tzadik himself is eating something prohibited? In 
addition there are cases where the tzadik ate prohibited food?but the 
food was not inherently prohibited but only for a specific time and 
occasion. In such cases it is not so embarrassing for the tzadik and 
thus he would not be protected from error.


    Tzadik not protected from eating prohibited food

*Ramban**[xii]* <#_edn12>*(Chullin 7a): *Our sages say that G?d doesn?t 
bring about transgression even by the animals of the tzadikim. However 
this assertion of protection from sin seems problematic from a number of 
sources. For example it is reported in Shabbos (12b) that R? Yishmael 
read by the light of an oil lamp and tilted it in violation of the laws 
of Shabbos? In addition Makkos(5b) reports that either Yehuda ben Tabai 
or Shimon ben Shetach erred and had someone executed in violation of the 
halacha. We find in Yevamos (96b) that R? Eliezar accidentally ripped a 
Torah scroll when he was angry? Rabbeinu Tam answers this question by 
saying the rule only applies to prohibited food?because it is personally 
embarrassing to the tzadik as we see from Gittin(7a) but it doesn?t 
apply to violate the halacha. However this answer of Rabbeinu Tam makes 
no sense at all. In fact Kesubos (28b) directly contradicts his 
assertion. ? In fact the principle is that just as a the animal of a 
tzadik does not do something which causes other?s to sin?surely the 
tzadik himself will not accidentally cause others to sin because of his 
actions. However the tzadik himself can sin?since there is no one who 
doesn?t sin. Because there is a principle that if someone wants to 
purify himself he receives Divine assistance?the tzadik will not 
accidentally cause others to sin. However in the case of R? Yishmael he 
transgressed by ignoring the prohibition of his colleagues not to read 
by the oil lamp on Shabbos. Therefore he himself could sin in the matter 
and tilt the oil lamp. Similarly R? Eliezar and his colleagues could 
accidentally tear a Torah scroll because they allowed themselves to 
become angry. Our sages tell us that whoever becomes angry will come to 
sin because all manner of Gehinom takes over the angry person (Nedarim 
22a). Concerning R? Yehuda ben Tabai who had a false witness 
executed?not in accordance with the halacha?perhaps the dead man 
deserved death for another crime. Thus G?d arranged that R? Yehuda ben 
Tabai should execute him in the same way that R? Eliezar ben R? Shimon 
accidentally caused some one to be executed by the Romans?and it was 
ascertained that the dead man had deserved to die for a number of other 
crimes. There is difficulty with this explanation found in Bereishis 
Rabbah (60:8) where R? Zeira ate untithed fruits that had been sent to 
him by R? Yermiyahu?each thought the other would take the tithes from 
the fruit. Thus R? Zeira actually sinned and R? Yermiyahu caused him to 
sin. It could be answered that both of them had been negligent in their 
conduct and thus the consequences were deserved. Nevertheless this seems 
to be a direct contradiction to the view of Rabbeinu Tam that a tzadik 
is protected from eating something prohibited or causing others to eat 
something prohibited.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071118/d5f82dd1/attachment.html 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 59
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."