[Avodah] Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:
>  Ain chachma, v'ain tavona v'ain aitza l'neged Hashem and 
> therefore kol makom sheyesh bo chillul Hashem, ain cholkin 
> kavod l'rav (See Sanhedrin 82a, Eruvin 63a,  Shavuos 30b and 
> Brochos 19b for details and the application of this principle). 

And RJR replied:
> ================================================================
> I always understood this to mean one could pasken in front of 
> one's rebbi without his permission in certain emergency 
> circumstances ,I'm not sure it would apply to pointing out 
> something to one's rebbi (unless one felt this would get 
> quicker action?)\ 

Why Not?

The essence of the issue is that while kavod haRav is an important
concept, kavod of HKBH is more important.  And if an averah is going to
be committed, the kavod of HKBH will be slighted, and one must therefore
do what is necessary to stop this, even if it involves violating kavod
haRav.  The language of the gemora (see Eruvin 63a) is that is it
permitted "lefrushe m'isura". Yes that was a case where somebody else
was about to violate shabbas by tying up his donkey to a tree on shabbas
and Ravina shouted to him to stop in front of his rav and then
threatened to excomunicate him - Ravina then asked if this was wrong and
was told ain chachma - kol makom sheyesh bo chilul Hashem ain cholkin
kavod l'Rav.  Similarly in Shevuos 30b, the issue is a Rav testifying in
a case which is beneath his dignity, and while he is allowed not to do
this for dinnei mamonos, aval bisura ain chochma etc.  The point being
that the risk to the kavod of Hashem in a case of issur is sufficient to
mean that the kavod of the Rav must be set aside.

I can't see why this does not apply in the case of Miriam.  If you grant
that she was right, and that what Amram was doing in seperating from his
wife was worse than Pharoah, then surely on the lefrushe m'isura
principle, she had to speak up, despite him being the gadol hador.  In
fact this case is not unanalogous to the one in Sanhedrin 82a, which is
where Pinchas speaks up in front of Moshe Rabbanu to deal with Zimri
etc.  Yes it is slightly different, in that it is not just a matter of
poskening wrongly or failing to posken, but of actually acting wrongly,
but if anything that seems like a kol v'chomer.  If Amram was not just
poskening wrongly, or failing to posken, but was actually doing an
issur, and causing the people to thereby do an issur, how much greater a
chillul HaShem can there be?  And the proof of the pudding would seem to
be, that by not being together with his wife, he was holding up the
geula, because as soon as he got back together with her, hey presto,
Moshe Rabbanu.  

So it seems to me reasonably pashut that despite this being a  violation
of kavod av, and kavod rav, and kavod gadol hador, it was a praiseworthy
act for Miriam, because it was as she identified a chillul HaShem.  And
therefore she was correct to rebuke him, and hence that the pasuk was
indeed praising her by referring to her as Puah.

>KT Joel Rich 

Shavuah tov

Chana