[Avodah] Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry"

[Daniel Eidensohn]

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/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071118/d5f82dd1/attachment-0001.htm>