[Avodah] Denying that Chazal are Oral Torah is Kefira?
Daniel Eidensohn
yadmoshe at 012.net.il
Sun Apr 6 06:26:38 PDT 2008
*Shabbos********(31a): *A certain non‑Jew came to Shammai and ask him
how many Toras existed. Shammai replied that there were two the Written
Torah and the Oral Torah. The non‑Jew replied that he believed Shammai
only regarding the validity of the Written Torah but not regarding the
Oral Torah. He then requested to be converted to Judaism on the
condition he would only be taught the Written Torah. Shammai reacted
with anger and drove him away. The non‑Jew then went to Hillel who
accepted him as a convert. The first day Hillel taught him the letters
of the alphabet: aleph beis, gimmel, daled. However, the next day he
reversed their names. The convert complained that what he was being
taught contradicted the previous lesson. Hillel pointed out that it was
obvious that the convert was dependent on his authoritative knowledge to
understand even the alphabet. Therefore, the convert needed to realize
that he also needed to believe Hillel when he said there was also an
Oral Torah.
** <#_ftnref1>**
*Rashi(Shabbos 31a): [Shammai] angrily rejected him – *Because it is
taught in Bechoros (30b): …that a non‑Jew who comes to convert and to
accept upon himself the words of Torah – except for one thing – is not
accepted. [*Hillel] converted him* – and relied upon his wisdom that
eventually he would accept all the Oral Torah. This is not the same as
accepting everything except for one thing – because the non‑Jeew was not
denying the Oral Torah but just didn’t believe that it was from G‑d.
Hillel was certain that after he taught the non‑Jew he would come to
accept it from him.**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> *רש"י (שבת לא.): הוציאו בנזיפה* - דתניא: הבא לקבל דברי
חברות חוץ מדבר אחד, וכן גר הבא להתגייר וקבל עליו דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד
- אין מקבלין אותו, במסכת בכורות (ל:): *גייריה* - וסמך על חכמתו שסופו
שירגילנו לקבל עליו, דלא דמיא הא לחוץ מדבר אחד - שלא היה כופר בתורה שבעל
פה, אלא שלא היה מאמין שהיא מפי הגבורה, והלל הובטח שאחר שילמדנו יסמוך עליו
*Chazon Ish****(Letters 1:15):..* It is at the roots of our faith that
all that is said in the gemora whether it is in the Mishna or gemora
whether it is halacha or agada - all these things were revealed to us by
medium of prophetic power ... There is in fact a major distinction
between the power of prophecy and ruach hakodesh. Prophecy transcends
the human intellect entirely. therefore someone who has reached the
level of prophecy is able to acquire wisdom directly without any
intellectual effort or involvement. In contrast, ruach hakodesh requires
tremendous thought and analysis until he is given additional
supernatural understanding. Without this effort this special
understanding is never achieved. One of the fully accepted foundations
of faith is that ruach hakodesh is critical to properly understanding
the truth in the Torah that was given through prophecy. That is because
Torah is not just probably true but is absolutely true. Consequently we
are greatly distressed to hear any aspersions cast on the words of
Chazal whether it is halacha or agada. It is equivalent to hearing
blasphemy. A person who deviates in this way is according to our
tradition as one who denies the words of Chazal and his shechita is
invalid and he is unfit to serve as a legal witness and other issues.
*Maharal[1] <#_ftn1>**(Chiddushei Agada Shabbos 31a):* A non Jew once
came to Shammai to convert…only for the Written Torah… Shammai drove him
away in anger because he did not believe in the Oral Law…. We can learn
from the fact that Hille accepted him that the Karaites who reject the
Oral Law are not considered heretics. Because if the rejection of the
Oral Law is heresy it makes no sense to accept a heretic for conversion.
The reason for accepting him was since he was willing to accept the
Torah itself but not the commentary [the Oral Law] - obviously he would
eventually come to accept the commentary [the Oral Law] and thus he was
not a heretic. It is difficult to accept the alternative explanation
that although he was a heretic, that Hillel accepted him since Hillel
was confident that eventually he would come to accept the Oral Law.
However a heretic is not included in the Jewish people and consequently
conversion would be irrelevant. Therefore it is obvious that he was not
a heretic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> *מהר"ל (חדושי אגדות א:טו - מסכת שבת לא.):* תנו רבנן
מעשה בעובד כוכבים אחד שבא לפני שמאי וכו': גער בו והוציא אותו בנזיפה.
מפני שלא היה מאמין בתורה שבעל פה. ולא דמי להנהו דלקמן, שלא שייך לגעור
בהם. ומכאן יש ללמוד שהקראים אינם בכלל מינים, כי אם היו בכלל מינים אין
סברא שהיה מקבל מין להתגייר, והטעם הוא, כיון שגוף התורה מקבל, רק הפי'
אינו מקבל, בודאי יבא לקבל ג"כ הפי'. ודוחק לומר שהיה הילל סומך על זה
שיקבל ג"כ תורה שעל פה , מכל מקום מין לא הוי בכלל ישראל, ולא שייך גביה
גירות אלא בודאי לא הוי בכלל מין:
*Chazon Ish[1] <#_ftn1>**(Hilchos Shechita #2):* … Essentially the
status of someone who denies the Oral Law – according to the Rashba as
cited by the Beis Yosef – is that he has the status of one who has
rejected the entire Torah. However this is puzzling since we see in the
gemora that a Kusi (Sadducee) has the status of a Jew as far as shechita
– even though they don’t accept the words of our sages? We see this also
in Yoma (19b) that they would give an oath to the high priest that he
would not burn the incense incorrectly like the sadducee. If he had been
a sadducee then he would have been a heretic to the whole Torah since
they reject the Oral Law and thus his service in the Temple would have
been invalid anyway? So even though we don’t find a specific verse
concerning a cohen as we find concerning shechitah and writing a sefer
Torah or mezuza – nevertheless it is logical that whoever is not
considered part of the Jewish people concerning shechita would also not
be considered a valid cohen. Therefore it seems that when the Rashba
refers to someone one who doesn’t believe in the words of our sages he
meant someone who doesn’t believe in the Jewish life which is guided by
the words of our sages concerningTorah and mitzvos. Included in this
rejection is the rejection of the Torah. Thus Kusim (Sadducee) are not
heretics because they are very careful to observe the Written Law. This
view is also that of the Ritva (Chullin 132b) concerning “Any cohen who
does not acknowledge the validity of the Temple service has no portion
in the priesthood”. Rashi explains: He doesn’t acknowledge that G‑d told
him that the cohen had the mitzva of Temple servce – but rather Moshe
made up the mitzva himself. The Ritva asks: “According to this denial of
the divine origin of the Temple servce the cohen would be a heretic in
relationship to the entire Torah. So why say only that he has no portion
in the priesthood – he is in fact deserving of captial punishment? Thus
the cohen must have meant that the service of the cohen is not
indespensible – even though he acknowledges that it is a mitzva given
through Moshe.” Thus the Ritva acknowledges that the cohen is denying
the worlds of our sages. Consequently the Ritva’s view is that someone
who rejects the words of our sages while retaining belief in the Written
Law – is not considered a heretic in regards to the entire Torah but
only in respect to one aspect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> *חזון איש (הלכות שחיטה סימן ב עמוד ח.)* ... ועיקר דין
כופר בתורה שבע''פ דעת הרשב''א בתשובה שהביא ב''י סי' קי''ט שדינו כמומר
לכה''ת כולה, אבל הדבר תימא הלא מבואר בגמ' דכותי דינו כישראל לענין שחיטה
אע''ג שאינו מאמין בדברי רז''ל? וכן אמרו יומא (יט:) שהיו משביעין כה''ג
שלא יתן הקטרת בחוץ ואי צדוקי דינו כמומר לכה''ת א''כ עבודתו פסולה אע''ג
שלא מצינו קרא בכהונה כמו בשחיטה וכתיבת סת''מ, מ''מ מסתבר דכל שאינו בכלל
ישראל לענין שחיטה אינו בכלל כהונה. ולכן נראה דאינו מאמין דברי רז''ל
שהזכיר הרשב''א שאינו מאמין בחיים של הישראלי הקבועים ע''פ חז''ל ע''פ
התורה והמצוה ובכלל כפירה זו כפירה בתורה, ואינו ענין לכותים שהיו מדקדקים
לשמואר את הכתוב. וכן מבואר בריטב''א (חולין קלב:) בהא דאמרו כל כהן שאינו
מודה בעבודה אין לו חלק בכוהנה ופרש''י שאינו מודה שנאמרה למשה אלא משה בדה
מלבו, והק' ריטב''א דא''כ הו''ל מומר לכה''ת ומאי אין לו חלק והא חייב
מיתה? אלא פי' ריטב''א שאומר שאין עבודה זו מעכבת אף על פי שנאמרה למשה,
והנה על כרחך כופר בדברי רז''ל, אלא שאין כופר בדברי רז''ל ומאמין בתורה
שבכתב בכלל מומר לכל התורה רק דינו כמומר לדבר אחד. ול' הריטב''א בקושיתו
סתום וכי חייב מיתה מאי הוי מ''מ שפיר ותכן שיקח חלק בקדושים אלא שמשמע לו
לריטב''א שפשוטע שמפסיד זכות כהונה ומסתבר שעבודתו פסולה, ואפשר שהוא בכלל
בן נכר אדמר זכחים כב: דמחלל עבודה, ואמנם לפ''ז גם כשעשה תשובה מחלל
עובודה, ור''נ ור''ש לא פליגי מנחות קט. אלא בשחיטת מזיד אבל בשאר מינות לא
פליגי. ...
*Igros Moshe(E.H. 2:4): *It is not necessary for a candidate for
conversion to learn and know the entire Torah before conversion. And
furthermore he is a valid ger bedieved even if he doesn’t know the few
minor and major mitzvos that he was required to be taught as is stated
in the Rambam(Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 13:17) and Shulchan Aruch (Y.D.
268:12). This is stated explicitly in Shabbos (68b) that a ger who
converted amongst the non‑Jews is a valid ger [even though he knew none
of the Torah laws] and he is obligated to bring sacrifices to atone for
his eating of prohibited blood, fat and involvement in idolatry. However
even though he didn’t know the particulars of the mitzvos he still must
accept the obligation to observe all the mitzvos that a Jew is obligated
to keep. If he doesn’t accept the general obligation to keep mitzvos –
the geirus is invalid even bedieved. However this understanding would
seem to be in conflict with the statement in Shabbos (31a) that Hillel
accepted a ger even though he declared that he didn’t believe in the
Oral Torah? Rashi tried to resolve this problem by saying that Hillel
was confident that after the ger learned he would rely on him in this
matter even though at the time when he immersed for conversion he still
hadn’t accepted the Oral Torah. However this does not resolve the
problem at all because there was no mention in the gemora that the ger
had to reimmerse after he had learned and accepted the validity of the
Oral Torah. It would seem therefore that the acceptance of the Oral
Torah seems to have been only an initial requirement lechatchila and
does not invalidate the conversion if not accepted. Therefore Hillel
accepted the ger even before he accepted the Oral Torah because he was
confident that the ger would eventually come to believe in the Oral
Torah. However Rashi gives a different explanation of the dynamics by
saying that this case is not an example of conversion where everything
except for one law is accepted. Rashi insisted that the ger was not
rejecting the Oral Torah but was only rejecting that the Oral Torah was
from G‑d. These statements of Rashi seem unfathomable according to their
literal understanding! Therefore it is necessary to explain Rashi to
mean that concerning the ger’s acceptance of the mitzvos he did in fact
accept the validity of Oral Torah. However he did not believe that the
words of the sages of that generation – Hillel and Shamai – were part of
the Oral Torah which was said by G‑d. This that he didn’t know how to
fulfill a particular mitzva does not prevent him from becoming a valid
ger as I have written above concerning Shabbos (68b). This ignorance
concerning the nature of the Oral Torah is only an lack of knowledge but
it is not a lack in the acceptance. Nevertheless if Hillel hadn’t been
confident that the ger would rely on him that the words of the Sages
were also the Oral Torah from G‑d – he would not have accepted him. That
is because one can not convert a ger who will not eventually fulfill all
the mitzvos even due to lack of knowledge. Consequently Rashi had to
say that Hillel was confident that afterwards the ger would accept
everything he said. Similarly it is necessary to say that the case of a
ger who converted amongst non‑Jews and despite knowing nothing he is a
valid ger – is only where soon after he will come to a Jewish community
and learn and fulfill everything. Thus we see that Rashi’s explanation
is a proof that without the full acceptance of the obligation to do all
the mitzvos – even lacking a single mitzva – is not a valid ger as I
have written.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> *אגרות משה (אבן העזר ב:ד):* ואף שא"צ שילמד ולידע כל
התורה קודם שמתגייר, וגם שהוא גר בדיעבד אף שלא הודיעו אף המקצת מצות קלות
וחמורות שצריך להודיע כדאיתא ברמב"ם (הלכות איסורי ביאה יג:יז) ובש"ע (יו"ד
רסח:יב) ומפורש בשבת (סח:) שאף שלא ידע מאיסור ע"ז הוא גר דף ס"ח בגר
שנתגייר בין הנכרים חייב על הדם אחת ועל החלב אחת ועל ע"ז אחת, מ"מ קבלה
לקיים כל המצות שחייבין בהם ישראל צריך לקבל וזה מעכב הגרות. אך לכאורה
יקשה משבת (לא.) ממה שקבל הלל להגר שאמר שבעל פה איני מאמינך נהי שפרש"י
שהיה הלל מובטח שאחר שילמדנו יסמוך עליו מ"מ הא עתה כשטבל לא קבל עדיין
תורה שבע"פ. שאינו כלום ולא הוזכר שהצריכו לטבול אחר שלמדו וקבל עליו, וא"כ
משמע שאינו מעכב אלא הוא דין דלכתחלה ולכן כיון שידע שלבסוף יסמוך עליו
קבלו גם לכתחלה, אבל נראה שרש"י תירץ זה שכתב גייריה וסמך על חכמתו שסופו
שירגילנו לקבל עליו דל"ד הא לחוץ מדבר אחד שלא היה כופר בתורה שבע"פ אלא
שלא היה מאמין שהיא מפי הגבורה, שלכאורה אין לזה באור. וצריך לפרש שכוונתו
דמצד קבלת המצות קבל גם תושבע"פ שידע שיש תורה שבע"פ אך לא האמין לחכמי
הדור בשמאי והלל שדבריהם הוא התורה שבע"פ שנאמרה מפי הגבורה, ומה שלא ידע
ממילא איך לקיים איזה מצות אינו מעכב הגרות כדכתבתי לעיל משבת (סח:) שהוא
רק חסרון ידיעה ולא חסרון קבלה. אך מ"מ אם לא היה יודע הלל שאח"כ יסמוך
עליו לא היה מקבלו דאין לגייר גר שלא יקיים אח"כ המצות אף אם יהיה מחמת שלא
ידע. והוצרך רש"י לומר שהיה מובטח שאח"כ יסמוך עליו ונצטרך לומר בגר
שנתגייר לבין העכו"ם שהיה לפני ב"ד הדיוטות או שהיו מקוים שבקרוב יבא למקום
ישראל שידע ויקיים. ונמצא שמפרש"י ראיה שבלא קבלת כל המצות אף רק חוץ מדבר
אחד אינו גר כדכתבתי.
More information about the Avodah
mailing list