[Avodah] Who is a Talmid Chacham

[Chana Luntz]

RDB writes:

>It just does not say that regarding the Shoftim of the Shoftim era. 

Well Avos d'Rabbi Natan (1:1) lists the Shoftim in the chain of tradition:
Moshe nikadesh b'anan v'kibel Torah miSinai ... Yehoshua kibel m'Moshe ..
Zikenim kiblu m'Yehoshua ... Shoftim kiblu m'zikenim shenemar v'hayu b'yamei
shofet hashoftim.  Nevi'im kiblu m'shoftim...

This is also brought in the Machzor Vitri (Siman 424).

The Meiri explains what might seem to be the discrepancy between this and
Pirkei Avos as being that the Shoftim could also be considered to be in
klal of the zekanim, so Pirkei Avos did not feel the need to spell this out.

The
>Beraisa is talking about heeding legitimate judicial authority, and, in the
>context of the Shoftim, the authority of a *Parnas* (which extends to
>Shiv'a Tovei Ha'ir as well) which also has quasi-judicial authority.  See
>Shulchan Aruch CM 2:1 and Sm'a 10 ad loc.

>The source of their authority was something akin to a Melech, and they were
>Dan Shelo Al Pi Din Torah if the situation called for it. They were not the
>heads of the Sanhedrin, nor the foremost Poskim of their era. K'tzas Raayah
>- if Yiftach were, would Pinchas have qualms about going to him to be Matir
>his Neder (Taanis 4a)?

Well the Chinuch - (Mitzvah 495) clearly understands Yiftach b'doro the way
the RMB does - that it relates to "the chacham gadol sheyehiu benenu
bizmananu" and so do the commentators on the pasuk in question (Devarim
17:9).

Similarly the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 25) is clearly talking about psak when he
brings this reference.
And see the Rashba on Kiddushin 66b where he says:

ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט וגו'. ה"ג רש"י ור"ח ז"ל, ואינו מחוור דהאי קרא
לאו בעסק עבודה איירי אלא לענין דין כדדרשינן מיניה במס' ר"ה (כ"ה ב') יפתח
בדורו כשמואל בדורו, ורבנו שמואל ז"ל גריס ובאת אל הכהן אשר יהי' בימים ההם
דכתיב בפרשת והיה כי תבא, ובספרי דריש לה בהדיא מההוא קרא.

Where he can't understand the use of the pasuk here because this posek deals
with din, not Avodah.

Which is not to say that Yiftach b'doro is not also talking about the
authority of a parnes, sourced in din melech, which is why you can indeed
find sources that deal with that side of things as well.  Moshe, we would
all agree, had both the crown of Torah and the crown of malkus.  Yehoshua
similarly, and Shmuel similarly.  You appear to be arguing that the Shoftim
had the crown of malkus but not the crown of Torah and that when Yiftach,
Yerubaal (Gidon) and Bedan (Shimshon) are equated in the gemora with Moshe,
Yehoshua and Shmuel, they are only equated vis a vis one of these two
crowns.  

I don't see RMB as disagreeing with the equation in relation to malkus, or
having any problem with the citations you bring in Shulchan Aruch etc which
make it clear that it is appropriate to use the linkage Yiftach b'doro for
those who may be considered to take on an aspect of malkus (a parnes,  the
tovei ha'ir etc).  However, what he is a disagreeing with is your
understanding that the shoftim had only malkus, and not Torah, and hence
that when Yiftach, Yerubaal and Bedan are equated with Moshe, Yehoshua and
Shmuel in the gemora and elsewhere, they are only being equated in relation
to the crown of malkus and not the crown of Torah.

So sources that show that Yiftach b'doro is used in relation to the
authority of a parnes etc do not cause problems for RMB, so long as there
are other sources that show that Yiftach b'doro is used in relation to Torah
learning and knowledge - and it seems to me there are quite enough of them
to prove his point.

Regards

Chana