[Avodah] further to R Lakish Annoyed with R Elazar

[Chana Luntz]

RMR writes:

<<this is the part that requires attention
Reish Lakish turned and looked at Rabbi Elazar harshly, and said to him:
You heard a statement of bar Naphac?a [the blacksmith's son - an epithet
for Rabbi Yo?anan] and you did not say it to us in his name?

Lets say it was well known that RElazar was a close Talmid of R Yochanan
and RLakish ought to have known that it was said in the name of RYochanan
In that case why is he looking daggers at RE??
Besides what diff does it make? RLakish was often in disagreement with R
Yochanan?

He raised an objection; RLakish considered it and dismissed it.
Is one supposed to stop thinking when one's teacher raises an objection and
just accept it?>>

And RMB answered (inter alia):
>That said, R Shteinzaltz did assume that RL was saying that has he known it
was RY, he would have accepted the ruling. (Noticed when I looked the quote
up on Sepharia.)

Not just Shteinzaltz, but Rashi and the Ritva as well appear to assume the
Reish Lakish would have accepted it (but I do understand RMR's objection).

However it seems to me that even without saying he would have accepted it
(and/or he needs to accept it), there is a big difference.  If one knew that
something was said by someone whose learning one rated, surely one would
think harder about rejecting it and the reasons for doing so than one would
if it was said by someone who one has less respect for.  Initially Reish
Lakish was faced with a situation in which he was ruling, and his junior
makes what might seem to him in the heat of the moment like a silly
response.  Is it not reasonable though that if that junior had said - "I
heard R' Yochanan say this in exactly this kind of case", Reish Lakish would
have thought more deeply about the situation and whether or not he was going
to disagree - and that by not telling him he was robbed of that opportunity?
Also there is the Ritva's second point, which is that Reish Lakish would not
then have repeated this in front of R' Yochanan - or at least, one could
say, Reish Lakish would only have repeated it in front of R' Yochanan
knowing that he was going to get push back, and that he needed to have his
ducks in a row in terms of justification - rather than being blindsided by
R' Yochanan's response.  It seems to me that either of these rationales
would easily explain Reish Lakish's response to R' Elazar.

Further RMR writes:

<In other words - being called as first Oleh to the Torah is not adequate
proof. Proof is established if he is given the Cohen's gifts.
But Rabbi Yo?anan objected: And if there is no threshing floor there, does
the priesthood cease to exist?
Why and How is this an objection - if there is no evidence then there is NO
EVIDENCE
Is this somehow PROOF that being called as first Oleh is proof?
That seems to make no sense.>

None of this is about proof.  Prior to DNA testing, there was absolutely no
way of bringing proof to the matter (as the old quip says - "maternity is
fact, paternity is hearsay" - and even the maternity bit is mostly hearsay).
Rather it is about what is sufficient evidence to pass the threshold to deem
someone a kohen.  Set the bar too low, and you will have a lot more non
kohanim ending up being deemed kohanim.  Set the bar too high, and nobody
will end up being deemed a kohen (even those that really are kohanim) and
the priesthood will, as R' Yochanan says, cease to exist - and with it all
the mitzvot specific to the kehuna.  So it makes sense to try and strike the
best balance you can.  Giving the gifts is a better test as a) the
consequences to the false kohen are greater in terms of the issur, so one
might assume the kohen is likely to be more careful; and b) given that the
Yisrael is giving away his hard earned produce, he is going to want to be
more careful to ensure it goes to a fair dinkum kohen - whereas being called
up first to the Torah - is if anything more of a courtesy as it can happen
to a gadol too or if there is no kohen in the shul (so a false kohen might
be more tempted to say he is, because he wants the honour, and justifies it
on the basis that he is really a gadol) and the shul are likely to be less
careful to investigate.

>Meir G. Rabi


Regards

Chana