<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
regarding sources of tzadikim being protected from sin. Some are found
in my sefer Daas Torah page 269-271<br>
<br>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Ramban</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[i]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Makkos
5b):</span></b><span style=""> <b><i>I swear that I mistakenly had an
innocent man executed. </i></b>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Ritva</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[ii]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Makkos
5b):</span></b><span style=""> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc90832470"><span style="">Tzadik
not protected </span></a><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832470'></span><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832470'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Franklin Gothic Medium Cond"'><span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>XE "Tzadik:Sin—not protected" </span></span><![endif]--><span
style=""></span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832470'></span><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><span
style=""></span><span style=""><span style="">from accidental sin
if he deliberately transgresses a prohibition</span></span><span
style=""><o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Ran</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[iii]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Shabbos
12b):</span></b><span style=""> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Ran</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[iv]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Chullin
7a): </span></b><span style="">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.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Ramban</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[v]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Chullin
7a): </span></b><span style="">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc90832471"><span style="">Tzadik
less </span></a><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832471'></span><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832471'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Franklin Gothic Medium Cond"'><span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>XE "Tzadik:Sin—not protected" </span></span><![endif]--><span
style=""></span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832471'></span><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><span
style=""></span><span style=""><span style="">spiritual than R’
Pinchas’ donkey is not protected</span></span><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Tosfos</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[vi]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Chullin
5b):</span></b><span style=""> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Tosfos</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[vii]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Shabbos
12b)</span></b><span style="">:…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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc90832472"><span style="">Tzadik
protected</span></a><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832472'></span><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832472'><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Franklin Gothic Medium Cond"'> XE
"Tzadik:Sin—protected from prohibited food" </span></span><![endif]--><span
style=""></span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832472'></span><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><span
style=""></span><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""> </span>from
sin only for inherently forbidden food</span></span><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Tosfos</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[viii]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Chullin
5b):</span></b><span style=""> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Tosfos</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[ix]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Shabbos
12b)</span></b><span style="">:…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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Tosfos</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[x]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Chagiga
16b):</span></b><span style=""> 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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Tosfos</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xi]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Gittin
7a )</span></b><span style="">: 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><a name="_Toc90832473"><span style="">Tzadik
not protected from eating</span></a><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832473'></span><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832473'><span style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Franklin Gothic Medium Cond"'>
XE "Tzadik:Sin—not protected from prohibited food" </span></span><![endif]--><span
style=""></span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bookmark:_Toc90832473'></span><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><span
style=""></span><span style=""><span style=""><span style=""> </span>prohibited
food</span></span><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="quote"><b><span style="">Ramban</span></b><a style=""
href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12" title=""><span
class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style=""><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xii]<!--[endif]--></span></span></b></span></a><b><span
style="">(Chullin
7a): </span></b><span style="">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<br>
</body>
</html>