Showing posts with label teacher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teacher. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Childhood Mistakes Remain Throughout Life

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

Rava stated: Teachers of children, gardeners, butchers, circumcisers, and the town scribe are all regarded as being warned from beforehand (that they will be dismissed if they cause a loss). The general principle is this: If the loss is irrecoverable, the workers are regarded as being warned from beforehand.

Rashi explains that a child, who was taught incorrectly, will always remain with that mistake.

Tosfos asks: Rava himself (in Bava Basra 21a) states that a mistake learned in one’s childhood will most likely be corrected when he becomes an adult! Why then should this be regarded as irreversible?

The Rishonim answer this question by saying that the Gemora in Bava Basra is referring to a teacher who is precise in his studies; however, he is lax and doesn't see to it that the children properly understand the material. Such mistakes can be corrected at a later date. Here, Rava was referring to a teacher who didn’t understand the material in the first place. Such mistakes will not be easily corrected.

Tosfos explains our Gemora to mean that the child will never be able to recover the time spent learning incorrectly.

The Ran answers that Rava is discussing a teacher who excessively hits his students.

The Chavos Yair does not understand why that would be considered irreversible. [Perhaps the excessive force will make an indelible impression upon the student, and he will have no desire to study when he becomes an adult.]

Read more!

Monday, March 03, 2008

Ben Azzai

(Nedarim 74b) When Ben Azzai heard Rabbi Akiva’s argument, he exclaimed in this exact language: It is a pity to you, Ban Azzai, that you did not serve Rabbi Akiva!

The Yad Malachei asks: It is evident from this Gemora that Ben Azzai did not study under Rabbi akiva. However, the Gemora Brochos (62a) states that Rabbi Yehudah told Ben Azzai: For how long will you be brazen towards Rabbi Akiva, your master? It could be answered that Ben Azzai went to study under Rabbi Akiva, and that is what the Gemora in Brochos is referring to.

However, the Gemora Brochos mentions that Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: For how long will you be brazen towards your master, that you followed Rabbi Yehoshua into the lavatory? If Rabbi Akiva was his master, how could he speak in such a degrading manner towards him? Even a teacher to a student wouldn’t talk like that; certainly a student to his teacher!

Therefore, he writes that it must be that Ben Azzai was a talmid chaver (a peer) of Rabbi Akiva. They were both disciples of Rabbi Eliezer the Great.

The Gemora in Bava Basra (158a) refers to Ben Azzai as the “Talmid chaver” of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai was considered somewhat of a disciple of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbeinu Gershom comments: Since Ben Azzai was a “bochur,” he was unable to comprehend halachic logic as well as Rabbi Akiva.

What is the connection between being a “bochur,” and not comprehending to the fullest extent?

I once heard from my Rosh Yeshiva, HaRav Chaim Schmelczer zt”l that Rabbeinu Gershom means that Ben Azzai was a bachelor, and one who is not married does not have the same level of contentment as one who is married. Torah study requires one to be at ease; one must have a menuchas hanefesh in order to comprehend the depths of the Torah. This is what Ben Azzai was lacking.

Read more!

Saturday, October 13, 2007

RABBAH; ABAYE’S TEACHER

Abaye inquired from Rabbah: A person claims that someone violated/seduced his daughter, and he took him to a different Beis Din which indeed found that the perpetrator must pay. The accused denies everything, and swore to this effect. The accused then admitted that he lied. What would be the law in this case according to Rabbi Shimon? As he had indeed stood trial and was obligated to pay money to the father, is this considered denying money in an oath for which one must bring a korban? Or do we say that even though the verdict that he owed money was already handed down, it is a matter of a fine (for which one does not bring a korban according to Rabbi Shimon if he denies owing the money under oath)?

Rashi writes that Rabbah bar Nachmeini was Abaye’s teacher. The commentators ask: Why did Rashi find it necessary to inform us that Rabbah was Abaye’s Rebbe; there are numerous times throughout the Gemora that Abaye inquired of Rabbah, and Rashi does not write that Rabbah taught Abaye?

(As an aside, the Maharalbach (64) writes that this particular sugya is lengthy and extremely difficult and there are many questions, especially on Rashi’s explanation of the Gemora. He cites fourteen questions. His student, the Maharashdam (Y”D 402) asks another twenty-four questions and answers them all.)

The Gemora cites Rabbah’s answer and Abaye’s challenge from a braisa. The commentators ask: It is evident that Abaye knew this braisa, so why did he inquire from Rabbah in the first place? The Ritva answers that it is common for a student to ask his teacher a question to hear his explanation even though he can resolve it on his own, and then, he will ask from a braisa in order to ascertain if the answer is indeed correct.

Rabbi Chaim Braun suggests that this might be the explanation of Rashi. Rashi writes that Rabbah was Abaye’s teacher in order to explain why Abaye is inquiring of Rabbah even though he knew the resolution himself.

Read more!

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Torah Scholars Increasing Peace

Rabbi Elozar said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, for it is said: And all your children shall be disciples of Hashem; and abundant shall be the peace of your sons.

The commentators ask: Why does it say that the Torah scholars will increase peace in the world? The Gemora should say that they will make peace in the world.

The Kedushas Tziyon explains based on a Gemora Kiddushin (30b) where Rabbi Chiya bar Abba states that even a father and son, or a teacher and student who are engaged in Torah study will become enemies with one another (as they debate the intricacies of Talmudical law), but they will not budge from there until they become friends with each other.

It emerges that Torah scholars are increasing peace in the world because every time they are engaged in Torah study, they become temporary enemies and then, they bring about peace with each other. Ordinary friends remain friends, and are not constantly making peace. Torah scholars; the more they learn, the more they are increasing peace.

Read more!

Thursday, August 09, 2007

NOT BELIEVING A SCHOLAR

The Gemora asks on the aforementioned braisa: How could Ben Yasyan accept the convert’s statement from Rabbi Akiva? Surely Rabbi Abba stated in the name of Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Wherever a scholar issues a halachic ruling (that was previously unknown) and such a point comes up for a practical decision, he is obeyed if he made the statement before the incident occurred, but if the statement was made only after the incident occurred, he is not obeyed.

The Gemora answers: If you wish I might say that the incident occurred after he made his statement.

Alternatively, I might say that it was because he brought proof from the woman and her seven children.

Alternatively, I might say that here it is different because he related another Rabbi Akiva’s other statement together with it (just as he was believed regarding that statement, he was believed regarding the other one as well).

From Rashi’s commentary (77a), it would seem that the reason we do not accept the scholar’s statement is because we are concerned that he might deliberately falsify the halacha.

The Ritva forcefully disputes this. Heaven forbid that a Torah scholar would deliberately falsify the ruling. Rather, the reason why we don’t believe him in these situations is because he might make a mistake; in the excitement of the moment, it would appear to him that he remembers the tradition in one manner, when in fact, it is really the opposite.

The Ritva explains that the third answer of the Gemora is very understandable according to his explanation. Since he related another one of Rabbi Akiva’s statements that was said at the same time, this is an indicator that the scholar does remember accurately what his teacher taught; he is not just misremembering. The Ritva states further that according to Rashi’s explanation, it is hard to comprehend the Gemora’s answer. If we are concerned that the scholar is lying, why would the additional elements added help to dispel that concern? He might be embellishing his lie in order to give it greater authenticity.

Read more!

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

REPORTING A STATEMENT IN YOUR OWN NAME - Yevamos 97 - Daf Yomi

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, what is the meaning of the following verse? “I will dwell in your tent in many worlds?” Is it possible for someone to dwell in a tent in both worlds? It means that David stated before Hashem: Master of the Universe, it should be Your will that after I die, they should say a statement in my name in this world (as well as my being in the next world), for Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: Any deceased Torah scholar, in whose name a traditional statement is reported in this world, his lips move gently in the grave (it is as if he is living in both worlds).

The Kinsker Rav in Chelkas Yoav (O”C 46) states that this is applicable even if one relates a Torah statement in his own name. In Heaven, it is known who was the author of this statement, and it will be attributed to him. He does say, however, that the one who said over the statement without attributing it to the proper author, has transgresses the negative prohibition of stealing. He has stolen the honor that the actual author duly deserved.

The Yefeh Mareh in his gloss to the Yerushalmi in Brachos disagrees, and he writes that it is only when the Torah scholar’s name is mentioned that his lips begin to move. From the fact that his name was mentioned in this world, it is regarded as if he is alive and his lips can move. The reason for this is based on a Yerushalmi in Shekalim (7b) which states that when a person is relating a Torah statement from another scholar, he should envision as if that scholar is standing beside him; it is through this that he is considered as if he is alive.

Read more!

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

DISPLAYING ANGER

Rav Ashi states that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. Ravina says that nevertheless, he should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to avoid anger.

The Gevuros Ari asks from a Gemora in Pesachim which states regarding one who becomes angry; if he is a Torah scholar, his Torah will depart him and yet our Gemora states that a Torah scholar who is not harsh like iron is not considered a talmid chocham.

He answers that if he becomes angry for the honor of Hashem and if it would have been impossible to accomplish this without getting angry; it is not only permitted but warranted. An example for this would be to instill fear into one’s students ensuring that they will not stumble into sin.

The Acharonim ask from the Gemora in Taanis (20) which states that a person should always strive to be soft like a reed and not harsh like a cedar tree. It is brought in the name of Reb Yonason Eibshitz that if a person needs to get angry, he should make sure that the anger is only on the surface but inside he should remain soft. This is what Ravina meant when he said that one should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to remove anger from one’s heart.

The Mishna in Avos (5:10) states that it should be difficult for a person to get angry and easy to be appeased. Rabbeinu Gershom explains our Gemora to mean that a person should get angry and it should be difficult to appease him. This is seemingly not consistent with the Mishna in Avos.

Harav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe (O”C 54) answers that here the Gemora is referring to a talmid chocham that issues a ruling. He is required to exhibit anger in order to ensure that the listeners will adhere to the halacha. He should not be easily appeased so people will not say that his ruling was actually a mistake but he is too embarrassed to admit it. This is what Rav Ashi meant when he said that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. If he is appeased readily, they will not rely on his rulings in the future.

Read more!

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

TEACHING TORAH TO A GENTILE PLANNING ON CONVERTING - Yevamos 47 - Daf Yomi

The Rambam (Issurei Bi’ah 14:2) writes that we inform the prospective convert the essentials of the faith, which is the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry, and they go on at great length about these matters.

The Machaneh Chaim ((Y”D II, 45) asks: Why isn’t this forbidden on account of a gentile studying Torah? The Gemora in Sanhedrin (59a) states explicitly that a non-Jew who studies Torah is liable for death.

He answers by citing a Medrash Tanchuma in Parshas Vayelech: The numerical value of Torah is six hundred and eleven. The remaining two mitzvos which complete the six hundred and thirteen are the two mitzvos which were given by Hashem directly at Har Sinai. This is the explanation of the verse: The Torah that Moshe commanded us to observe. Moshe instructed us regarding six hundred and eleven mitzvos; the other two were from Hashem.

The prohibition against teaching an idolater Torah is only applicable to the six hundred and eleven mitzvos that Moshe taught us. The other two, I am Hashem your God and the Unity of God; one would be permitted to teach to them. This is where the Rambam derived his ruling from; we can go on with great length discussing the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry.

The Maharsha (Shabbos 31a) writes that it is permitted to teach Torah to an idolater who wishes to convert. He proves this from the incident with Hillel and the convert.

Reb Akiva Eiger (41) disagrees and maintains that it is forbidden to teach Torah to an idolater even if he is planning on converting. Hillel taught the convert Torah only after he converted.

Read more!

Monday, May 14, 2007

Daf Yomi - Yevamos 9 - SHAMING A STUDENT

Levi asked of Rebbe: Why did the Mishna list only fifteen cases of women who exempt themselves and their co-wives from yibum and chalitzah; the Mishna should have listed sixteen? Rebbe said: It would seem to me that he doesn’t have any brains in his head.

The commentators ask: How could Rebbe talk to Levi in such a demeaning way? Doesn’t it say in Koheles [9:17]: The words of the wise are heard when spoken softly, more than the shout of a ruler of fools? The Mishna in Pirkei Avos [2:10] says: Rabbi Eliezer said: Let the honor of your fellow be as precious to you as your own. Why did Rebbe degrade Levi in such a manner?

The Chavos Yair (152) answers: Levi was the student of Rebbe and since Rebbe understood that Levi was a tremendous Torah scholar, it wasn’t possible for him to err unless he did not thoroughly examine the matter prior to his question. Rebbe did not talk this way out of anger or haughtiness; as a matter of fact, the Gemora in Sotah (49a) states that when Rebbe died, humbleness was lost. Rebbe was instructing his student Levi that one must always scrutinize all relative material on any subject before openly discussing it.

This is the source for the following Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah (4:5) and cited in Shulchan Aruch (Y”D 246:11) as well (Torah.org): The student should not be embarrassed because his peers grasped [the lesson] after one or two times and he learned it only after many times. If he is embarrassed from this matter, he will end up coming in and going out of the Beit Midrash without learning anything. Therefore, the early sages said: "The shy one does not learn and the short-tempered one cannot teach" (Avot 2:5). When does this apply? If they didn't understand because of the depth of the Halakha or their limited abilities. However, if it became apparent to the teacher that they were not applying themselves to the words of Torah and were being lax about them - and therefore, they did not understand - , he is obligated to become angry with them and to shame them with words in order to sharpen them. In this context, the sages said: "Cast fear into the students." (BT Ketubot 103b).

Read more!

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 16 - Pilgrimage

The Gemara states that Rabbi Yitzchak said that one is obligated to visit his teacher during the festival. This is derived from the verse that states "Why are you going to him today? It is neither a New Moon nor a Shabbos!" This verse was said regarding the woman from Shuneim, who Elisha had blessed with a child and then the child became ill and died. When the woman told her husband that she was returning to Elisha to inform him of the child’s demise, her husband, unaware of what had occurred, inquired why she was going to Elisha. The Gemara states that the verse implies that on the New Moon and on Shabbos one is obligated to visit his teacher.

A question is asked as to why the halacha of visiting one's Rebbe on a Yom Tov is not brought down in Shulchan Aruch. The Noda Beyahuda answers that this was only in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh when there was a mitzva of aliyah l'regel, however after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh, the mitzva of going to your Rebbe also became batel. He explains that the Sages did not want that the honor of the student (Talmid chochom) should be greater than that of the Rav (Shechina).

There are those that ask on the Noda Beyehuda is from the Gemora in Sukkah 27 and other Gemoros where we see that they went to the Reish Gilusa on Yom Tov and Rashi states it was to fulfill the mitzva of going to a Rebbe on Yom Tov. The Beis Hamikdosh had already been destroyed by then and nevertheless they went.

My brother, Reb Ben, cited a Maharitz Chayos (which I have not been able to locate as of yet) that quotes a Midrash that states explicitly that they fulfilled this mitzva even after the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed.

Read more!