No Person is Saved from these Transgressions

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof

The Gemora states: Rav Amram said in the name of Rav that there are three transgressions from which no person is saved every day. They are: thoughts of sin, examining one’s prayers (Rashbam – feeling overconfident that his tefillah will be answered positively; Tosfos – lack of concentration during tefillah), and lashon hara. The Gemora explains that lashon hara refers to avak lashon hara (close to being lashon hara).

What does the Gemora mean that “no man is saved” from these transgressions? Certainly there are great Tzadikim and Talmidei Chachamim who -- even if not entirely free of sin (see Koheles 7:20) -- do not transgress all of these transgressions every single day! How can the Gemora say that “no person” is saved from these three transgressions every day?

In addition, if no one is saved from these three transgressions, then why are they transgressions? Hashem certainly would not give commandments that are impossible to keep.

The Iyun Yaakov explains that the Gemora means to say that because the temptation for these three transgressions is so great, no person is saved from these three transgressions without putting forth much effort. Someone who puts forth the effort to protect himself from these transgressions, though, will succeed and will not succumb.

The Toras Chaim, however, does not seem to agree with this explanation. He asks why the Gemora says that “no person is saved” from these three transgressions, instead of saying simply that “there are three transgressions which a person transgresses every day.” He answers that the Gemora is teaching that even one who attempts to avoid these transgressions will not be saved from transgressing them inadvertently, since the frequency of the challenge of these transgressions is so great.

How, though, does the Toras Chaim explain that there are Tzadikim who are able to avoid these transgressions?

The Maharsha explains that when the Gemora says that “no person is saved” from these three transgressions, it is referring to an ordinary person, but not to Tzadikim, who indeed are saved from these transgressions. He explains that while only a Jew, and not a gentile, is called “Adam” (Yevamos 61a), there is still a much higher level that a person can reach. The verse in Zecharyah (3:7) says that when a person follows the ways of Hashem, then “I will give you strides among these [Mal’achim] standing here.” Similarly, the Gemora in Chagigah (15b) explains that the verse, “The lips of the Kohen shall safeguard knowledge, and they shall seek Torah from his mount, because he is an agent (Mal'ach) of Hashem...” (Malachi 2:7), is teaching that when a Torah teacher is similar to an angel, then one should seek to learn Torah from him. This teaches that a person should strive to reach a level of absolute submission to Hashem, like the level of the angels.

When the Gemora here says that “no person (Adam) is saved” from these three transgressions, it is referring to a person who has not yet reached this level of perfection in his Avodas Hashem. The Maharsha explains that the word “Adam” is an acronym for the words, “Efer” (ashes, dust), “Dam” (blood), and “Marah” (bile), as the Gemora in Sotah (5a) says. An ordinary person, whose physical composition dominates his actions, is not able to prevent himself from transgressing these three transgressions. The fact that he is comprised of “Efer” negates his ability to activate his spiritual strengths in order to pray properly, and thus he sins with the transgression of iyun tefillah. The heat of the “Dam” within him causes him to lust for immoral pleasure, and thus he is not saved from thoughts of sin. His element of “Marah,” bile, creates in him the bitterness that causes him to have bad Middos and leads him to speaking lashon hara.

A person who conquers the lusts created by his physical composition overcomes the pull of those elements and rises above the status of “Adam” (“Efer, Dam, Marah”) and becomes comparable to an angel. Such a person certainly is able to avoid transgressing these transgressions.

Read more!

Repentance in the same Situation

It is written [Yirmiyah 22:10]: Cry intensely for one who leaves, because he will not return again and see the land of his birthplace. Rav Yehudah said: This is referring to one who departs this world without children.

Rav Huna said: The verse is referring to a person who committed a sin and repeated it. The Gemora states: Rav Huna is following his reasoning stated elsewhere that one who commits a sin and repeats it; it has become permitted to him.

The Gemora asks: Do you actually think that it is permitted? The Gemora answers: Rav Huna means that it becomes to him as if it was permitted.

The Gemora (Yoma 86b) explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sins comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions.

The Sefer Chasidim writes that a person should not put himself into a situation where he is tempted to sin, because he may not be able to withstand temptation.

The Tzlach questions the words of the Sefer Chasidim from the commentary of the Kli Yakar in Parshas Chukas, who writes regarding the phenomena of the Parah Adumah that the Parah Adumah was capable of rendering pure those that were impure and conversely, rendering impure those that were pure.

The Kli Yakar likens this idea to certain medicines that are beneficial for one who is ill but can prove fatal for one who is healthy. There is a parallel between remedying the body and remedying the soul. One who wishes to repent must be with the same woman that he sinned with the first time, at the same time of the year in which he had sinned, and at the same place where he sinned with her. Thus, the temptation to sin is particularly strong, as his Evil Inclination will entice him to respond exactly as he did before. By resisting the temptation, he demonstrates that he is a true penitent.

The Kli Yakar adds that this is what the Gemora (Brochos 34b) means when it states that in the place where penitents stand, the completely righteous do not stand, i.e. the completely righteous cannot stand in a place of temptation. Yet, according to the Sefer Chasidim, a righteous person is not permitted to endanger himself by entering into such a situation.

TRANSGRESSION COMMITTED ONLY ONCE

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him.

Rav Shach was once giving rebuke and he questioned if there is any among us that have committed a sin and not repeated it. Woe is to us.

The Mabit in Beis Elokim (shaar hateshuva ch 11) writes that our sages have said if one commits a transgression three times, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Did he have a different version in the Gemora than us? Our Gemora states this to be correct if a person commits a sin even twice.

Read more!

Sinner should not Gain

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Sotah 15a) cites a braisa: Rabbi Shimon said: In truth, the sinner’s minchah should require oil and levonah, for we do not want the sinner to gain. Why then does it not require them? It is because we do not want his minchah to be elegant.

The Gemora (Yoma 86b) states that repentance is so great that willful transgressions can be regarded as merits, providing that one is motivated to repent by love.

The question is asked: How can that be? Isn’t the sinner gaining?

The Maharsha answers: The Gemora does not mean that the sin itself converts into a merit; but rather, through his repentance out of love, he will merit performing other mitzvos and good deeds.

Reb Tzadok Hakohen answers: The sin does convert into a merit. This is because once a person has tasted the pleasure of a sin, it becomes more difficult for him to control himself and not sin again. If, after sinning, one can nevertheless restrain himself from transgressing again, he will merit that his sins are converted into merits.

Read more!

Lashes without an Action

Rava inquires (Daf Yomi: Nazir 17a): What is the law if a nazir is in a cemetery? Is there a certain amount of time that he needs to be there in order to receive lashes (one who became tamei in the Beis Hamikdosh and lingered there for the amount of time it would take for a person to prostrate himself is liable; is there a defined time for the nazir as well)?

The Gemora analyzes the case: If he is speaking about a case where he declared the vow while he was in the cemetery, and people warned him before his vow, “Do not utter this vow,” why would loitering be necessary? A nazir who enters a cemetery is punished without lingering because he was warned against entering (and he refused to listen); so too, here, he was warned (and he intentionally went against it)!

Tosfos asks: Shouldn’t this be regarded as a violation without performing an action? Why would he receive lashes for declaring himself to be a nazir?

Tosfos in Shavuos writes that the Gemora is in accordance with the opinions that maintain that one can receive lashes even without committing an action.

Tosfos here answers: Although he cannot receive lashes for the acceptance of the nezirus while inside the cemetery (for that does not entail an action), he will receive the lashes for continuing to remain in the cemetery after the acceptance of nezirus. That does constitute an action.

The Steipler Gaon asks: Where is the action? Why is the fact that he refused to leave regarded as an action?

He explains: Anytime an action is performed through a person, and he has the ability to eliminate it, but willingly refrains from doing so, this is considered as if he has committed an action, even though it happened by itself. The fact that the nazir is standing in the cemetery refusing to leave, that constitutes an action.

The Mishna Lamelech explains Tosfos differently: Tosfos maintains that although the transgression was committed without an action, he may receive lashes for the entering into the cemetery. Although no violation occurred at that time (since he was not yet a nazir), he receives lashes, since that was the action that led to the transgression.

Read more!

The Parameters of Living in Eretz Yisroel Atoning for our Sins

Rabbi Elozar says: One who lives in Eretz Yisroel lives without sin (their sins are forgiven).

The Chasam Sofer writes: He must be a permanent resident of Eretz Yisroel in order to merit this. One who is a guest in Eretz Yisroel does not merit having his sins forgiven.

The Ben Yehoyadah disagrees and says that while he is living in Eretz Yisroel, even if his intention is to return to the Diaspora, his sins will be atoned for.

The Pnei Yehoshua is bothered by this Gemora: If every sin committed in Eretz Yisroel is forgiven automatically, why were our forefathers punished and driven into Exile and the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed because of their sins? He states that Eretz Yisroel has the capacity to forgive sins if one is living there because there is a mitzvah to settle Eretz Yisroel because of its holiness. He wants that the merit of Eretz Yisroel should protect him against sinning. A person who happens to live there because he was born there, or one that resides in Eretz Yisroel because of its delicious produce and certainly the brazenly wicked people will not be protected from sinning and will not be granted atonement for their sins.

Read more!

INFALLIBILITY

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Elozar bar Tzadok said: I testified once in my life regarding the genealogical status of a person, and through that testimony, I elevated a slave to the genealogically qualified.

The Gemora asks: Do you think that he actually elevated a slave to the genealogically qualified? Hashem does not even allow the animal of a righteous person to transgress (referring to the animal of Rabbi Pinchas of Yair, who would not eat untithed produce); certainly Hashem would not bring a stumbling block to the righteous person himself!

The Gemora answers: Rather, Rabbi Elozar bar Tzadok wanted to elevate a slave to the genealogically qualified, but he realized at the end that he was in fact a slave. The Gemora explains the incident: Rabbi Elozar was in the city of Rabbi Yosi when he observed them giving terumah to a slave in the granary. He went and testified regarding his lineage in the city of Rabbi Yehudah. (He then realized that he could not testify regarding his genealogy, for even though, in Rabbi Yehudah’s locale, they would elevate one’s status on the evidence of having received a share of terumah, that was only because they didn’t give a slave terumah when he wasn’t in the presence of the master, whereas, in Rabbi Yosi’s locale, they did give terumah to a slave in absence of the master, but they didn’t testify regarding his genealogy based on that evidence.)

Tosfos s.v. salka da’atach states that the text of our Gemora should not have the challenge from the fact that Hashem does not even allow the animal of a righteous person to transgress; certainly Hashem would not bring a stumbling block to the righteous person himself. This principle is applicable only to the inadvertent consumption of forbidden foods. (The reason for this is because it is degrading for the righteous to eat forbidden foods.) Here, the scholar did not violate any prohibition by elevating the status of the slave; this would not be included in the protection that Hashem provides for the scholars.

Reb Dov Zupnik from Kollel Iyun Hadaf discusses this Tosfos at length.
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu asked:

I understand that a chacham can decide if the Bet Din has erred. If he knows it erred but nevertheless goes by its decision to allow something forbidden, he is guilty. But in the Torah we are commanded that we must follow decisions, even if we are told "left is right and right is left". In Horayot, the chacham is deciding whether to follow the bet din or not, thereby putting himself above the bet din. Please clarify.
Shvua tov--Tzvi

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Bet Yatir Israel

Shmuel K. asked:

Our Mishna states that if the individual knew the the Psak of Bet Din was wrong, and yet follows their Psak, he is liable. Yet we see many cases in Shas that individuals are forced to follow the majority, Rov, and do things that they feel is Asur. In these cases the individual knew the Bet Din was wrong, and yet we see it is a Mitzvah to follow them. I.e.. 1 - Bava Metziah 59B, R. Eliezer Ben Horkanis, and the oven 2 - Rosh Hashana 25B, and the debate as to which day is Yom Kippur. Are we to say that our Mishna is referring to a case, where the individual did not share his information with the Bet Din. But had he shared his information, and they don't accept it. Then he is obligated to follow the Bet Din, even though it is against his beliefs?

Thank You,
Shmuel Katz

Aurel Littmann asked:

How could beis din err? Did they not have daas torah that would have prevented them from erring? The donkey of a rabbi would not eat food that was not tithed...certainly these rabbis? Many stories are said of R.Moshe how he did not err in permitting agunos....where it was easy to err as people got separated during the war...but he had siyato d'shmayo.

What is the halacha of lo sosuru min... where if the rabbis tell you something that you may not fully understand, still follow them...in the first mishnah in horeyos ... if one suspects that the beis din paskened wrong he should not follow them!? Does the first mishnah show that we don't have a concept of papal infalibility? But, again...when is one to follow daas torah?

The Kollel replies:

(a) Let us first refer to the words of the RAMBAN in Sefer ha'mitzvos la'Rambam, Shoresh ha'Rishon (p. 24 in Frankel edition):

"And one who transgresses the words of the Sanhedrin of his generation, and relies on his own opinion, has transgressed this Lo Saa'seh (of Lo Sasur) and this Aseh. Even if Beis Din is divided on the issue, we follow the majority as it is said in Sanhedrin 88.... And one who transgresses and relies on his own opinion is a Zaken Mamrei... and this is what is said in the verse regarding one who acts 'b'Zadon' not to heed the Kohen. For the Written Torah which was given to us by Moshe Rabeinu A'H clearly will not be understood in the same way by each person, and therefore Hashem decreed that we follow the Sanhedrin in whatever they say, whether they have received the interpretation through transmission or whether they interpret the Torah as they understand it, for the Torah was given according to the understanding of the Sanhedrin.

"And this is what is written in the Sifri: 'Even if they tell you regarding right that it is left.' For that is the Mitzvah of the Giver of the Torah -- that a dissenter should not say, 'I shall permit this to myself for I know clearly that they are mistaken,' for we will reply to him, 'It is this that you are commanded (i.e. to follow the Torah according to the Sanhedrin's interpretation), as Rebbi Yehoshua conducted himself with Raban Gamliel on the Yom Kipur of the latter's calculation, as related in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah.

"However, there is a contingency, as can be seen in the Gemara in Horayos 2, which is that if there was in the time of the Sanhedrin a scholar who had reached the level of Hora'ah and the Sanhedrin ruled to allow an Isur, and this scholar thinks that they have made a mistake, he may not listen to them and be lenient with himself, but rather he should observe the stringency with regard to his own conduct, and surely if he was actually a member of the Sanhedrin... he must come before them and voice his objections, and if they all agreed to dismiss his objection and his reasoning, he must then follow their ruling."

(b) We do not believe in infallibility, nor do we believe in the pope. Tosfos throughout Shas (Shabbos 12b, Gitin 7a, Yevamos 99b, etc.) says in the name of Rabeinu Tam that "Ein ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu Mevi Takalah Al Yedeihem" applies only to where the Chacham eats something Asur, but not with regard to a ruling that a Chacham makes for someone else or with regard to a transgression that does not involve eating. (Everywhere the Gemara seems to cite this principle with regard to another type of mistake, Rabeinu Tam changes the Girsa.)

(c) As for the rulings regarding Agunos, although in general there is Siyata d'Shemaya in any Pesak Halachah and mistakes are rare, the Agunah situation is something else entirely. If the husband were to arrive, it would not be because the Rav erred in his understanding of the Torah's laws; he may have ruled correctly, in accordance with the Torah, and decided that the evidence that was presented sufficed to permit the woman to get married. However, the husband may actually be alive (because the Torah does not require 100% certain evidence to remarry; a near certainty will suffice). Rav Moshe says about such situations that a Rav has Siyata d'Shemaya that since his Pesak was correct according to the parameters of the Torah, nothing wrong will come about because of his correct Pesak (and the husband will not be alive).

Here, in contrast, we are talking about a mistaken Pesak, where the judges erred in their interpretation of the Torah's laws. Such a mistake may have come about because the Sanhedrin were not on the impeccable level that Hashem expected of them, or because the people of the generation were not fit.

Read more!

AUNT AND HIS FATHER’S YEVAMAH

It is written [Devarim 23:1]: A man shall not take his father's wife, and he shall not uncover his father's robe. The Torah is referring to a woman awaiting yibum by his father; and the meaning of his father's robe is: He shall not uncover the robe which is designated for his father.

The Gemora asks: Why is this verse necessary; this woman is prohibited regardless, from the fact that she is his aunt?

The Gemora answers: The verse is necessary to make him liable for two transgressions.

The Aruch Lener asks on this from the principle that one prohibition cannot take effect upon another prohibition. The father’s brother’s wife was initially forbidden to the son on account of being an aunt; how can the second prohibition of the father’s yevamah take effect?

The Yashreish Yaakov answers that this is an exception to the rule derived from this verse that the second prohibition can in fact take effect, and the son will be liable for both prohibitions.

The Aruch Lener answers that the Gemora does not mean to say that the son will be liable for two prohibitions and he will incur lashes twice. Rather, the Gemora means that he will have violated two transgressions and when he dies, he will be buried among the truly wicked (like the Gemora above 32a stated).

Read more!

A RIGHTEOUS PERSON IS NOT ALLOWED TO STUMBLE

The Gemora (Yevamos 96b) records the following incident: Rabbi Elozar went and related a discussion in this Beis Medrash, but did not relate the discussion in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. When Rabbi Yochanan heard about this omission, he was perturbed. Rabbi Ami and Rav Asi went up to Rabbi Yochanan and said: “Did it not happen, once in the Beis Medrash of Teveryah, that there was a discussion between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosi regarding the door lock which had a thick head (and could be used for grinding things, see Rashi), and they debated the matter with such intensity that they tore a Sefer Torah?”

The Gemora explains that they certainly did not intentionally tear a Sefer Torah. Rather, the Sefer Torah divided. Rabbi Yosi Ben Kisma was present at the time, and he declared that he would be astonished if as a result of this discussion which became inappropriate, the shul would not turn into a house of idol worship! Indeed, the Gemora states, the shul eventually became a house of idol worship. [Rabbi Ami and Rav Asi were apparently trying to tell Rabbi Yochanan not to be so particular with Rabbi Elozar, because such behavior could lead to disastrous consequences.]

The Ramban wonders how it is possible that a Sefer Torah was torn because of the dispute of the Sages. Does not the Gemora in Chullin (7a) state that Hashem does not bring a stumbling block to righteous people? How could a Sefer Torah become torn and the synagogue turn into a house of idolatry on account of these sages?

The Ramban quotes Rabbeinu Tam who states that the principle that HaShem does not bring a stumbling block on account of the righteous is applicable only to the inadvertent consumption of forbidden foods. The reason for this is because it is degrading for the righteous to eat forbidden foods. The principle does not apply, however, to other types of sins.

The Ramban challenges this interpretation from a Gemara in Kesubos (28b) that clearly indicates that this principle applies by other sins as well.

The Ramban quotes his teacher who states that the explanation of this principle cannot mean that the righteous do not sin, for we know that there is no righteous person in the land that doesn’t sin. Rather, it means that Hashem does not allow a righteous person to inadvertently cause other to stumble and sin.

The Ramban himself answers that this principle is only applicable for inadvertent transgressions, as Hashem does not allow a righteous person to stumble in such a manner. One who strives to be completely pure, the Holy One, Blessed is He assists him. However, if a righteous person places himself in a situation where he is susceptible to sin, he is in danger just like everyone else. In instances where there were calamities, it was due to the Sages being provoked to anger, and it is known that where there is anger, the Divine Presence does not rest, subsequently leading to disastrous consequences.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 27 - REPENTANCE IN THE SAME SITUATION

It is written [Yirmiyah 22:10]: Cry intensely for one who leaves, because he will not return again and see the land of his birthplace. Rav Yehudah said: This is referring to one who departs this world without children.

Rav Huna said: The verse is referring to a person who committed a sin and repeated it. The Gemora states: Rav Huna is following his reasoning stated elsewhere that one who commits a sin and repeats it; it has become permitted to him.

The Gemora asks: Do you actually think that it is permitted? The Gemora answers: Rav Huna means that it becomes to him as if it was permitted.

The Gemora (Yoma 86b) explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sins comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions.

The Sefer Chasidim writes that a person should not put himself into a situation where he is tempted to sin, because he may not be able to withstand temptation.

The Tzlach questions the words of the Sefer Chasidim from the commentary of the Kli Yakar in Parshas Chukas, who writes regarding the phenomena of the Parah Adumah that the Parah Adumah was capable of rendering pure those that were impure and conversely, rendering impure those that were pure.

The Kli Yakar likens this idea to certain medicines that are beneficial for one who is ill but can prove fatal for one who is healthy. There is a parallel between remedying the body and remedying the soul. One who wishes to repent must be with the same woman that he sinned with the first time, at the same time of the year in which he had sinned, and at the same place where he sinned with her. Thus, the temptation to sin is particularly strong, as his Evil Inclination will entice him to respond exactly as he did before. By resisting the temptation, he demonstrates that he is a true penitent.

The Kli Yakar adds that this is what the Gemora (Brochos 34b) means when it states that in the place where penitents stand, the completely righteous do not stand, i.e. the completely righteous cannot stand in a place of temptation. Yet, according to the Sefer Chasidim, a righteous person is not permitted to endanger himself by entering into such a situation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 27 - TRANSGRESSION COMMITTED ONLY ONCE

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Rav Shach was once giving rebuke and he questioned if there is any among us that have committed a sin and not repeated it. Woe is to us.

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him. The Mabit in Beis Elokim (shaar hateshuva ch 11) writes that our sages have said if one commits a transgression three times, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Did he have a different version in the Gemora than us? Our Gemora states this to be correct if a person commits a sin even twice.

Read more!

Purity below, purity from Above

Posted by Ben

The Mishnah states that Rabbi Akiva said: “fortunate are you, O Israel. Before Whom do you cleanse yourselves? Who cleanses You? Your father in Heaven! As it is stated I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you shall be cleansed. And it also says: The mikveh of Israel is HaShem. Just as a mikveh purifies the contaminated, so does the Holy One, Blessed is He, purify Israel.” It is noteworthy that Rabbi Akiva poses two questions. One is, “before Whom do you cleanse yourselves,” and the second question is, “Who cleanses you?” When one seeks to become pure, i.e. to gain atonement for his sins and find himself once again in the good graces of HaShem, he must realize that purity and atonement is a two-step process. One must attempt to purify himself, by cleansing himself from sin, and he must realize that only Hashem can purify him from all his sins. The Rambam alludes to this idea in Hilchos Teshuvah (2:2) when he writes that the definition of repentance is that the sinner distances himself from the sin, removes the sin from his thoughts, and accepts on himself not to commit the sin ever again. The sinner must also regret his past actions, and the One Who knows all hidden matters, i.e. HaShem, will testify on him that he will never commit this sin again. The Rambam states explicitly that in order to gain atonement, one must make all the effort that is necessary for the repentance process to be effective, but ultimately, one has to rely on HaShem to testify that he will never commit that sin again. This is parallel to the purification process, where one does everything he can to purify himself, but ultimately, it is HaShem who cleanses him from all sin.

Read more!