1) REFERRING TO ONE'S REBBI BY HIS NAME
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Rav Nachman who defines an Apikorus as a person who calls his Rebbi by his name. The Gemara then quotes Rebbi Yochanan who says that Geichazi was punished for calling his Rebbi, Elisha, by his name.
RASHI explains that when Rav Nachman says that an Apikorus is one who calls his Rebbi by name, he means that he says "Ploni" instead of "Mori Rabi Ploni" ("my teacher, my master Ploni"). How does Rashi know that one is permitted to say even "Mori Rabi Ploni," mentioning his Rebbi's name? Perhaps one is permitted to mention only "Mori Rabi" without mentioning his Rebbi's name.
A similar Gemara (Kidushin 30b) teaches that one is not permitted to call his father by name. Presumably, Rashi's teaching here applies there as well, and one is permitted to call his father by name when he mentions his father's name with a title.
(a) The SHACH (YD 242:24) writes that Rashi refers to a situation in which the Rebbi is not present, and thus the listener will not know to whom the speaker refers if he says merely "my Rebbi." In such a situation, the student is permitted to say "my Rebbi Ploni." However, when his Rebbi is present, he is not permitted to call his Rebbi by name, even if he prefaces his name with "Mori Rabi."
The Acharonim cite the Gemara in Berachos (62a) as a source to permit one to mention the name of his Rebbi at least when his Rebbi is not present. In the Gemara there, Rebbi Akiva refers to his Rebbi as "Rebbi Yehoshua," calling him by his name.
The source for the Shach's ruling and the logical basis for his distinction may be found in the words of the YAM SHEL SHLOMO (Chidushim 1:65). The Yam Shel Shlomo writes that the Rosh often quotes his Rebbi, the Maharam, and calls him "Rabeinu Meir," even though one is not supposed to mention the name of one's Rebbi. The Rosh had many teachers and it would not be clear to which one he was referring if he did not mention his Rebbi's name. However, when the Rebbi is present and there is no need to mention his name, it indeed is prohibited.
The Yam Shel Shlomo points out that according to this distinction, a son should not be permitted to refer to his father by name, even when his father is not present, since he has only one father and there is no doubt to whom he is referring. Why, then, does the Tur often quote his father as the "Rosh" (which stands for "Rabeinu Asher," his name)? The Yam Shel Shlomo answers that the name "Rosh" is an appellation of respect, which alludes to the fact that he was the "Rosh" -- head -- of the Jewish people. That is why the Tur refers to his father by that word. Instead of alluding to the proper name of his father, he was giving him honor by referring to him as the head of the Jewish people.
The Yam Shel Shlomo adds that when a student refers to his teacher, it does not suffice to say "*Rebbi* Ploni," but he must show him more respect than others show him by adding another appellation of respect, such as "Mori." However, from the statement of Rebbi Akiva, who referred to his Rebbi as "Rebbi Yehoshua," it seems that it suffices to refer to one's Rebbi as "Rebbi Ploni," the same way that everyone else refers to him.
One may ask, however, why did Rivkah refer to her father by name when she said, "I am the daughter of Besu'el" (Bereishis 24:24)? The answer might be that since she was talking to someone who did not know her, she needed to identify herself by mentioning her father's name.
(b) However, the KESEF MISHNEH (Hilchos Talmud Torah 5:5) writes that the source for Rashi's statement that one is permitted to mention the name of his Rebbi when he adds the title of "Mori Rabi" is the verse in which Yehoshua tells Moshe Rabeinu, "Adoni Moshe Kela'em" (Bamidbar 11:28). The PRI CHADASH and BIRKEI YOSEF (YD 242:15) point out that from this source it is clear that, in earlier generations, disciples referred to their teachers as "Mori Rabi Ploni" even when they were in the presence of their Rebbi. Similarly, it should be permitted for a son to refer to his father as "my father, Reb Ploni," even though everyone knows who his father is. The mere use of a title of honor should permit one to mention his father's or Rebbi's proper name.
This will explain several Beraisos in which the Tana'im indeed referred to their fathers by name (as REBBI AKIVA EIGER (YD 240:1) asks). Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai referred to his father as "Yochai Aba" (Me'ilah 17b, Pesachim 112a); Rebbi Dusta'i ben Rebbi Yanai referred to his father as "Yanai Aba" (Gitin 14a); Rebbi Yosi ben Chalafta referred to his father as "Aba Chalafta" (Bava Kama 70a, Sanhedrin 80a, Bechoros 26a, Me'ilah 17b). Why did they mention the names of their fathers? The answer is that "Aba" is a title of honor (see Berachos 16b, and RASHI to Yevamos 57b), and one is permitted to mention his father's name when one uses a title of honor. The BIRKEI YOSEF (YD 242:15) adds that from here it is clear that one does not need to *preface* the name with the title of honor ("my Rebbi, Ploni"); rather, he may say the title after the name ("Ploni, my Rebbi").
The YAD AVRAHAM (YD 242:15) cites additional proof from the Gemara in Berachos (5a and elsewhere) as a source for allowing one to mention the name of one's father with an appellation of honor. In the Gemara there, Rebbi Aba, the son of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, quotes a statement of his father saying, "Amar Rebbi Chiya bar Aba," quoting his father by name.
Why, though, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo and the Shach, was Yehoshua permitted to say, "Adoni Moshe," and why did the Tana'im mention their fathers by name? (See TORAH TEMIMAH to Bamidbar 11:24.)
1. Perhaps the Yam Shel Shlomo and Shach understand that it is assumed that one's father forgoes (Mochel) his honor, unless he states otherwise, and thus the son is permitted to mention the father's name (as long as he mentions a title of honor). A Rebbi, however, is not presumed to forgo his honor to a student unless he specifically says so (see MISHNAH BERURAH to OC 472:14-16). Moshe Rabeinu was an exception. Since he was "Anav mi'Kol Adam," Yehoshua knew that Moshe Rabeinu certainly was Mochel his honor, just as a father is assumed to Mochel his honor.
2. RAV MOSHE SHAPIRO shlit'a explains as follows. The Mishnah in Nedarim (10a) says that one way of making a Shevu'ah is by saying, "I want this object to be Asur to me like the Shevu'ah of Mohi." The RAN there explains that "Mohi" is a reference to Moshe Rabeinu. It is clear from the Mishnah there that Moshe Rabeinu's name alone may be used to make a Shevu'ah. This is because all of the Torah is directly related to Moshe Rabeinu, as the verse says, "Zichru Toras Moshe" (Malachi 3:22). When Yehoshua said, "Adoni Moshe Kela'em," he was not using the word "Moshe" as a proper name, but rather he was referring to Toras Moshe, the Torah of Moshe. His intention was to say that it is required by the Torah of Moshe to punish Eldad and Meidad for what they were doing.
3. The Yam Shel Shlomo seems to have been bothered by this question himself. He writes that perhaps there were other leaders, such as Aharon and the Zekenim, standing together with Moshe Rabeinu at the time that Yehoshua came before him. If Yehoshua would have said merely, "Adoni," "my master," then Moshe Rabeinu -- in his profound humility -- would have assumed that Yehoshua was referring to one of the others and not to him. Therefore, Yehoshua had to use his name to ensure that everyone knew who was being addressed.
The last two answers do not explain why Rebbi Aba was permitted to mention his father's name when he quoted him, and why Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai and the others mentioned their fathers by name.
The answer might be that in those cases there was a particular reason for mentioning the father's name. In the case of Rebbi Aba, he needed to mention his father's name in order to ensure that those present would accept his teaching. The other cases involved situations in which the son needed to be mention his father's name in order for those present to feel proper respect and esteem for the father. Since the people present did not know the identity of the speaker's father, simply saying "my father" would not have sufficed, and thus the son had to mention his father by name.
2) THE TZADIK'S 310 WORLDS
OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that in the future, Hash-m will give every Tzadik 310 worlds, as it says, "l'Hanchil Ohavai *Yesh*" (Mishlei 8:21), the Gematriya of which is 310. What is the significance of the number 310?
Many approaches have been suggested to explain the significance of this number, some of which will be presented here.
(a) The RAMBAM (end of Uktzin) writes that the number 310 is an allusion to the word "Yesh," referring to permanence and eternal existence. This is the reward for the Tzadikim in Olam ha'Ba -- becoming attached to Hash-m, as it were, and meriting eternal existence.
(b) The TOSFOS YOM TOV (end of Uktzin) writes that when the Jewish people were given Eretz Yisrael, they conquered 31 kings. He writes that in this world, the Jewish people were given a land of only seven nations, but in the World to Come, the entire world -- all seventy nations -- will be subservient to Mashi'ach, or ten times the number of nations which the Jewish people inherited in this world. If, in this world, where the Jewish people received the land of seven nations and conquered 31 kings, then in the World to Come when all seventy nations become subservient to the Jewish people, they will conquer 310 kings, or ten times as much. This is why the verse uses the term "l'Hanchil," "to inherit" -- a reference to inheriting the land.
(This concept -- that the Jewish people were granted in this world only one-tenth of what they will ultimately receive -- is alluded to by the fact that the redemption in this world is referred to as "Shirah," in the feminine form, while in the World to Come the people will sing a "Shir," in the masculine form (see TOSFOS to Pesachim 116b, DH v'Ne'emar). The redemption in this world is referred to by a feminine term in order to indicate that in this world the Jewish people receive only one-tenth of what they will ultimately receive -- because a daughter's Yerushah is one-tenth of the possession of the father, in comparison to the Yerushah of a son.)
(c) In the end of BIRKAS YITZCHAK (Al ha'Torah), the author points out that 310 is equal to two times 155. This can be explained as follows. The two times 155 correspond to the two words "Keneh" in the verse in Mishlei (4:5), "Keneh Chochmah, Keneh Vinah" -- "acquire wisdom, acquire knowledge." The word "Keneh" alone implies Chochmah, because, as the Gemara in Nedarim (41a) teaches, one who acquires ("Kanah") knowledge lacks nothing, while any acquisition that does not give knowledge to the recipient is not considered an acquisition. The word "Kanah" alone, therefore, implies an acquisition of knowledge.
The VILNA GA'ON explains, based on this, the words of Rashi in Kidushin (32b). The Gemara there teaches that the word "Zaken" refers to "Zeh she'Kanah Chochmah," "this person who has acquired wisdom." Rashi there explains that the word "Zaken" itself is an acronym for these three words, "Zeh she'Kanah Chochmah." Where, though, in the word "Zaken" is there any indication of word "Chochmah"? The answer is that the word "Kanah" itself refers to one who has acquired wisdom.
Similarly, the Gemara in Berachos (56b-57a) says that a person who sees a "Kaneh," a reed, in a dream should expect to become wise or to become a Rosh Yeshiva. This is also the intention of the Mishnah in Avos (4:7) when it says, "Kanah Shem Tov, Kanah l'Atzmo," one who has acquired a good reputation -- through the wisdom of Torah -- has acquired a great thing for himself.
Accordingly, the 310 worlds correspond to two acquisitions, that of Chochmah and that of Binah, the two acquisitions that a person acquires through Torah and Mitzvos.
(d) The TORAS CHAIM explains that there are 613 Mitzvos in the Torah, plus seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach, a total of 620 Mitzvos. There is an entire world that corresponds to each Mitzvah. However, one person cannot take all 620 worlds for himself, because man was created as a pair, as the verse says that Hash-m created "Zachar and Nekevah" together and called them "Adam" (Bereishis 1:27; Yevamos 63b; see Insights to Berachos 61:1). When a man and woman join together and keep all of the Mitzvos, they then merit all of the 620 worlds and they divide the worlds among them, so that each one receives 310 worlds. This is why the Gemara here (and the Mishnah in Uktzin) says that "each Tzadik and Tzadik" receives 310 worlds, alluding to the fact that there are two different Tzadikim, the man and the woman, who each receive 310 worlds.
Another way to understand why the 620 worlds of the Mitzvos are divided into two sets of 310 is based on the words of the Gemara elsewhere (see Berachos 47b and 63b, Pesachim 88a, and Ta'anis 7a) that emphasize that the ideal way to study Torah is for two Talmidei Chachamim to study together. A person is not supposed to study alone because it leads to arrogance. When two people study together, the conclusions they reach are more accurate and are attributed to both of them. Therefore, each of the partners receives half of the 620 worlds, or 310. These are the two Tzadikim to whom the Gemara alludes.
This approach also explains the end of the verse which says, "v'Otzroseihem Amalei" -- "and I will fill up their storehouses." The Gemara in Shabbos (31a) says that even if a person learns all of the Torah, the only way that the Torah will remain with him is if he has Yir'as Shamayim, the fear of Hash-m. The Gemara says, "Yir'as Hash-m Hi Otzaro," the fear of Hash-m is his storehouse (in which the Torah he learns is stored and protected). A person who learns Torah but does not have Yir'as Shamayim is like one who has a gate but does not have the storeroom which the gate is intended to protect. When a person learns with a Chavrusa, he will not become arrogant and his Yir'as Shamayim will grow. His Torah will remain with him, since he will be learning with Yir'as Shamayim, and thus he will receive 310 worlds because his "storehouse" is full of Yir'as Shamayim. (M. KORNFELD)
3) THE STUDY OF "SEFARIM CHITZONIM"
QUESTION: Rebbi Akiva says that one who reads Sefarim Chitzonim has no share in Olam ha'Ba. The Gemara explains that this refers to "Sifrei Tzedukim" (or "Sifrei Minim" according to all of the old, uncensored manuscripts). The RIF explains that this refers to the books written by those who do not accept the Chachamim's explanations of the verses, and who explain the verses according to their own interpretations. Since their words certainly contain heresy, it is forbidden to read their books.
The Gemara says with regard to Sefer Ben Sira -- which is not included in the category of Sefarim Chitzonim -- that one is permitted to learn the positive teachings contained therein. The RIF and ROSH infer from here that it is *prohibited* to read even the positive teachings (those which do not espouse heretical ideas) in the books of Sifrei Minim.
The BE'ER SHEVA cites the Yerushalmi that includes the books of Homer in the category of Sefarim Chitzonim. This is also how the BARTENURA interprets the Mishnah; he writes that "Sefarim Chitzonim" refers to the books of Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers, as well as to the books of other heretics. It is clear from the Yerushalmi that the category of Sefarim Chitzonim includes any philosophical work written by a person who does not accept Malchus Shamayim, the sovereignty of Hash-m.
The Be'er Sheva asks that according to the Yerushalmi, how did the RAMBAM and numerous other great sages learn the works of Aristotle and Plato and other philosophers of the nations?
ANSWER: The Be'er Sheva answers that the Rambam maintained that not all opinions agree with the Yerushalmi.
The Mishnah in Avos (2:14) exhorts, "Know how to respond to an Apikorus." The Rambam (in Perush ha'Mishnayos there) explains that this Mishnah permits one to study the works of the non-Jewish Apikorsim in order to know how to refute their claims, as long as one does not allow their views to enter his heart. It seems that the Rambam understood that this Mishnah argues with the Yerushalmi.