Nidah 7b says that in order to follow Rabbi Eliezer, the supoort of a Mishnah or Tana is not sufficient. We need the support of an Amora like Rav Yehudah and Shmuel. So, how can we follow Rabbi Eliezer in Sotah 20a regarding Hilchos Talmud Torah without the support of any Amora?
Elimelech Fischman, Brooklyn, NY, USA
If there are several Tana'im who agree with Rebbi Eliezer, then the Gemara in Nidah (7b) agrees that the Halachah follows Rebbi Eliezer.
1. In this case, there are several opinions on the side of Rebbi Eliezer. The first one we will mention is in Chagigah (3a). The Gemara there relates that on the Shabbos of his rotation, when it was his turn to give the Shi'ur, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah chose to speak about the Mitzvah of "Hakhel," wherein once every seven years the king read the Torah to the entire nation. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah taught that the men came to learn while the women came to hear. This implies that women only listened to the Torah but did not actually learn. Tosfos there (DH Nashim) cites the Yerushalmi that says that this opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah does not agree with Ben Azai who says that a man is obligated to teach his daughter Torah. This means that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah is on the side of Rebbi Eliezer. In addition, the fact that he gave this Derashah at such a major public gathering, where all of the elders were present, suggests that all of the Rabanim present agreed with Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. (See Birkei Yosef, Yoreh Deah 266:7.)
2. Another Gemara expresses a view which does not agree with Ben Azai's opinion. The Gemara in Kidushin (29a) cites a Beraisa which states that a father is obligated to teach his son Torah. The Gemara (29b) asks how we know that other people are not obligated to teach a woman Torah, and it answers by citing the verse (Devarim 11:19), "And you shall teach the words of Torah to your sons," from which we derive that one is commanded to teach one's sons but not daughters.
3. Another opinion that agrees with Rebbi Eliezer is that of Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah in Sotah (20a) who adds to Rebbi Eliezer's statement that anyone who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her Tiflus by saying that she prefers Tiflus to Perishus. Rashi there (21b, DH Rotzeh) writes that, consequently, it is not good that she should learn Torah.
4. When the Gemara in Nidah (end of 7b) says, "Ein Lemeidin HalachaH mi'Pi Talmid," which Rashi explains to mean that one may not learn from a Mishnah or Beraisa that states that the Halachah follows such and such, this does not apply in a case where we find several independent opinions who agree with Rebbi Eliezer. Hence, when we rule like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah and the Gemara in Kidushin (29b) and Rebbi Yehoshua that one should not teach his daughter Torah, this does not mean that we are ruling like Rebbi Eliezer, but rather that we are ruling like the other opinions who happen to agree with Rebbi Eliezer.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you Rabbi Bloom for your thought-provoking response.
Do we both agree that Nidah 7b indicates that in order to follow Rabbi Eliezer we must have an explicit statement of support by an Amora? If so, how can the Birkei Yosef conclude, in Hilchos Talmud Torah, that the support of Tanaim is sufficient? The answer could be in Shabbos 130b. Resh Lakish tells a story about a Mohel who relied upon the leniency of a Mavoi to bring his knife on Shabbos. Rabbi Eliezer holds that preparations for a Bris can even push aside the stringencies of Shabbos. The Gemara suggests that two reasons for not following Rabbi Eliezer are that he was a Shamuti and that he was a minority voice. The Birkei Yosef must have inferred from this story about the Bris that we may indeed follow Rabbi Eliezer in any situation where he was not a minority voice. The Birkei Yosef tried to satisfy this condition from Shabbos 130b by finding two Tanaim who appeared to support Rabbi Eliezer's opinion about Tiflus, but he did not think it was neccessary to satisfy the condition in Nidah 7b that an Amora must declare that Halchah follows Rabbi Eliezer. A great difficulty with this logic is that Resh Lakish's story about the Mohel actually occurred in the days of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, before the Amoraic era had yet begun. That is why Shabbos 130b suggests that we might have followed Rabbi Eliezer if he had greater Tannaic support. So I persist in asking, how can we follow Rabbi Eliezer in
Sotah 20a regarding Hilchos Talmud Torah without the support of any Amora?
Respectfully yours,
Elimelech Fischman
1. Logically speaking, I do not see why Rebbi Eliezer must have support specifically from an Amora while support from a Tana is not sufficient. After all, generally a Tana bears greater authority than an Amora, so if support from an Amora is sufficient, then support from a Tana is certainly good.
2. In addition, the Gemara in Nidah (8a) states that the Halachah follows Rebbi Eliezer because he has support from Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava, who are both Tanaim.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Dear Rabbi Bloom,
I regret that we could not agree about the need for an Amora to provide guidance as to when it is safe to ignore Rabbi Yehoshua's dictum to never agree with any opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Allow me to ask if you know of any instance (aside from the issue of Tiflus) where we follow Rabbi Eliezer's side of any Machlokes where he does not have the support of an Amora?
With your permission, I wish to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of your four-point response to my first letter.
1. You say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah's opinion about Hakhel demonstrates support for Rabbi Eliezer. Kidushin 35a says that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah hold that women are responsible for Hakhel and Tefilin, without agreeing to the Nasi's Derashah about women hearing but not learning. Since Hakhel and Tefilin are closely linked to Torah study, can we surmise that both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah sided with Ben Azai, who said "A person is responsible for teaching his daughter Torah"?
2. You say that Kidushin 29 supports Rabbi Eliezer. This Gemara asks five questions about who is responsible for Talmud Torah and answers four of them with a form of the word VeLimadetem. Since this word appears once in Devarim 5-1 and once in Devarim 11-19, how can we learn four Derashahs from only two Pesukim? And, if you wish to answer that each word has two pronunciations: U'Lemadetem and VeLimadetem, I would say that Rabbi Eliezer would be screaming because Kidushin 18a and Bechoros 34a prove that Rabbi Eliezer never learned a second Derashah from an extra pronunciation as in BeVigdo and Bevagdo.
3. You say that Rabbi Yehoshua's statement about Tiflus agrees with Rabbi Eliezer's statement about Tiflus and that women should not learn Torah. The fist Mishnah in Parah indicates that Ben Azai was a devoted student of Rabbi Yehoshua. So, we have to ask, how Rabbi Yehoshua could have favored the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, with whom he always argued, over the opinion of Ben Azai who was his own devoted student?
4. You say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and Rabbi Yehoshua represent independent opinions who happen to agree with Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was hardly independent of Rabbi Eliezer because Kallah (one of the Minor Tractates) Chapter Six indicates that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was a devoted student of Rabbi Eliezer, so we should expect a student to support the opinions of his Rebbi. Rabbi Yehoshua said that a woman would prefer a Kav and Tiflus to nine Kavs and Prishus. On the face of it, this statement says absolutely nothing about women not being fit to study Torah. Rashi's interpretation can only be understood in the context of Rabbi Eliezer's statement. So I ask, do Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and Rabbi Yehoshua represent opinions that are really independent of Rabbi Eliezer?
For these four reasons, can we agree that we really do need the guidance of an Amora to advise about when we may safely follow Rabbi Eliezer?
Respectfully yours, Elimelech Fischman
Reb Elimelech, thank you for your very thoughtful and valuable comments where you have cited proofs from all over Shas to support your arguments.
1. The Torah explicitly states (Devarim 31:12) that women are obligated in Hakhel but nevertheless there are opinions among the Tana'im that they are exempt from Talmud Torah, so I do not see why the fact that the Gemara in Kidushin (35a) states that according to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah women are obligated in Hakhel must mean that they are also obligated in Talmud Torah.
Your argument from the case of Tefilin is a very interesting one. In fact, the Gemara (Kidushin 34a) states that the source for the opinion that women are exempt from Tefilin is the fact that they are exempt from Talmud Torah. So does this now mean that it may be possible to make a converse argument: since Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah maintain that they are obligated in Tefilin, this should mean that they also maintain that they are obligated in Talmud Torah?
I think that this argument does not necessarily follow. It appears from Kidushin 35a that there is a different reason for why Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah maintain that women are exempt from Tefilin: they maintain that Tefilin is a Mitzvas Aseh she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama -- it is not a Mitzvah limited by time. Accordingly, one does not have to say that they maintain that women are obligated to learn Torah.
2. I would say that not all of the Limudim on Kidushin 29b are Derashos, but instead are simple interpretations of the verses. At any rate, the verse does state explicitly, "And you shall teach your sons" (Devarim 11:19), which the Gemara explains to mean your sons and not your daughters.
3. You cite the Mishnah in Parah (1:1) where Ben Azai explains Rebbi Yehoshua's words. However, it appears to me that simply because on one occasion Ben Azai explained Rebbi Yehoshua's words does not mean that we may assume that Rebbi Yehoshua generally follows the opinion of his pupil, especially since in this case Rashi writes explicitly (Sotah 21a, DH Rotzeh), when explaining Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion, that it is not good that a woman should learn Torah, which disagrees with Ben Azai.
4. I think your comment concerning Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah is hinting to an argument mentioned in the Shach, Yoreh Deah 46:14. The Shach writes that if the Tur or Rabeinu Yerucham make a decision which is the same ruling as the Rosh, this does not represent an additional reason to rule like the Rosh. The reason is that the Tur and Rabeinu Yerucham are disciples of the Rosh who always follows their teacher's opinion.
However, it seems unlikely that one can compare this to the relationship between Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah and his teacher, Rebbi Eliezer. Even though your citation from Maseches Kalah shows that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah was a student of Rebbi Eliezer, this still does not prove that he always followed Rebbi Eliezer's opinions in a similar way that the Tur and Rabeinu Yerucham always followed those of the Rosh. On the contrary, if Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah would have always followed the opinions of Rebbi Eliezer, then he should have been a Shemuti in the same way that Rebbi Eliezer was (Bava Metzia 59b). Therefore, I still maintain that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah may be considered an independent opinion on the question of Tiflus.
Thanking you again for your very important Divrei Torah,
Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom