More Discussions for this daf
1. Tzelafchad's sin 2. Shem/Shimon 3. Rashi's explanation of Baisa K'man Dmalei
4. Revealing secrets of the Torah 5. Revealing What the Torah Concealed 6. Ten Tefachim
7. Who was the Mekoshesh 8. באומר כל מקום שתרצה תנוח 9. רש"י ד"ה כמאן דמלי
DAF DISCUSSIONS - SHABBOS 97

Yitzchak Kasdan asked:

I am looking for an explanation/discussion of the machlokes between R. Akiva and R. Yehuda ben Besaira regarding whether it was proper for R. Akiva to have revealed the facts that 1)the m'kosheis eitzim was Tzlopchad and 2) that Aharon HaCohen was afflicted with tzaraas (as was Miriam albeit only momentarily as opposed to 7 days).

The Torah Temima (and others) explain that R. Akiva felt it fine to reveal Tzlopchad's name since, according to some, the m'kosheis eitzim did so "lishma" (and therefore, presumably there was no laaz in that revelation). See the Torah Temima in Parshas Shlach. However, that p'shat, it would appear, does not fit perfectly well with regard to the revelation about Aharon. In any case, that p'shat does not satisfy R. Yehudah's objection that, even if true, the Torah after all had concealed these facts.

Finally whose mehalach is followed -- if one would say R. Akiva because after all the gemara "revealed" his p'shatim, yet the gemara continues with the warning not to be choshed b'kshairim which seems to support R. Yehuda's objections; if R. Yehuda, then the gemara should not have brought down the machlokes at all.

Are you aware of m'farshim that discuss these questions and analyze the machlokes in depth?

Thanks in advance.

Yitzchak Kasdan

The Kollel replies:

I am not familiar with any commentary that discussed your question in depth.

The CHASAM SOFER on Shabbos, though, points out that the explanation you quoted from the Torah Temimah and others is flawed. Although TOSFOS (Bava Basra 119b) quotes a Midrash (see Targum Yonasan end of Shelach) according to which Tzelafchad's intentions were l'Shem Shamayim, this would not seem to be the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. In Bava Basra (119a) it is "a student of Rebbi Akiva's" who is quoted as saying that the punishment for a Mechalel Shabbos was written in the Torah due to the actions of the Mekoshesh because of "Megalgelin Chovah Al Yedei Chayav."

(By the way, the way I understand it, even if he was Mechaven l'Shem Shamayim, he was still a "Chayav" -- a guilty party who committed a shameful act. His was not the correct approach to strengthening Shemiras Shabbos in Israel. In any case, since he committed an act for which he was Chayav Sekilah it would not be appropriate to attribute his actions to the wrong person; it was still a worse sin than that of the Ma'apilim.)

But the truth is that the question on Rebbi Akiva ("How can you publicize what the Torah hid") was not a question in the first place. After all, the Gemara and Midrash is full of Derashos on Pesukim explaining who was behind which act; even villianous acts. (See, for example, Nedarim 64b, "Wherever it says Nitzim or Nitzavim it is Dasan and Aviram." Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlit"a, has a Sefer called Ta'ama d'Kra identifying all of the hidden people in Tanach.) What, then, bothered Rebbi Yehudah about Rebbi Akiva's statement?

The answer can be found in Rashi DH v'Ela (97b). Whenever an inference is found in the verse pointing to who did what, we need not worry that the Torah "hid" the person's actions. To the contrary, an inference is a revelation of the person's acts, even if it is only a Gezeirah Shavah. Thus, the fact that the Torah teaches who did what through a Derasha and not explicitly, does not demonstrate that the Torah wants to protect someone's reputation. Since Rebbi Akiva learned what he learned from a Gezeirah Shavah (or from an inferenence from a word in the verse), he was not "revealing what the Torah had hidden."

How then are we to understand the accusation Rebbi Yehudah leveled against Rebbi Akiva? The answer can be found in the Gemara. In the case of the Gezeirah Shavah, "Lo Gamar." That is, he held there was no such Gezeirah Shavah (see Tosfos DH Gezeirah, and another approach to the matter in Rabeinu Chananel). Since the verse did not allude that Tzelafchad did such a bad sin, it would certainly be wrong for Rebbi Akiva to claim that he did; we must lessen his sin rather build it up. That is, Rebbi Yehudah was responding to Rebbi Akiva l'Shitaso that the Derasha did not supply a strong enough source. The same applies with regard to the argument about whether or not Aharon had Tzara'as; Rebbi Yehudah said we must lessen his sin since there is no source to build it up. But Rebbi Akiva found an allusion in the word "Bam" that the punishments of Miryam and Aharon were similar, and both suffered from Tzara'as.

As for the following Gemara, which discusses ha'Choshed bi'Kesheirim -- the statement may have been mentioned because Rebbi Yehudah accused Rebbi Akiva of being Choshed. Besides, it was appropriate to mention Moshe's short bout of Tzara'as in connection with Aharon's short bout of Tzara'as (according to Rebbi Akiva).

As for who we follow, the rules of Psak that apply to Halachic matters do not necessarily apply to Agadah. In fact, we usually try to say "Elu v'Elu Divrei Elokim Chayim" (see Gitin 7b).

I hope this is helpful to you. Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld

P.S. I have a nice discussion, that ends with an explanation for the connection between Tzelafchad and the Mekoshesh, online in our audio Shiurim section for Parashas Shelach 5763. http://www.dafyomi.co.il/lectures/tapes/ppg-shelach63.ram .

Morris Smith asked:

But isnt the fact that the Torah is revealing the gulity party through drash a sign that the Torah is avoiding directly discussing Lashon Hara against the guilty party? Isnt it possible that the guilty party may have committed a chait yet was a tzaddik in the larger scheme of things? Why should we assume that the Torah would want to publicize the name of the avaryan-let us just publicize the chait?

M. Smith

The Kollel replies:

Thank you, Morris, excellent point. The Torah clearly has a reason for why it sometimes teaches things through a Drash rather than writing them explicitly. For example, in a famous essay in Pachas Yitzchak Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Hutner proposes that even a miracle which we know about only through Drash but is not discussed openly in the Torah (such as necks which turned to stone etc.) may not have occured in an "open" (and literal) manner, but in a more hidden (symbolic) manner. This is what makes puts that miracle in the realm of Agadah and not the realm of Torah she'bi'Chetav.

Similarly, laws that are taught openly in the Torah are, according to some, permitted to be taught to Non-Jews, whereas what is learned from Drash may not be taught to them. (See Netziv in Teshuvos Meshiv Davar #1.) Those laws were meant for a different audience to read.

The same might apply to Derashot such as this one. Although Rashi writes that what is learned from a Drash is considered "explicit," and it does not involve "Lashon ha'Ra" to tell it over, nevertheless the Torah certainly had a reason for leaving these details out of the narrative, and placing them in the realm of Drash. Perhaps the Torah only wanted those fit to learn Derashos (or Dafyomi) to know about the sinner, but not everyone else.

Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld

David Cohen wrote:

While you are discussing the sin of Tzelafchad, I'll add the words of the Ben Yoyada from the Arizal. The gemara in Shabbos discusses a chasid who thought about repairing a fence on Shabbos. Because he thought about it on Shabbos he decided not to do it, and it its place grew a Tzlaf (caper) bush which provided him with a livlihood for him and his family.

This Chassid had a spark from Ztelafchad within him. His original sin may have been over Shabbos, (and part of the publicity in the gemara is to provide further forgiveness), but he corrected himself to such an extent that even the thought of work of shabbos prevented him from repairing the fence. The gemara states that ztelaf chad - one caper tree - grew, a reference to Zlefchad the person.

ycd cohen

The Kollel writes:

Yasher Koach! By the way, I always understood that according to the Arizal "Tzlaf Chad" meant a "sharp" (thorned) tzlaf, not a "single" Tzelaf.

Note also that Tzlafchad sinned b'Ma'aseh, but not b'Machshavah (since he had good intentions). On the other hand, the Chasid in Shabbos 150b sinned b'Machshavah but not b'Ma'aseh, bringing a Tikun to Tzelafchad. Note also that a new depth of understanding can be reached for the fact that the Tzelaf grew to repair the Chasid's fence, based on my audio Shiur for last week's Parasha (Shelach 5763). (The link should be up already on http://www.dafyomi.co.il/lectures/shiurlist.htm under Parasha Shiurim.)

Best wishes,

Mordecai Kornfeld

Yosey Goldstein wrote:

Reb Mordechai

You said "By the way, the way I understand it, even if he was Mechaven l'Shem Shamayim, he was still a "Chayav" -- a guilty party who committed a shameful act. "

I have just seen a Psheat (In a sefer call likutei Yehoshua, but I think I saw it elsewhere years ago. I will search. The sefer Likutey Yehoshua is available on HEBREWBOOKS.ORG, along with many other out of print seforim. ) that answers your questions on Tzelofchod's being mechaven leshem shomayim. We know that the Halacha is that a Melocha done for some other reason than the actual melocha is Potur. (The case of the Mishna is extinguishing a candles Friday night because of a Sick Person. The person does not want to put out the fire, he just needs dark for the sick person.) Therefore since Tzelofchod did not gather sticks because he NEEDED the sticks, rather he wanted to teach Klall Yisroel the severity and Chumra of Shabbos. Therefore he collected the sticks, Moshe had to decide the Halachas based on what was seen & said. Therefore Tzelofchod was sentenced to Sekilla, although in truth what he did was not a "chiyuv Missa".

You may ask, How was Tzelofchod permitted to put himself in such a dangerous situation, one where he actually was killed because of his actions! That I do not have an answer for yet.

Yosey Goldstein

Yitzchok Zirkind writes:

Dear Rav Mordechai,

The following is not for publishing (as I would rather first locate the source, and wether I am giving over exact).

When I learned this Gemara for the first time, I was told of a beautiful Pshat in the following Pssukim

Mi Zeh Haish = as the Torah does not mention his name

Yirei Hashem = Lishem Shomayim Niskavein

Yorenu Bderech Yivchar = wanted to teach the proper way to chose (uVacharta Bachayim)

Nafshoi B'tov Tolin = has a Chelek in Gan Eden/Olom Haba

Vzaroi Yiras Oretz = Bnos Tzlafchad got a portion in Eretz Yisroel

Sod Hasehm Liyreiuv = the Tana who revelead who he was

Kol Tuv,

Yitzchok Zirkind