More Discussions for this daf
1. proofs that are not needed 2. Bava Metzia 114: Eliyahu's status as a Kohen 3. Paying back debts
4. Apparent Redundancy Ignored 5. בארבעה לא מצינא בשיתא מצינא
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BAVA METZIA 114

Boruch Yuabov asked:

Dear Rav!(I mean Rav Kornfeld)

I highly admire your work and work of your Kolel in setting the daf yomi forum on line. I use your site for many years and plan on using it in future (G-d willing)

May G-d Bless you for that important work of yours.

I'd like to note however that I was somewhat disappointed by the information that was put togather about Elyahu Hanovi and his status of cohen.

There is enough opinions that reject the view that he was cohen or that he was Pinchas. Even Tosafot for Babametzia 114b that was (looks like intentionally avoided by you) gives enough suuport to the opinion that he was not cohen at all. Moreover there are midrashim that clearly state that elyahu hanovi himself stated that he is from shevet Binyamin.

Please explain to me why that most reasonable and credible opinion was ignored by you and instead substituded by weak opinion that needed to be supported by contradictory proofs said by authors with big names.

AS a side question please explain me does your statement about teachings of Elyahu Hanovi I quote:"Similarly, when Eliyahu is not saying a prophecy but is saying a Halachah that was once taught (by someone else), we certainly accept it. Only when he teaches something that was never taught before and he is teaching it is as a prophet, do we not accept it".

reffers to book of Zohar as well? Please dont be politically correct but rather give me the answer from the bottom of your heart.This question bothers me a lot.

Boruch Yuabov, NY, USA

The Kollel replies:

The Insight in Bava Metzia 114 to which you refer was specifically addressing the opinion of Rabah bar Avuha stated in the Gemara there, and the Rishonim who base their question on that opinion. To mention the other opinions (that he was not a Kohen) is not relevant to the discussion. Hence, this is "why that most reasonable and credible opinion was ignored," as the opinion that Eliyahu was not a Kohen is not the opinion being discussed by the Gemara. If your question is not on what we wrote, but why Rabah bar Avuha and many Rishonim discuss the view that Eliyahu was a Kohen, then the answer is that they had a Mesorah or various sources to that effect and they accepted the fact that there was an opposing view. It is possible for there to exist various contradictory opinions in Chazal; this is called "Eilu v'Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim," and also referred to as "Ayin Panim la'Torah." A Machlokes Amora'im whether or not "Pinchas Zeh Eliyahu" is no different with regard to how we approach the Sugya than a Machlokes Amora'im whether or not Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as is Yi'ush.

By the way, regarding Tosfos in Bava Metzia 114b, I see nothing but conclusive proof that Tosfos is following the view that Eliyahu was a Kohen.

Regarding your side question, the Rambam in his Hakdamah to the Mishnayos explains that since Torah is "Lo ba'Shamayim," Eliyahu as a prophet has no right to decide on Halachic issues. This is as the Gemara writes, "Ein l'Navi Reshus l'Chadesh." This is included in the Thirteen Principles of Faith in the Ikar of "Zos ha'Torah Lo Tehei Muchlefes." However, besides being a prophet, Eliyahu was a Musmach of Achiya ha'Shiloni, and in that capacity he may issue Halachic rulings. The Kabalah (Zohar) was not a revelation of prophesy; it was handed down from generation to generation and was revealed by Rebbi Shimon. All the revelations refer to understandings of the Torah which we have. Accordingly, we follow any rulings in the Zohar that the tradition tells us to follow.

D. Zupnik