More Discussions for this daf
1. Giving one the benefit of the doubt 2. l'Kaf Zechus 3. Benefiting Avodah Zarah
4. Yasom
DAF DISCUSSIONS - AVODAH ZARAH 13

Mordechai Schwimmer asked:

Regarding the incident about Rebbi Yaakov and Rebbi Yermiyah - Rishonim

ke'Malachim - it would not cross ones mind even for a moment that they did

anything wrong.

However, at least two points need elucidation.

(a) Why did they exchange unkind remarks, referring to each other as

'Yasma'? The Chavot Yair in his responsae § 152 offers explanations to some

seemingly unkind terms found in Shas, but 'Yasma' is not among them.

(b) The mutual suspicion and accusation of having transgressed the

prohibition of purchasing an item from an idolater under certain

circumstances, seem, on the surface, not to conform to the percept of

'Havey Don Ess Chavercha le'Kaff Zchuss' (Shevuos 30a), especially as

elaborated upon in the Chofets Chaim, in the Overture, Essin § 3, regarding

an individual one is acquainted with, especially a righteous one.

Sincerely,

Mordechai Schwimmer

Rav Joseph Pearlman replies:

(a) The word "Yasma" is not a derogatory term, but simply means that the person addressed lacks a father (in this case, his Rebbi) to teach him the correct Halachah. A Rebbi is often called a father, as Elisha addressed Eliyahu, "Avi Avi Rechev Yisrael," and as the Torah says regarding teaching students, "v'Shinantam l'Vanecha." Here, too, each was telling the other that he was still in need of his Rebbi to teach him the correct Halachah that he should not have been purchasing from the Nochri. That is inherent in the continuation of the statement: "Yasma -- Avad Rabach Hachi," which means, "You are a deprived Talmid -- as your Rebbi would not have done so."

(See also Seder Yakov -- copy attached -- who explains in this manner as well.)

(b) As to why each jumped to a conclusion contrary to the admonition of Shabbos 127b from the Mishnah in Avos 1:7 -- "Hevi Dan Es Kol ha'Adam l'Chaf Zechus," the answer is that this does not mean that one always accepts that the other person can, under no circumstance, have done anything wrong. (See the BARTENURA in Avos there, who explains that it refers to a situation in which the explanation for the person's act can be equally favorable or unfavorable.) The commentators set out four categories of people:

1. Tam -- one who is unknown to us, in which case it is Midas Chasidus to incline in his favor.

2. Rasha -- we are always to incline against him (even if it looks as if he is doing something right).

3. Beinoni -- we are to incline in his favor if the matter is evenly balanced, and it is Midas Chasidus to treat the matter as at least remaining in doubt when it looks bad for him.

4. Tzadik -- we are always to incline in his favor, even if it looks bleak (as in Shabbos 127b).

We must assume that Rebbi Yakov and Rebbi Yirmeyah are in the last category, and therefore ought to have been given the complete benefit of the doubt. It is possible, however, that the question was not accusatory, but merely inquisitive, to ascertain the true position.

In addition, perhaps the circumstances were such that it was far more likely that the purchase had been made from a trader than from an individual. Perhaps such an assumption came precisely from the fact that each had had tremendous difficulty in finding an individual Nochri Ba'al ha'Bayis to sell him the article that he had been seeking, and that is why each thought that the other must have purchased from a trader. One only has to be Dan l'Chaf Zechus, as the Bartenura states (as mentioned above), when there is some area of doubt, but not when there is no doubt.

Pesach Kasher v'Same'ach,

Joseph Pearlman