Q&A: Several Questions
Several Questions
Question
Peace and blessings to the great gaon, may he live long and well. A number of questions:
Questions of Jewish law:
A) The Magen Avraham (sec. 344, subsec. 2) wrote regarding one who is traveling in the desert and does not know when the Sabbath is, that he cannot follow the majority of days, which are weekdays, because the Sabbath is fixed, and in a fixed case we do not follow the majority. The Mishnah Berurah explained that it is considered fixed because it is recognizable to all.
Now this requires clarification: in Ta’anit (17a), regarding a priest who does not know his watch, it says that he is forbidden to drink wine forever, lest today is his watch and the Temple be rebuilt speedily. Seemingly, he should be able to follow the majority of days; and here it is not recognizable to all, so it should not be considered fixed.
B) Maimonides wrote (Laws of Character Traits 6:8 and Sefer HaMitzvot, prohibition 302): “Whoever hates one of Israel in his heart violates a prohibition, as it says, ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart’ (Leviticus 19:17). One is not lashed for this prohibition, because it involves no action. The Torah warned only against hatred in the heart. But one who strikes his fellow or insults him, although he is certainly not permitted to do so, does not violate ‘You shall not hate.'”
It is clear that the Torah prohibition of “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” applies only when the hater does not reveal his hatred, but keeps it in his heart. However, if the one who hates informs his fellow that he hates him, he does not violate this prohibition.
But this is difficult, from what we find in Sotah (3a), that according to Rabbi Ishmael a special verse is needed to permit a husband to warn his wife when she secluded herself with her neighbors, and were the Torah not to permit it, we would have thought that a husband is forbidden to warn his wife because of the prohibition of “You shall not hate your brother in your heart,” see there. According to Maimonides, when a person informs the other that he hates him, he does not violate this prohibition. So why would we have thought that a husband is forbidden to warn his wife? After all, the husband is openly expressing in front of his wife his displeasure with her actions.
Question in aggadic literature:
A) In Yevamot (6a) we derive from the verse (Exodus 19:30), “You shall keep My Sabbaths and revere My Sanctuary,” that building the Temple does not override the Sabbath. This requires clarification: why do we need a derivation for the rule that building the Temple does not override the Sabbath? We hold (Shabbat 133a; Beitzah 8b) that a positive commandment does not override a prohibition plus a positive commandment. Since the commandment to build the Temple is a positive commandment, as it says (Exodus 25:8), “And they shall make Me a sanctuary,” and the prohibition of desecrating the Sabbath is both a prohibition and a positive commandment, then certainly the positive commandment of building the Temple should not override the prohibition and positive commandment of Sabbath observance (Shabbat 25a). Now the Alsheikh (Exodus, beginning of chapter 35) asked about this rule that building the Temple does not override the Sabbath: how is it different from sacrifices, which do override the Sabbath? He answered: “Its holiness is not comparable, once it is already a dwelling place for God, to what it still was not, but was only destined to become… merely preparation for it.” Meaning, sacrifices override the Sabbath because the Temple and its holiness already exist, but building the Temple, in which holiness has not yet come to rest, does not override the Sabbath. This still needs examination in light of the view of Rabbi Eliezer (Shabbat 131a; Pesachim 65b) that preparatory acts for a commandment override the Sabbath. Seemingly, building the Temple should override the Sabbath, since as long as the Temple is not standing in its glory, they cannot offer the sacrifices they are commanded in.
B) It says in Sanhedrin (100a): In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring forth a river from the Holy of Holies, and upon it will be all kinds of delicacies, as it is said: “And by the river upon its bank, on this side and on that side, will grow every tree for food… for its waters issue forth from the Sanctuary, and its fruit shall be for food and its leaves for healing.”
Now in Me’ilah (13a) we learned: “A spring that emerges from a consecrated field, one may not derive benefit from it, but one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property; once it goes outside the field, one may derive benefit from it.” Rashi explained [and so did Rabbeinu Gershom Me’or HaGolah, and so ruled Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura] that the spring comes from a non-consecrated field and passes through a consecrated field. It is clear from their words that if a spring actually emerges from a consecrated field, one is liable for misuse of consecrated property by Torah law. Seemingly this would apply even after the waters leave the field, for only in the case where it comes from a non-consecrated field, where the prohibition is rabbinic, is there room to distinguish.
So this is difficult: if so, then even the river that emerges from the Holy of Holies should be subject to misuse of consecrated property, so how will people be able to benefit from it?
Answer
Peace and blessings.
Questions of Jewish law:
A) I do not know why you assume this is not recognizable. The division of the watches is recognizable to all; he simply forgot. I would only note that in my humble opinion there is no need to get as far as the Magen Avraham. In the days of the week there is no mixture from which one day separated off; rather, the discussion is about a specific day that is situated in its place (on the axis of time), and therefore it is considered fixed.
B) Excellent question. And indeed Maimonides’ words are a major novelty. Perhaps it can be explained as follows: according to Maimonides, revealing it solves the problem because keeping hatred in ones heart does not allow the problems to be resolved. It festers there and worsens over time. And if the problem is not resolved, they can separate and not remain in contact. But between a man and his wife, revealing it creates problems and does not solve them, because they do not have the option of not living together. Although according to this, even in Maimonides’ view the prohibition is the hatred in the heart; he is simply innovating that if a person reveals it outwardly, he solves the problem. That is a different definition from the accepted one.
Another possibility: when does revealing it solve the problem? When the revelation is meant to vent the hatred in the heart and dissipate it. But warning a wife is not meant to vent and dissolve the hatred; rather, it is meant to perpetuate the resentment and continue restricting his wife. Therefore here there is a prohibition even when he says it outwardly. For example, if a person hates someone in his heart and tells everything to others (not to the person himself), according to Maimonides does he violate the prohibition or not? By logic I would say yes. The same applies here.
Question in aggadic literature:
A) There is no difficulty, because building the Temple is a positive commandment of the many. In particular, the merit of the many depends on it (bringing sin-offerings and atonement and the indwelling of the Divine Presence). I did not understand your question on the Alsheikh, for that resolves your first difficulty. Therefore an innovative verse is needed to say that it does not override. I also did not understand why you consider this an aggadic question.
B) It is possible that the river does not originate in the Holy of Holies but only passes through it. Your proof is from the language of the Talmud in Me’ilah, which speaks of a spring that comes out from within a consecrated field, and the above-mentioned early authorities explained that it only passes through it. But of course one does not raise objections to a homiletic teaching, and if there is a special permission from the Holy One, blessed be He, then one may derive benefit even if it comes out of the Holy of Holies itself; the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.
Discussion on Answer
Why do I need a verse? It’s simple logic.
A man’s wife is not just in the category of an ordinary fellow person, but has an independent status here — do you have a source for that?