Holding by Bet Shammai

BSD

Hakham Shalom Buzaglo brings in Mikdash Melekh a tradition from Arizal that after geula we will hold by the humrot of Bet Shammai four hasidim. His explanation for this is kabbalistic and beyond what is relevant to explain here. There is also a sugya in Masekhet Eruvin which states one who holds exclusively by Bet Shammai or exclusively by Bet Hillel may do so, though the established halakha is usually according to Bet Hillel; the Gemara then explains this would apply to any subsequent mahaloket leShem Shamayim, such as the mahaloket between the Tosafists and the Kairouan tradition. Nevertheless, in Masekhet Berakhot the Gemara states one who holds by Bet Shammai is hayav mita. It seems we are left to square this circle, but the Mishna in this sugya along with Mikdash Melekh offer an explanation. 

In the Mishna, R Tarfon explains that he held by Bet Shammai to lie down for Keriyat Shema of Arvit, and by doing so he was in danger from being attacked by robbers. The Tannaim told him for this he would have deserved it even if robbers would have murdered him, and the Gemara says from this we see that one who holds by Bet Shammai is hayav mita. Mikdash Melekh clarifies that after geula to hold by Bet Shammai lehumra would be a matter of hasidut; the din will still be as established by Rav Ashi (and some Aharonim imply we will de facto have to hold by Rambam after geula, as he is the only hakham to codify the halakhot applicable to Malkhut David and the Mishkan after Hazal). Therefore, there will not be a case that the din will be according to Bet Shammai; simply the humrot of Bet Shammai will be minhage kelal Yisrael as a result of universalized hasidut, and I have heard some say there are sources that say likewise with regard to the humrot of the Yerushalmi (the Yerushalmi is generally more mahamir than the Bavli, and that is why Ramhal cites the Yerushalmi often to describe perishut and hasidut). That these humrot will be the minhag kelal Yisrael when the Gemara says for holding by Bet Shammai one is hayav mita teaches us a valuable lesson even for today. 

It is good to pursue perishut and hasidut, but we must be careful to not confuse these with halakha. We are usually obligated in mesirut nefesh for the sake of halakha, but we are not so obligated for hasidut, and Ramhal even warns that one who practices hasidut that will have harmful results is performing a transgression. Therefore, that we learn that one who applies the sevara of Bet Shammai in a place of danger is hayav mita teaches us that causing strife or harm by pursuing stringencies for hasidut is not a matter of mesirut nefesh; it is in fact an avera. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Clarifications on the Rambamist Mesora

B"H There is a great deal of misinformation on the Maimonidean shita and its current status.  For this reason some clarifications are in order.  IYH this will help readers have a clear understanding of the direction Maimonidean Judaism has taken to the modern day and to have appropriate discernment in assessing Maimonidean spaces in the sphere of Jewish thought.  To be sure there is a constant Maimonidean mesora, and it does actually exist in the real world and not only online or in WhatsApp.  However, to get a better understanding of this we must first clarify what continuity is for the sake of understanding a mesora. Masekhet Avot describes the basic premise of mesora.  Moshe Rabbenu received the Torah at Har Sinai.  He taught Torah to Yehoshua bin Nun among others.  Yehoshua bin Nun taught the Shofetim who taught the Prophets who taught Anshe Keneset haGedola who taught the Tannaim who taught the Amoraim who taught the Savoraim who taught the Geonim...
Read more

Parashat Vayetse 5785

 The past few weeks have been quite a lot for Am Yisrael, and this week we saw some escalation in that. Arsonists targeted synagogues in Australia, and some Jews from Melbourne have suffered serious injuries while praying in a synagogue that arsonists attacked. This was preceded earlier in the week by a statement from Amnesty accusing the Israeli army of genocide and even explicitly stating they amended the definition of genocide because of the importance of bringing this accusation against the Israeli army for a defensive war in which the army is working to recover captives. It is important to make a clarification that despite the rhetorical description of Israel, which is a representation of the legal right of return for the Indigenous Jewish population of Erets Yisrael, Israel is not halakhically a "Jewish state," and a Jewish state governed according to Torah by the Sanhedrin and Malkhut David will not exist until we merit geula, may it be soon in our time. However, Israe...
Read more