The Aggada of R. Pinchas Ben Yair

Daf Ditty Shekalim 13: Pinchas Ben Yair’s Donkey

Rabbi Phinehas ben Jair, Old City Tzefat

3 Halakha 1 · MISHNA These are the officials who served in specific positions in the Temple: Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas was responsible for the seals. One who paid for a specific type of sacrificial item received a seal, which he presented to the Temple official in exchange for that item. Aḥiyya was responsible for the libations, i.e., the wine, oil, and flour prepared with the level of ritual purity necessary for the libation offerings and the meal-offerings, which accompanied many animal offerings. Aḥiyya supplied the libations to those who presented the appropriate seal. Matya ben Shmuel was responsible for the lotteries, which were used to select priests for the various Temple services each day.

Petaḥya was responsible for the pairs of birds, i.e., the turtledoves or pigeons, brought by a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. They placed the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner.

Incidentally, the Gemara mentions: Petaḥya is Mordecai from the book of Esther. And why was he named called Petaḥya, which resembles the word for opening [petaḥ]? The reason is that he would open, i.e., elucidate, difficult topics and interpret them to the people, and because he knew all seventy languages known at the time.

The mishna resumes the list of officials. Ben Aḥiyya was responsible for the care of the priests who suffered from intestinal disease. Neḥunya was the well digger for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. Gevini was the Temple crier who would awaken the priests and the Levites for their Temple duties. Ben Gever was responsible for locking the Temple gates in the evening and for unlocking them in the morning.

Ben Bevai was appointed over the shreds of garments, which were formed into wicks for the Temple candelabra. He also supervised the twisting of those wicks into the appropriate thickness for the various nights during the different seasons of the year. Ben Arza was responsible for the cymbal, which was rung as a signal that the Levites should commence their song. Hugras ben Levi was responsible for the song. He taught and conducted the singers in the Temple.

The house of Garmu was responsible for the preparation of the shewbread; the house of Avtinas was responsible for the preparation of the incense; and Elazar was responsible for weaving the Temple curtains; and Pineḥas was the valet, who assisted the priests in fitting their clothes and dressing themselves for their Temple service.

GEMARA: The mishna lists fifteen names of officials who filled specific positions in the Temple, despite the fact that during the many years of the Temple there must have been far more than fifteen officials who served those functions. Rabbi Ḥizkiyah said that Rabbi Simon and the Rabbis disagreed as to why the mishna mentions only these fifteen names. One of them said: The mishna comes to enumerate those who were the most fit of all the officials who served in each position, from whatever generation they were from. And the other said: The tanna who was in that generation enumerated those functionaries who served in his generation.

7 Several of these officials are also mentioned in the mishna in Yoma, some for praise (37a), and others for censure (38a). The Gemara notes that this issue is related to the aforementioned dispute. The one who said that the mishna comes to enumerate the most fit of those who served from whatever generation claims that when the mishna in Yoma says:

The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing; but 7 ז רֶכֵז ,קיִדַּצ ;הָכָרְבִל םֵשְׁו םֵשְׁו .the name of the wicked shall rot םיִﬠָשְׁר .בָקְרִי םיִﬠָשְׁר Prov 10:7

“The memory of a righteous person shall be for a blessing” it is in reference to all of them. According to this opinion, the tanna in Yoma maintains that the reason these officials did not teach their specialties to others was because they wanted to prevent their knowledge from being used for idol worship.

The only officials censured are those like ben Kamtzar, who refused to divulge their secrets for unworthy reasons, but these people are not mentioned in the mishna.

Conversely, the one who said that the tanna who was in that generation enumerated those officials who served in his generation, he claims that the mishna in Yoma says:

“But the name of the wicked shall rot” in reference to all of them. And with regard to whom is the tanna in Yoma speaking when he cites the verse: “The memory of a righteous person shall be for a blessing”?

He is referring only to ben Katin, who improved the basin for the priests in the Temple, and his colleagues.

The Gemara cites another metaphor with regard to the relationship between the earlier and later generations. Rabbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rabbi Ze’eira: If the former generations were akin to angels, we are akin to humans; and if they were akin to humans, we are akin to donkeys. Rabbi Mana said: At that hour, when the previous statement was issued, they also said: We are not even comparable to the female donkey of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair.

§ The Gemara explains the reference to this particular donkey. The donkey of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair was stolen by robbers one night. It was kept hidden by them for three days, and yet it did not eat anything. After three days, they reconsidered and decided to return it. They said: Let’s get it out of here, so that it shouldn’t die in our possession and leave a stench in our cave. When they set it free it went and stood by its master’s gate and began braying. Rabbi Pineḥas said to the members of his household: Open up for that poor creature, which has gone three days without eating anything. They opened the gate for it, and it entered Rabbi Pineḥas’ courtyard.

He told them: Give it something to eat. They placed barley before it, but it would not eat. They said to him: Rabbi, it will not eat. He said to them: Has the barley been tithed so that it is fit to eat? They replied: Yes. He then asked them: And have you separated their doubtfully tithed produce? Did you tithe the grain about which there is doubt as to whether it has been tithed properly?

They replied: Didn’t you teach us the following, Rabbi: One who purchases grain for feeding an animal, or flour for processing animal hides, or oil for lighting a lamp, is exempt from separating doubtfully tithed produce? There is no need to separate tithes from doubtfully tithed produce to feed a donkey. He said to them: What can we do for that poor creature, which is very strict with itself and will not eat even from doubtfully tithed produce, despite this exemption? And they therefore separated tithes from the doubtfully tithed produce, and the donkey finally ate the barley grains.

Summary

Appointments in the Beis Hamikdosh

The Mishna list many appointments over various tasks that were in the Beis Hamikdosh, as follows: 1. vouchers (for purchasing items for korbanos) – Yochonon Ben Pinchos 2. Nesochim (wine libations with korbanos) – Achaya 3. drawing lots (who will perform which service) – Masya Ben Shmuel 4. kinnin (bird offerings for certain types of tumah) – Mordechai Habalshan (some say this is the same Mordechai from Purim) 5. digestive problems (for Kohanim who ate a lot of meat, and weren't permitted to drink wine, all while walking barefoot) – Ben Achaya 6. digging wells (so that water shall be found for the people) – Nechunia 7. Calling out to the Kohanim, Leviim, and Yisroelim to begin the service – Gevini 8. opening and closing the gates of the Beis Hamikdosh – Ben Gever 9. wicks – Ben Bechi 10. musical instruments (for the Leviim's song) – Ben Arza 11. the actual song of the Leviim – Hugras Ben Levi 12. the Lechem Haponim – the Garmu household 13. the Ketores – the Avtinas household 14. the Paroches – Elazar 15. dressing the Kohen Godol – Pinchos

There's a machlokes in the Gemora about why these specific people were chosen to be named in the Mishna. Surely there were many people who were appointed for these tasks during the 420 years that the second Beis Hamikdosh stood.

11 One opinion is that the most fitting people for the specific positions throughout the 420 years are mentioned, while the other opinion is that these were the appointments at the time of the beginning of the Beis Hamikdosh.

Why the Chachamim are called Sofrim

The word “sofrim” also means counters, and the Chachamim got this name since they enumerated various halachos of some mitzvos. Some examples are:

1. 5 types of people can't remove Teruma 2. 5 types of grain are obligated in hafroshas challa 3. 15 women exempt their co-wives from yibum 4. 36 types of kores in the Torah 5. 13 principles concerning a pure kosher neveila 6. 4 main categories of damage 7. 39 main categories of melocha for Shabbos

The same attribute applies to Ezra Hasofer, who enumerated many halachos. Rabbi Chagai lamented that although the previous Chachamim paved the way for us (to the make the Torah easier for us to understand), we are still at loss to understand it.

Rabbi Pinchos Ben Yair's Donkey

Connecting the previous statement, the Gemora said that if the previous generations are like angels, then we are like people. But if they are like people, then we are like donkeys, but not even the level of Rabbi Pinchos Ben Yair's donkey, who wouldn't eat from any food that wasn't tithed. One day, this donkey was stolen, and for three straight days it wouldn't eat. The thieves finally released the donkey, fearing that it would die, and they didn't want its remains.

The donkey returned to its master's home, and was let in. Even after being fed “kosher” food, the donkey still didn't eat. Rabbi Pinchos investigated and discovered that the food given to the donkey didn't have demai removed from it. (Demai is food that is questionable whether the terumus and maasros were removed.

People can't eat it, but it can be given to animals.) Once the demai was removed, the donkey started eating. Many of the commentators want to know how it is possible that each member of the Sanhedrin was fluent in seventy languages. We know that Moshe Rabbeinu wrote the Torah in seventy languages towards the end of his life. But who can say that he can be compared to Moshe Rabbeinu?

The Kessef Mishneh proves from the Rambam's words that there's a completely different way of understanding the words of the Gemora. The Rambam writes that we should try to see to it that the Sanhedrin know most languages. This obviously varies from the Gemora's requirements of "seventy languages." He concludes that it is only l'chatchila that they know all seventy languages. But since it is highly unlikely to find such people, we do not enforce it. We can also prove the

12 point from our Gemora, which brought a Beraissa that said that a Sanhedrin that has two members (that can converse in seventy languages) is proper to be called a Sanhedrin. If it has three such members, it is considered an average Sanhedrin.

And if it has four such members, it is considered a wise Sanhedrin. And in the city of Yavne there were four Tannaim who spoke seventy languages. From there we see that it is only l'chatchila. But since it is difficult to achieve, any number of languages for any of the members is sufficient.

R. JACLYN RUBIN-BLAIER writes:1

Our daf explores the many meanings of the word sofer. It shares a root with the word sefer (book) as in sefer Torah. In contemporary Jewish parlance, it is the word for a scribe, a person who inks Torah scrolls and other sacred texts.

Rabbi Abbahu said: It is written: “And the families of scribes that dwelt at Jabez …” (I Chronicles 2:55). What is the meaning when the verse states the word “scribes”? Rather, it means that they crafted the halakhot of the Torah into numbered groups.

For the rabbis, the word sofer has a variety of meanings: one who counts, one who copies texts (scribe), scholar. The Talmud plays on all these different meanings in the following list of halakhot counted up by the scribes:

Five categories of people may not separate terumah; five types of grain require the separation of challah; fifteen categories of women exempt their co-wives from levirate marriage and halitzah; thirty-six transgressions in the Torah carry karet as punishment; thirteen matters are stated relating to the carcass of a kosher bird; there are four primary categories of damages; and the number of primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat is forty- less-one.

These examples are taken directly from mishnahs from different tractates and, in fact, except for the first two, each mishnah comes from a different seder (one of the six large orders of the Mishnah). Together, they represent the gamut of the Mishnah.

The rabbis next bring a different biblical verse to help illuminate the meaning of the word “scribe”:

Rabbi Eliezer said: It is written: “Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave to Ezra the priest and scribe, a scribe of the words of the mitzvot of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel” (Ezra 7:11). Why does the verse state the word “scribe” twice? (The verse is not redundant) rather, it means that just as Ezra was a scholar in matters of Torah (the written law), so was he a scholar in matters of the sages (the oral law).

1 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/shekalim-13/

13 According to Rabbi Eliezer, Ezra — described twice in one verse as a scribe — was an expert both in Torah (“the written law”) and in rabbinic law, also known as “oral law” because it was originally passed down orally.

These two meanings of the word sofer — counter and scholar — seem to embody an inherent tension: counting is an apparently superficial act, while scholarship requires a deeper, more thorough understanding.

But maybe not. The depths of the Jewish people’s relationship with Torah is unquantifiable. In some sense, it is beyond words. Yet, as humans, our understanding of the world is mediated through words, including those we use to explain and even quantify the unquantifiable.

Revelation, the experience of Divine Presence, was recorded in words, because human limitation precludes any other way of recording such a profound event. Famously, the words of the Torah try to capture something of that transcendent experience with strange, synesthetic statements like “the people saw the thunder … and the blast of the shofar” (Exodus 20:15). Such descriptions push the limit of what words can communicate.

One way we can comprehend the vastness of Torah is by making lists, categorizing, summarizing. Yet, we hope that this potentially superficial understanding can lead to something deeper, more profound — just as the sofrim of Chronicles who made numerical lists are connected to the sofer, Ezra, who was a scholar of all of Torah.

All of this connects to another list found on today’s page as well: a listing of exemplary rabbis. This list culminates in the quintessential Torah scholar, the one who was able to derive meaning from every tiny letter and even the decorative crowns of the letters in the Torah: Rabbi Akiva. For him, such tiny details were far from superficial, but the source of extraordinary creativity and deeper understanding.

This tension between quantity and quality, summary and detail, breadth and depth, always exists in our Torah learning. This is especially true for those studying Daf Yomi. The trick is to balance, to utilize the superficial to get to something greater, something more meaningful. To be a sofer, in every sense of the word.

KORBAN-INDUCED DIGESTIVE DISORDERS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara relates that the Kohanim who served in the Beis ha'Mikdash had chronic gastrointestinal problems as a result of the large quantity of meat of Korbanos that they ate. Since they were involved in the Avodah, they were unable to drink wine to assist their digestion, because a Kohen who performs the Avodah may not drink wine (Lev 10:9).

2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-013.htm

14 RU'ACH CHAIM (Pirkei Avos 3:3) proves from the Gemara in Yoma (73b) that when the Kohanim ate the meat of Korbanos in the Beis ha'Mikdash, they had no waste products. All of the meat was absorbed into their bodies, just as the Man (manna) was absorbed into the bodies ("Nivla b'Eivareihem") of the Jews in the desert (Yoma 73b), since it was a food comprised of spiritual components.

RAV SHMUEL ROTHCHILD in SEFER PEIROS TE'ENAH quotes the SHALMEI TODAH (end of 1:5) who says that the Gemara here seems to contradict the assertion of the Ru'ach Chaim. If the meat of the Korbanos was absorbed into the bodies of the Kohanim and produced no waste products, why did the meat cause digestive disorders?

In addition, the Peiros Te'enah cites the KUNTRUS DIVREI TORAH (9:5) who asks that the verse says, "Shomer Mitzvah Lo Yeda Davar Ra" -- "He who performs a Mitzvah will know no harm [from it]" (Koheles 8:5). The eating of the meat of Kodshim is a Mitzvah, as the Gemara says in Pesachim (85a; Rashi there, DH v'Ha Tanya). Why, then, did the Kohanim suffer from it?

KUNTRUS DIVREI TORAH answers that perhaps the meat of the Korbanos caused stomach problems only when the Kohanim did not eat the meat with pure intentions, l'Shem Shamayim. The Gemara in Pesachim (3b) relates that it happened that some Kohanim did not have pure intentions when they consumed Kodshim (for example, some Kohanim ate the Lechem ha'Panim with haughtiness).

The Gemara in Pesachim (8b) implies that the principle that "he who performs a Mitzvah will know no harm" applies only when one does the Mitzvah with pure intentions, Lishmah. One who performs the Mitzvah for his own personal benefit has no guarantee of protection.

Similarly, perhaps when the Kohanim ate the meat of the Korbanos for their own personal benefit, the meat was not absorbed completely into their bodies and would cause digestive problems. (The Ru'ach Chaim himself suggests such a difference with regard to an ordinary person. When one eats his meal entirely l'Shem Shamayim, the waste products of the food are "burned by his Torah" and leave only the pure and necessary part of the food, which becomes completely absorbed into the body.)

The Donkey Who Was Strict About Tithes

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

On daf 9 we were introduced to Rabbi Pinehas ben Yair who taught us how to climb the rungs of holiness and saintliness. Our Gemara relates another famous story that is told – not so much about Pinehas ben Yair, but about his donkey.

Several times in the Gemara the expression is used “if the earlier Sages were angels, we are people. And if they were people, we are donkeys…and not even as great as the donkey that belonged to Pinehas ben Yair.”

3 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/shekalim13/

15 The Gemara explains the reference to this particular donkey. The donkey of Rabbi Pinehas ben Yair was stolen by robbers one night. It was kept hidden by them for three days, and yet it did not eat anything. After three days, they reconsidered and decided to return it. They said: Let’s get it out of here, so that it shouldn’t die in our possession and leave a stench in our cave. When they set it free it went and stood by its master’s gate and began braying. Rabbi Pinehas said to the members of his household: Open up for that poor creature, which has gone three days without eating anything. They opened the gate for it, and it entered Rabbi Pinehas’ courtyard.

Rabbi Pinehas ben Yair was one of the Tanna’im who was known as one of the righteous people of his generation and as a miracle worker. He was related by marriage to Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai (according to some texts he was his father-in-law, according to others, his son-in-law). During his lifetime he was already spoken about as a legend, and the Gemara is replete with miraculous stories about him to the extent that the Sages say, “How much greater was this man than Moshe Rabbenu!” Nevertheless, only a small number of his teachings are recorded in the Gemara.

Mark Kerzner writes:4

There were fifteen administrators in the Temple, all listed by name. For example, Petachia ben Pinchas was responsible for the box where the moneys for bird sacrifices were collected, Hugras the Levi was the conductor, and the family of Garmu was baking bread. Of course, the same people could not possibly be administrators for all 420 years of the Second Temple; rather, it is the righteous among them who are singled out by name, or according to another opinion, these were their names in the generation when this rule was composed.

Rabbi Akiva was one of the greatest teachers, and he arranged the vast body of the Torah knowledge in divisions and groups to facilitate learning. His students also enumerated multiple laws together, such as " four types of damages ," "fifteen women who do not need a yibum," " thirty-nine labors on Shabbat " and so on.

4 http://talmudilluminated.com/shekalim/shekalim13.html

And yet - said Rabbi Chaggai - the earlier generations have plowed and planted, weeded, threshed, winnowed, ground, sifted, kneaded and baked knowledge for us, and we don't have a mouth to eat. This agrees with the Talmud's idea that man's capacity for learning wanes with generations, so if previous generations were like angels, then we are like humans compared to them, and if they were like people, then we are like donkeys, and not even like the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair.

And what is the story of this she-donkey? It was stolen by robbers but refused to eat stolen food. After three days the robbers let it go, and it came back, but still refused to eat. Rabbi Pinchas asked the innkeeper, have you separated the tithes? The innkeeper answered that the animals were not obligated to keep the laws of doubtful tithes (d'mai). To that Rabbi Pinchas answered that this was true, but she was very stringent with herself and accepted not to eat even doubtfully untithed produce. They gave her properly tithed food, and she ate.

explains that this man named Pesachya, the one responsible for כדרמ י ה ד ,Rashi, in Menachos 64b .was actually the same Mordechai who lived at the time of Achashveirosh, יק ןי the

The Chasam Sofer tells the rest of the story. Mordechai was a dignitary in the palace of Achashveirosh as a result of the story of Purim. Yet he moved to Eretz Yisroel with the building of the second Beis HaMikdash, and he was appointed to the job of being in control of the bird offerings of kinim. .

Although this was not anywhere as prestigious a position as he served in the court of Achashveirosh, Mordechai preferred this role in the Beis HaMikdash rather than to serve in the רמא ה ד (.intimate surroundings of a King outside Eretz Yisroel. Tosafos in Menachos (ibid ”wonders why Rashi prefers to say this was the same man who lived at the time of the miracle of Purim. After all, this would result in saying that he was an exceedingly old man when he served in the Beis HaMikdash.

Rather, Tosafos explains that the ones who filled this position had to be expert and competent in their handling of potentially complicated situations. They chose to give the title of “Mordechai” to whoever served in this role, in honor of Mordechai HaTzaddik, who was a wise man, talented, and was proficient in seventy languages.

Tiferes Yisrael explains that many Mishnayos were formulated before Rebbe Yehuda HaNasi redacted the Mishnah. It could be, he says, that this Mishnah dated back to the time of Mordechai HaTzaddik, when many of the positions listed were either filled or people were assigned to fill these roles. By the time of Rebbe, the people who had these jobs had already changed over time, but Rebbe continued to teach the Mishnah in its original form.

Mordechai was, in fact, the first to fill this position, as Rashi says, but we do not have to say that Mordechai himself lived so many years until well into the years of the second Beis HaMikdash.

Pnei Zakein, zt”l, explains that there are three different levels of complete defilement, or tum’ah, and one level comprising all of the “grey areas” of life that are essentially neutral, but have a strong tendency to bring a person to actual tum’ah.5 This fourth level includes eating, sleeping, and all of our other physical needs. If we do not make serious efforts to sanctify them, we can fall a great deal while involved in satisfying these needs. If we were to examine where the problem lies in this fourth level, it is clear that the challenge stems from the ego.

The ani gets in the way of uplifting these grey areas and consecrating them to their Source. If we the Source of all, our view would be changed, and we could , יא ן could only transform the ani into focus on the fact that we were created for only one purpose alone—to purify ourselves and overcome our bad middos.

This, he says, is the deeper meaning of the name Pesachya. Its gematria is four hundred and eighty- -is also four hundred and eighty יא ן eight. Four times the gematria of ani .Four times the gematria of eight. We overcome the four different levels of challenge by lighting an inner fire of enthusiasm, and by having the ego feel the fire of longing for Hashem.

A chassid once came to the Mezritcher Maggid, zt”l, with a heartfelt request. “Rebbe, please teach me how to light an inner fire to serve Hashem!” The Maggid replied, “Everyone knows that if you need to re-kindle your fire you search for an ember in the smoldering ashes. Make yourself like ashes by connecting to the Creator— you will then be able to kindle your inner fire!”

The Aggada of R. Pinchas Ben Yair

Dr. Yonatan Feintuch writes:6

a. The story

5 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Shekalim%20013.pdf 6 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-16-aggada-r-pinchas-ben-yair

18 In the first sugya in Massekhet Chullin, which deals with the criteria for a ritual slaughterer (shochet), we find a relatively long aggada about R. Pinchas ben Yair:

A(1): Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was once on his way to redeem captives when he came to the river Ginnai. He said to it, ‘Ginnai, divide your waters for me, that I might pass through you.’ It said to him, ‘You are on your way to perform the will of your Maker; I, too, am performing the will of my Maker. With regard to you, there is some doubt as to whether or not you will succeed, but my success is certain.’ He said, ‘If you do not divide yourself, I will decree that no water will ever pass through you.’ [The river] thereupon parted for him. There was also present a man who was carrying wheat for Pesach. [R. Pinchas b. Yair] said to [the river], ‘Divide yourself for him, too, since he is engaged in performing a mitzva.’ It parted for him. There was also an Arab nomad who was accompanying them. [R. Pinchas b. Yair] said, ‘Divide yourself for him, too, so that he will not say, ‘Is this how a traveling companion is treated?!’ So, it parted for him, too.

R. Yosef said,[1] ‘How great is this man – greater than Moshe and the six hundred thousand [of Israel]. For in their case, [the sea parted] only once, but here [the waters parted] three times.’ But perhaps here, too, it was only once [that the waters parted, and then did not close until the third had passed through]? Hence, [we conclude that] he was as great as Moshe and the six hundred thousand.

B. He happened upon a certain inn. They gave his donkey some barley, but it would not eat. They sifted it, but still [the donkey] would not eat it. They picked carefully through it, and still [the donkey] would not eat. [R. Pinchas b. Yair] said to them, ‘Perhaps [the barley] has not been tithed?’ They tithed it, and the donkey ate. He said, ‘This poor creature was trying to perform the will of its Maker and you feed it untithed produce?!’

But was the produce indeed in need of tithing? After all, we learn in the Mishna, ‘One who buys for sowing or for feeding animals […] is exempt from tithing it as ‘demai’.’ But concerning that teaching, R. Yochanan said: ‘This was taught only in the case where one bought the corn specifically for the purpose of feeding animals, but if one bought it originally for human consumption and then afterwards decided to feed it to animals, it must be tithed.’ And so, it is taught in a beraita: If one buys fruit in the market for eating, and later decides to feed it to animals, one may not give it to either his own animals or to his neighbor’s animals without first tithing it.

19 C. When Rabbi heard [of the arrival of R. Pinchas b. Yair], he went out to greet him. He said, ‘Would you like to dine with me?’ [R. Pinchas b. Yair] answered, ‘Yes.’ Rabbi’s face brightened. R. Pinchas b. Yair then said, ‘You imagine that I have vowed to abstain from deriving any benefit from an Israelite [but this is not so]. The people of Israel are holy. Some have the desire [to benefit others] but not the means, while others have the means, but not the desire. And it is written, ‘Do not eat of the bread of him who has an evil eye nor desire his dainties. For as one who calculates in his heart, so is he: ‘Eat and drink,’ he says to you, but his heart is not with you (Mishlei 23:6- 7).’ You have both the means and the desire, but right now [I decline because] I am in a hurry, for I am engaged in performing a mitzva. When I return, I will come to you.’ When he returned, it happened that he entered by a gate at which there stood some [wild] white mules. He said, ‘The Angel of Death is in this house; shall I then dine here?’ When Rabbi heard this, he came out to meet him. He said, ‘I will sell them.’ He replied, ‘You shall not put a stumbling-block before the blind’ (Vayikra 19:14). [Rabbi] said, ‘I will abandon them.’ [He replied,] ‘You will thereby be spreading danger.’ He said, ‘I shall neuter them’ [and thereby make them less dangerous]. [He replied,] ‘That would cause them suffering.’ He proposed, ‘I will kill them.’ He said, ‘But there is a law against wanton destruction (Devarim 20:19).’ Rabbi [continued to] press upon him, and a mountain rose up between them. Rabbi wept and said, ‘If this [is the power of the righteous] during their lifetime, how much more so after their death!’

… For it was said of R. Pinchas b. Yair that he never broke bread that was not his own, and that from the time he reached maturity he did not eat from his father’s table.” (Chullin 7a-7b)

b. Parallel sources

The aggada consists of three parts, or “acts,” each taking place in a different location. The three acts collectively create a single continuum, whose framework is R. Pinchas b. Yair’s journey to redeem captives. Each act presents an event or challenge along the way. The question arises: what unifies the various parts of the aggada? Is this merely a series of events that happen to take place over the course of a single journey, or is there a common theme that connects them conceptually and not only chronologically?

This question is intensified in light of the parallels to the various parts of the story that are to be found in the Yerushalmi. In the Yerushalmi, Massekhet Demai (1:3; 24d) we find a series of

20 eight aggadot about R. Pinchas b. Yair. Three of them parallel the three parts of the story that appear in Massekhet Chullin in the Bavli:

a. “Rabbi Pinchas b. Yair’s donkey was stolen by thieves in the night. It was with them for three days, during which it ate nothing. After three days they decided to return it to its owner. They said, ‘Let us return it to its owner, so it will not die here with us and cause the cave to smell.’ They brought it out; it went and stood by its owner’s gate and brayed. [R. Pinchas b. Yair] said, ‘Open up for the poor creature; it has eaten nothing for three days.’ They opened for it and it came in. He said to them, ‘Give it something to eat.’ They gave it barley, but it did not want to eat. They said, ‘Rabbi, it does not want to eat.’ He said to them, ‘Is it [the barley] fresh?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He asked, ‘And did you tithe it for ‘demai’?’ They said, ‘No, for did Rabbi not teach: ‘If one buys for sowing, for [feeding] animals, for flour, for hides, for oil for the lamp, or for oiling vessels, then he is exempt from ‘demai’’? He said to them, ‘What then shall we do with this unfortunate animal, which is very stringent with itself?’ So, they tithed, and it ate.” b. R. Pinchas b. Yair was on his way to the house of study, when the [River] Ginnai rose up. He said, ‘Ginnai, Ginnai, why are you keeping me from the house of study?’ So, it parted for him, and he crossed over. His students asked him, ‘Can we, too, pass over?’ He told him, ‘Someone who knows that he never in his life mistreated a fellow Jew, can pass over and no harm will come to him.’” c. Rabbi wished to permit produce of the seventh year. R. Pinchas b. Yair came to him. the chicory) ןישלוע .תופי . . ,Rabbi said to him, ‘How is the produce doing?’ He answered – a herb that grows without human care – is doing well), and (from this) Rabbi knew that [R. Pinchas b. Yair] did not agree with him. He asked him, ‘Would my master agree to eat something small with us today?’ He answered, ‘Yes.’ When he came down [to eat with them] he saw Rabbi’s mules standing there. He said, ‘Are Jews feeding all of these? Perhaps I will no longer see him.’ They went and reported this to Rabbi. Rabbi sent messengers, hoping to appease him. They came to his city. He said, ‘People of my city – come close to me.’ The people of his city came and encircled him. They said to them, ‘Rabbi wishes to appease [R. Pinchas b. Yair]. [The people of the city] left him and went on their way. He said, ‘My sons, come close to me.’ A fire descended from heaven and surrounded him. They went and reported this to Rabbi. He said, ‘Since we have not merited to enjoy his company in this world, we shall enjoy it in the World to Come.’”

21 These three stories are very similar to the three parts of the aggada in Massekhet Chullin in the Bavli, but also differ in many circumstances and details of the plot. For instance, in the section about the River Ginnai, the Yerushalmi records that R. Pinchas b. Yair is on his way to the beit midrash, while in the Bavli he is on his way to redeem captives. In the story about the donkey, the Yerushalmi has thieves kidnapping the donkey but finding themselves unable to feed it, while in the Bavli the scene takes place in an inn at which R. Pinchas b. Yair stops on his way to redeem the captives.

Perhaps there were two separate traditions about R. Pinchas b. Yair: in one, which was transmitted in Eretz Yisrael and made its way into the Yerushalmi, each of the three stories took place in separate circumstances, while the Babylonian version viewed all three events within the framework of a single journey. A different possibility is that the aggada in the Bavli is not meant to convey an exact and full historical account. Instead, it is presented in the form of a literary creation, based on three separate events that happened involving R. Pinchas b. Yair. The three events are woven into a single aggada with a message that is built out of all three parts. In any event, it seems that the connection between the three events in the Bavli is not coincidental and merely technical in nature, but rather conveys a single ideal.

c. Analysis of the aggada in the Bavli

Main theme

Let us look at the parts of the aggada in the Bavli. In the first part, R. Pinchas b. Yair commands the river to part so that he can continue on his way to fulfill the commandment of redeeming captives. The river, however, counters with a claim of its own: it, too, by continuing its constant flow, is performing the will of God, and therefore R. Pinchas b. Yair’s needs do not take preference. On the contrary – the river, by its very flow, is already fulfilling God’s will, while R. Pinchas b. Yair is still on the way; he will attempt to redeem the captives, but there is no guarantee of his success. At this stage, R. Pinchas threatens the river that he will stop its flow permanently if it does not part, and the river accedes. Thereafter, R. Pinchas demands that the river be parted for the sake of a Jew who is engaged in performing a commandment (bringing wheat to prepare matzot). He also demands that it part for a non-Jew who is accompanying them, to prevent complaints about how Jews treat those who accompany them.

22 The story depicts R. Pinchas b. Yair as someone who is not only engaged in helping others, but also concerned with the needs of those around him. He is also presented as possessing a special power that allows him to overcome the obstacles that Nature puts in his way – not only in the physical sense, but also in the metaphysical realm. The flow of the river is presented not only as a physical phenomenon, but as an action that is essentially a fulfillment of God’s will. For this reason, the river can be overcome by R. Pinchas b. Yair’s power, arising from his righteousness and his (apparently constant) engagement in fulfillment of God’s commandments and helping other Jews. This, apparently, is a higher level of performing God’s will than is the flow of the river – despite the fact that, as the river points out, the success of R. Pinchas b. Yair’s actions is not guaranteed.

The crossing of the river recalls, obviously, the biblical account of the parting of the Reed Sea. Indeed, Rav Yosef comments on this and compares R. Pinchas b. Yair to Moshe. The commandment in which the other Jew is engaged – bringing wheat to prepare matzot for Pesach – likewise recalls the context of the Exodus. In fact, R. Pinchas b. Yair’s quest to redeem the captive is also reminiscent of Moshe, who brings Bnei Yisrael out of their place of captivity and slavery. We shall discuss the significance of the comparison to Moshe below, but even at this stage, it is clear that it serves to glorify R. Pinchas b. Yair.

In the second part, R. Pinchas b. Yair is at an inn, still on his journey. The owner of the inn finds that the donkey will not eat barley that is ‘demai,’ until it has been tithed. The Gemara comments that the donkey’s stringency arises from a distinction made in the law in the Mishna, which generally permits the feeding of produce that is ‘demai’ to animals but prohibits this where the produce was originally intended for human consumption. This part is a thematic continuation of the previous one in two ways: firstly, the degree of R. Pinchas b. Yair’s piety is further highlighted, when it turns out that even his beast is exceedingly stringent in observing the laws of ‘demai,’ and will not eat produce that is not completely and unquestionably permitted. Secondly, R. Pinchas b. Yair explains this stringency by describing the donkey, too, as “performing the will of its Maker.” Thus, we are again reminded that R. Pinchas b. Yair is not simply engaged in a mitzva right now; rather, the performance of God’s will be his constant goal and his permanent situation, defining his entire life and conduct, and surrounding his entire environment such that even his donkey becomes part of it. This point sheds more light on R. Pinchas b. Yair’s ability to threaten the river and subdue it: he is not simply on the way to perform a task that may or may not end up being

23 completed; rather, like the river – but with greater power and in the service of a higher destiny – he “flows” continuously, performing the will of God.

The third part of the story records a confrontation between R. Pinchas b. Yair and Rabbi, after the latter invites the former to eat with him. At first, R. Pinchas b. Yair presents his order of preferences and refuses to stop over until he has completed his present mission – the redeeming of the captives. Thereafter, when he happens to find out that Rabbi has in his possession (as part of his status as Nassi) some dangerous animals, he refuses to eat there. He rejects all of Rabbi’s offers to fix the situation, until “a mountain rises up between them”: the chasm is so great that it cannot be bridged. This chasm, it turns out, is not the result of some action that might be reversed; rather, it arises from profound differences in the respective approaches to life that the two men hold. Therefore, not only does the fact of Rabbi’s possession of the wild animals disturb R. Pinchas b. Yair, but he even finds the various attempts at fixing this situation to be intolerable and unacceptable

This chasm that opens between Rabbi and R. Pinchas b. Yair seems to be the climax toward which the story is directed. This is not just the description of a journey to fulfill the mitzva of redeeming captives – since the majority of the third part takes place on the return journey. It seems that the two preceding cameos are meant to introduce us to R. Pinchas b. Yair, who is a less well-known personality than is Rabbi, and thereby to create the proper background and buildup to the crisis that the two encounter in the third part. Once R. Pinchas b. Yair and his unique character have become familiar to us, we are in a better position to understand the essence of the conflict between these two Sages. R. Pinchas b. Yair represents the “chassid” who lives among the simple Jewish masses and looks out for them; he is accompanied by non-Jews, and he looks out for them, too. Rabbi is the Nassi, the scion of a venerated dynasty of nesi’im; he naturally would be living in a fancy mansion and maintains the manners of people in power, including keeping white mules. In this sense, there is a certain distance between Rabbi and the proletarian masses. R. Pinchas b. Yair is horrified by the potential damage that the dangerous beasts could cause to the public at large, but also opposes the suffering that may be caused to the mules through Rabbi’s efforts to rid of them in order to appease R. Pinchas b. Yair.

The contrast between the two figures is brought into sharp focus in this aggada through the animals. R. Pinchas b. Yair’s donkey is presented as a beast that not only causes no harm, but also is entirely focused on performing God’s will, as expressed in the great stringency shown in

24 avoiding possibly forbidden food. Rabbi, on the other hand, keeps animals of a different sort: not only do they not bring benefit to others, but they may actually harm them.

R. Pinchas b. Yair vs. Rabbi

However, the message of the story is not as simple as that and consists of more than just a glorification of R. Pinchas b. Yair in relation to Rabbi; the story does not merely depict R. Pinchas b. Yair’s moral and spiritual superiority as a more “perfect” model of righteousness. The third part of the story ends with Rabbi weeping, and this leaves a bitter taste. The sensitive reader follows the confrontation between the two characters with mixed feelings. On the one hand, R. Pinchas b. Yair seems to be justified in his claims, and the previous stories about him certainly depict the conduct of someone who is on a very high spiritual and moral level. On the other hand, Rabbi is also not just an ordinary person. He is one of the most important nesi’im, a great scholar, and redactor of the Mishna. R. Pinchas b. Yair’s refusal to reconcile with him under any circumstances testifies to a rigidity which seems to be the price of his perfection. Here it turns out, paradoxically, that R. Pinchas b. Yair’s intensive occupation with the needs of others, such that his entire life and his whole way of thinking are directed solely to that end, actually distance him to some extent from others. He lives in a world of perfection, of an unchanging ideal, and other people – even of the caliber of Rabbi – are unable to really communicate with him.

Now the comparison that is drawn in the first part of the story, between R. Pinchas b. Yair and Moshe, assumes new significance. Moshe is the person who achieves greatness and closeness to God that is never matched by anyone else; in addition, his entire life is devoted to Am Yisrael and to their needs, and he even “argues” and pleads with God on their behalf. However, the other side of this almost angelic and non-human existence is a certain distance from the masses, and even from the great individuals among them. This is expressed, for example, in the episode of Miriam and Aharon and their words concerning the Cushite woman, as well as in other incidents. Moshe has trouble understanding the simple weaknesses and the everyday, earthly desires of the people he leads.

Now we understand why, as noted above, the first two parts of the story build up the character of R. Pinchas b. Yair in anticipation of the confrontation with Rabbi in the third part. They depict an individual who, like Moshe, devotes his entire life to the will of God, and the episodes they describe take place on an ideal level that is removed from the everyday reality of most people. The

25 fire that surrounds R. Pinchas b. Yair in the story in the Yerushalmi, and the mountain that arises between him and Rabbi in the Bavli, emphasize this distance. The story of the mountain in the third part of the aggada in the Bavli effects a contrasting closing of the circle that opened with the story of the river in the first part: R. Pinchas b. Yair overcomes the physical obstacles and natural phenomena that block his way to performing a mitzvah with ease, but at the same time he himself is responsible for the appearance of other natural obstacles that arise between himself and others who do not share the ideal reality in which he lives.[2]

The molding of the story emphasizes the fact that although R. Pinchas b. Yair looks after his escorts in the first part of the story, he maintains no dialogue with them. In general, concern for others out of idealistic/religious/moral motivation (redemption of captives, concern for a Jew busy performing a mitzva, concern that the non-Jew will not feel slighted and claim that Jews do not accord appropriate respect to those accompanying them, concern for the harm that the mules might cause, as well as concern for possible suffering that might be caused to them, and the prohibition against wanton destruction) is the focus of his life – but there is no human dialogue between himself and those around him. In fact, he speaks only within the context of confrontation and conflict: at first, he argues with the river, then with the owner of the inn, and finally, with Rabbi himself. At least two of the “characters” that he argues with - the river (which is fulfilling the will of God) and Rabbi - are not negative or even neutral, but R. Pinchas b. Yair clashes with them, nevertheless.

It must be emphasized that the third part of the story does not convey criticism of R. Pinchas b. Yair. His high religious and moral standards arouse admiration. Even Rabbi, who is hurt by these standards, is depicted as admiring him, seeking his company, and feeling sorrow over the distance between them. Nevertheless, the story shows that this type of life comes with a price, just as there were shortcomings in the leadership of Moshe. There is room, the story demonstrates, for a different model of leadership, as symbolized by Rabbi. Rabbi’s exclamation concerning R. Pinchas b. Yair – “If it is so for the righteous in their lifetime, how much more so when they die!” – expresses this duality: on the one hand, it is an existence that transcends the everyday reality and is a model to be admired; on the other hand, this is a person who, in his life and in his death, exists at some distance from everyone else.

d. The broader context of the story within the chapter

26 As noted at the outset, our aggada appears within a sugya whose subject is the criteria for a shochet. The Mishna introduces the chapter with a sweeping inclusion: “All may slaughter, and their slaughter is regarded as valid, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor” (Bava Metzia, 2a). Even these individuals are excluded for practical reasons, which can be overcome by means of supervision, rather than for any inherent inability. However, in the discussion that develops in the Gemara it turns out, inter alia through a careful reading of the language of the Mishna, that there are additional reservations, especially toward groups whose integrity cannot be relied upon completely. These include Cuthites and various types of apostates – i.e., people who are on the religious fringes of Jewish society and are suspected of not observing halakha, for reasons that are either earthly (such as the apostates who sin as a result of temptation) or ideological (holding a worldview that denies the halakhic authority of Chazal). As he progresses through the sugya, the reader becomes aware that the laws of ritual slaughter carry with them a weight that goes beyond the laws of kashrut and include a definition of the boundaries between different groups of the Jewish population. The Gemara distinguishes between different groups of apostates (those who reject halakha out of weakness in the face of temptation, those who are motivated by idolatry, etc.), discussing their statuses and the status of the Cuthites, which varied in different generations (see 5b-6a). In fact, a similar theme arises in Massekhet Avoda Zara, where we find prohibitions on certain foods that are produced by non-Jews – prohibitions whose purpose, inter alia, is to create a social barrier between Jews and non-Jews. Some of these prohibitions are also mentioned in our sugya, in relation to the Cuthites (6a – “The Cuthites are in the same category as idolaters with regard to their ritual slaughter and their wine”). However, for the most part, in our sugya the social ramifications are not mentioned explicitly, although they are alluded to occasionally.[3]

We concluded above that the focus of the story is on the third part, in the confrontation between R. Pinchas b. Yair and Rabbi. This part of the story clearly demonstrates the social ramifications of decisions about whether to eat at/with someone else. R. Pinchas b. Yair adds a new dimension to the discussion, which is not directly related to the laws of kashrut: “The Angel of Death resides in his house and I should dine with him?!” In other words, the creation of a barrier by one’s refusal to eat at someone can be based on different values, and not only on the basis of criteria that belong strictly to the realm of kashrut. Aside from those groups from which the laws of kashrut serve to distance Jews, such as non-Jews and Cuthites, there are also situations in which a similar decision can be made even where there is no specific problem of kashrut. On the other hand, the offense caused to Rabbi, as demonstrated most eloquently by his weeping, also calls for caution and

27 sensitivity when implementing such a decision. The story seems to seek to raise awareness of the sociological implications of the laws that prevent people from eating together, or from eating one another’s food. Chazal were conscious of this, and – as noted – made occasional use of such barriers in order to define and emphasize the social boundaries separating observant Jews from various types of “others.” However, this could also end up causing barriers within Jewish society itself; the story directs us to at least be aware of this, and to proceed with the appropriate sensitivity.

[1] This section and those that followed are parenthetical comments by different Sages on particular points arising from the story.

They interrupt the narrative and are not part of the story.

[2] It is interesting to consider the parallel confrontation, in the Yerushalmi in Demai. Rabbi, as Nassi, wants to ease the laws of Shemitta out of concern for the people, since no produce can be grown in the fields. R. Pinchas, operating from his ideal perspective, opposes this and points out the paradox in Rabbi’s concern, mentioning the expensive animals that Rabbi keeps at his home, which increase the economic burden borne by the people. Both sides – each from his own perspective – are acting out of concern for the needs of the people. R. Pinchas b. Yair lives as a “chassid” and takes an uncompromising view of halakha. Rabbi, in contrast, is more connected to the human reality, and tries, using human, halakhic tools, to solve the problem that he identifies.

As part of his reality he believes that the house of the Nassi must uphold a certain standard, even in times of economic distress.

[3] For example: “It is taught: The wife of a scholar may grind corn together with the wife of an ignoramus only during the time that the former is in a state of ritual impurity, but not when she is ritually pure. R. Shimon b. Elazar said: She should not grind

[with her] even when she is ritually impure, because her friend will offer her some and she will eat…” (6b).

Chana Katz writes:7

The resting place of Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair, the father-in-law of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, lays at the entrance of Tsfat’s new cemetery. Yet, it outdates by many centuries, not only the burial sites in the new cemetery, but even those of the luminaries from the “Golden Era” whose well- visited gravesites hover up the side of the mountain in the famous ancient cemetery. That is because we are going back in time almost 2000 years, when the daughter of the pure, holy soul, Rabbi Pinchas, wed Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, author of the deepest kabbalistic insights into the Torah, the Zohar. Rabbi Bar Yochai was buried directly across the valley at the foot of Mount Meron.

7 http://www.myascent.org/about-2/about-tzfat/holy-sites/rabbi-pinchas-ben-yair/

It’s as though time has sharpened, and not dulled, the significance of those inner dimensions of Torah, becoming a tribute to just how far they’ve spread. On any given day, a number of visitors to the site of Rabbi Pinchas can be seen circling the circular stone wall seven times. Youths, elders, visitors of all sorts, they all seem to know that circling the site seven times – often reciting prayers or Tehillim, especially chapter 91, — is a known “segulah” or channel, to receive a blessing. And the more we learn about Rabbi Pinchas, the more we can see the merits with which he earned this special role of helping to direct the heartfelt prayer of even a simple Jew to the right address in the loftiest of heavenly chambers. It is said in the Talmud (Chulin 7a) that Rabbi Pinchas was extremely careful never to partake from someone else’s meal and that he refused to accept support from others. But it was not only the latter deeds alone which merited a river to split for Rabbi Pinchas. In fact, while the sea split one time for Moshe Rabbeinu, it is said that for Rabbi Pinchas, the river Ginnai, parted three times upon his command, including once even for a gentile servant. It’s written in the Yerushalmi Talmud that Rabbi Pinchas’s students gathered the courage to ask their teacher in what merit this occurred. That is, besides the merit Rabbi Pinchas had earned because he was on the way to performing the mitzvah of redeeming a Jewish captive at the time.

30 His students were curious to know if this miracle could also happen for them. And this is what Rabbi Pinchas told them: “It would work only if they were sure they never hurt another person’s feelings or harmed a person in any other way during their entire lives!” If Rabbi Pinchas earned such a flawless posture with his fellow, it might be interesting to know that even Rabbi Pinchas’s animals were no mere four-legged creatures. There was once a famous conversation between Torah sages who were comparing the various generations. While the earliest generations of sages were likened to angels, later generations merited merely the appellation of humans, while still later generations by comparison were likened to donkeys – “and not even the donkeys of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, which were credited with instinctively knowing not to eat from food that wasn’t properly tithed or separated according to Jewish law. Rabbi Pinchas taught us that any problem we face in regards to what seem like personal difficulties, is all a result from not performing the mitzvoth properly. Although Rabbi Pinchas’s era marked the sixth and last generation of Torah scholars known as Tannaim, from 120 CE to 200 CE, a famous story is told of how his essence appeared to the Holy Ari, Rabbi Issac Luria, centuries later in Tsfat. . . This fascinating story tells how the Ari was sitting one day with his leading disciple, Rabbi Chaim Vital, when he suddenly jumped to his feet as a young man entered his study room. Rav Vital couldn’t understand this great show of honor so formidably given by the great Ari to this young and relatively simple Jew. To which the Ari responded that he was welcoming the spirit of Rabbi Pinchas which had hovered over the lad’s head. Although Rabbi Pinchas reached all these lofty levels, he actually provided a ladder for the rest of us to embark upon our own journey, by outlining in a famous “Beraisa” the steps which lead upwards… Everything has a start, and according to Rabbi Pinchas, the very first step is the study of Torah, which he says will lead one to watchfulness. The watchfulness in turn leads one to an energetic performance of the commandments, which will lead one to a certain level of spiritual purity. . .and further. And from these levels, things around us start to fall into place, such as that the next time one reads the famous Chassidic work by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, HaYom Yom, he will come across a reference on the seventeenth of the Hebrew month of Shvat. In this entry, we receive a glimpse into the mystical meanings not only of the splitting of the Sea of Reeds for Moshe, or the parting of the River Gannai thrice for Rabbi Pinchas. We may also gain insight into modern events such as the abnormal action of the Tsunami waves which recently devastated many countries. For the Rebbe teaches us that it is the will of the Creator for Creation to go against nature when it comes to a righteous soul. For even the seemingly unwieldy realm of nature is but a servant to the will of the Creator and those, such as Rabbi Pinchas, who serve and attach themselves to G-d. With just these few insights into Rabbi Pinchas, we can surely appreciate why visitors still flock to his resting place at the very bottom of the mountain of Tsfat. One can get there by traveling all

31 the way down the mountain by foot from the top of the ancient cemetery. This way, one can make a stop at the Holy Ari and all those who helped bring down the teachings of the Zohar to more earthly realms. Or one can simply drive in a circle around Tsfat to the bottom of the mountain and pass through the entrance to the city’s modern cemetery, where two scarf-laden fig trees and a circular stone monument welcome you to Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair and allude to the days when, as the name Yair implies in future tense, “he will shine.” Is that referring to the visitor? To Rabbi Pinchas? Perhaps both, or perhaps the collective face of the Jewish People with the imminent – may it be immediate – revelations of the final and complete redemption.

Holy osmosis

Michael Deverett writes:8

The donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was careful not to eat barley that has not been tithed. Just like physical bacteria may contaminate the surroundings, so it is with spiritual flaws. The holiness of the righteous helps everyone and everything around them to do right. We are greatly affected by attitudes and moral standards of the society we live in.

Lessons for all generations

Torah relates how Abraham sent his trusted servant Eliezer on a mission to find a suitable wife for Isaac. The Ramban explains that the Torah does not tell us stories about our Patriarchs to record the history how the Jewish nation developed. Rather, every story mentioned in the Torah teaches a lesson for all generations. The Torah (Bereishis 24:2-62) describes many details about Eliezer's mission. It is especially noteworthy that the Torah relates how Eliezer repeated everything what had happened when he arrived at his destination. The Midrash Rabba (Bereishis 60:8) comments that the conversations of the servants of the Patriarchs recorded in the Torah are dearer to God than the teachings of their children. Many commandments are only mentioned with a few words or even by inference. On the other hand, Eliezer's journey is described in great detail. This implies that we can learn some very important lessons from the details of this mission. Nothing is more pleasing to God than when we internalize these lessons.

Abraham's camels

We can learn one lesson from a small detail which may at first appear insignificant. It says (Bereishis 24:32) "And the man [Eliezer] entered the house, and he opened up for the camels

8 http://shemayisrael.com/parsha/kahn/archives/chayei75.htma, based on notes of Rabbi Avraham Kahn, the Rosh Yeshiva and Founder of Yeshivas Keser Torah in Toronto.

32 and gave them straw and feed …" We find two interpretations as to the meaning of "opened up". Rashi quotes from the Midrash Rabbah (60:8) that this means that Eliezer removed the muzzles from the camel's mouths. The Ramban quotes a second opinion in the Midrash that the rope connecting the camels to each other was let loose. Let us try to analyze the difference between these two explanations.

Rashi's explanation

The explanation that Rashi quotes is based on the fact that Abraham was extremely careful not to take anything that did not belong to him. This included his animals being muzzled to prevent them from grazing in other people's fields when they were away from home. This had been the cause of the break-up between Abraham and his nephew Lot. As it says, (Bereishis 13:7) "There was a quarrel between the shepherds of Abraham and the shepherds of Lot." Abraham instructed his shepherds to prevent his camels from eating others property, but the shepherds of Lot were not too concerned.

Ramban's explanation

The Ramban is not happy with Rashi's explanation and brings the other interpretation of what it means that Eliezer "opened up". The Midrash quotes Rav Chuna and Rav Yirmeyah who stated that there was no need for Abraham to muzzle his camels. Abraham's camels were definitely not inferior to the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair.

The donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair

The Midrash continues to relate that Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair's donkey was once stolen by a gang of robbers. For three days it would not eat anything. The robbers got nervous. They feared that the donkey would soon die and start to smell up their cave. They therefore decided to send the donkey back to its owner. The donkey knew the way back and was soon at the home of the Rabbi. It started to bray and Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair instantly recognized that his donkey had returned. He instructed his servants to open the gates to let the poor donkey enter. The Rabbi's servants fed the donkey some barley but it would not eat. They informed their master that they could not get the donkey to eat. He asked them whether they had made sure to clean the barley. They assured him that they had. Next he asked them whether all tithes had been separated. They informed him that this barley was permissible for animals but not for human consumption as the tithes had not been separated. The Rabbi sighed: "What can I do, my donkey is stringent with itself beyond the letter of the law and insists on eating only food that is permissible for human beings."

Says the Ramban, if Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair's donkey was careful not to eat barley that had not been tithed for human consumption, there was no need to muzzle the camels of Abraham. They for sure would not eat anything that did not belong to Abraham.

Smart animals?

33 This seems very strange. Animals have no intellect. How can it be that they know the difference between what is permissible and what is not?

Corrupted animals

If we go back in history to the time of the flood, it says in Parashas Noah (Bereishis 6:12) "And God saw the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth." Rashi quotes from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 108a) that even the animals were corrupt. The Midrash explains that prior to the flood, the dog would mate with the wolf, the chicken with the goose, and so on. Again, we may ask, how can animals, that have no evil inclination and only live with their instincts, become corrupted?

Spiritual bacteria

Rabbi Eliyahu Lopian explains this with a modern-day episode. When he was young, he learned in the Yeshiva in the Town of Lomze, where there was an old hospital. It often happened that people who were hospitalised there for some time contracted illnesses totally unrelated to their original conditions. No one understood why this was happening. They brought some specialists in from Warsaw who investigated the situation. They came to the conclusion that over the years the hospital had become contaminated with numerous types of bacteria that had grown all over. These bacteria were causing the patients to be infected with new illnesses. The overworked staff had not taken sufficient care of the hygienic needs of the hospitals and thereby created breeding grounds for various bacteria. This is not an isolated case. A few years ago, at the University Hospital in Sherbrooke, Quebec, one hundred patients died over a period of 18 months from bacterial infections. These kinds of situations are a major concern for healthcare professionals all over the world. Says Rabbi Lopian, just like physical bacteria contaminates the surroundings, the same is true with spiritual flaws. The spiritual bacteria contaminate the people who transgress the word of God. This contamination spreads and affects their surroundings as well. Both humans and animals are affected by spiritual bacteria, just like they are affected by physical contamination.

Good brings holiness, evil corrupts

In the time prior to the Great Flood, human society had fallen to a very low moral standard, only paralleled by recent developments in our own society. People conducted themselves in a corrupt manner, and affected everyone around them, even the animals. Rav Chaim Valozhiner (Nefesh Hachaim 1:6) explains that whenever someone does a mitzvah, he brings down an aura of holiness into this world. In the same way says Rav Chaim, when someone transgresses one of the commandments it causes impurity and spiritual bacteria that affects everyone surrounding him. With this insight we gain a deeper understanding of the words of our sages (Negaim 12:6): "It is good for the righteous and it is good for his neighbour; woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbour". The holiness of the righteous helps everyone and everything around them to get elevated and do right (see Rashi in the beginning of this week's parasha Bereishis 23:17 and Path of the Just Chapter 1). This effect is not limited to the present. It appears from Rashi (Bamidbar 3:38) that the influence stays on for hundreds of years. We find that the tribes of Yehuda, Issachar and Zebulun produced great Torah scholars

34 for many generations due to the fact that they camped in the wilderness next to Moses who was always busy with Torah study. On the other hand, the spiritual impurity of wrongdoers contaminates everyone and everything around them.

Social fences

We do not realize how much we are affected by attitudes and moral standards of the society we live in. No doubt if someone from just a few generations back would enter our society, they would not be able to tolerate the low moral standards of today. The mere fact that it does not disturb us more should alert us to build social fences to minimize the influence. With this in mind, we can appreciate the words of the Midrash (ibid): "If previous generations are comparable to angels, we are comparable to human beings. But if we consider previous generations like human beings, we are comparable to donkeys. But not like the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair". So great is the distance between one generation to the next.

Be close to the righteous

The donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, by being a member of the household of this holy man, was affected by his holiness, not by choice but by proximity. In a similar fashion, Abraham's camels were affected by his holiness, and therefore would never graze from fields not belonging to their master. On the human level, this teaches us the importance of being close to righteous people so that the holiness emanating from their conduct will affect and inspire us to do likewise. In this way, we secure the continuity of Torah observant and righteous generations.

Gershom Bader writes:9

Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was another contemporary of Rabbi Jehudah. According to the Talmud he was the son-in-law of Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai; but according to the Zohar, he was his father-in-law. In mental brilliance Rabbi Pinchas was the equal of Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai and it was said that whenever Rabbi Simeon asked a question during their studies Rabbi Pinchas immediately had twelve answers; when Rabbi Pinchas asked some question בש ת ל ״ ג ב ׳ . (Rabbi Simeon at once answered it in twenty-four different ways.9

But Rabbi Pinchas gained his reputation not because of his scholastic attainments but because of his piety concerning which many wonderful stories were related. The Talmud therefore contains no legal opinions of Rabbi Pinchas but much was told of his painstaking care in observing the commandment of offering tithes to such an extent that even his ass would not eat grain which had not been tithed. Although he declared that the city of Ashkelon was not included in the boundaries of Palestine and should therefore have been considered free from the commandment of offering tithes, he nevertheless insisted that Jews who lived in that city His belief in the significance of this אתפסות תולהא רפ ק .ח״י (must abide by this commandment.10

9 The Jewish Spiritual Heroes: Volume III; The Amoraim of Babylon and the Babylonian Talmud, Ravina, the Final Compiler of the Babylonian Talmud

35 commandment was so great that he ascribed all punishment which was visited on people as being caused by avoiding the offering of tithes.

It is thus related that he once came to a city where the people complained of a plague of mice which were eating up the harvest. Rabbi Pinchas warned them against shirking the offering of tithes and when the inhabitants of that city began to pay closer attention to the fulfillment of this commandment they were rid of the mice. Another time some people came to him and complained that the city well did not yield enough water. Rabbi Pinchas said: “This is certainly a punishment for your disregarding the tithes.” The people vowed to change their ימלשורי יאמד קרפ ׳א ה ג ׳ . (ways and the well began to yield sufficient water for all their needs.11

Rabbi Pinchas’ ass was said to be able to discern which grain had been tithed and which had not. When it was stolen, it refused to eat for three days. The thieves realized that it would starve to death and they released it, whereupon it returned to its master. Rabbi Pinchas was glad to get his animal back and he commanded that it be fed at once, but when some barley was offered to it the ass recognized that the barley had not been tithed and refused to eat. Rabbi Pinchas’ pupils then said to him: “Did you not teach us that in doubtful cases it is unnecessary to offer tithes from grain which is to be fed to animals?” and Rabbi Pinchas answered: “What can you do to this animal which insists on the strict Similar stories concerning an ass(* ימלשורי םילקש קרפ ׳ה הכלה ׳א . (observance of the law?”12 which refused to eat of grain that had not been tithed have been related about the ass of R. Chanina ben Dosa.

Rabbi Pinchas listed a number of human virtues, each of which grows out of the preceding one and leads ever higher to the final stage of perfection. Observance leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of God, fear of God leads to piety, piety leads to the holy spirit and the הדובע הרז ׳כ ׳ב , ימלשורי םילקש קרפ ג ׳ הכלה ג ׳ . (holy spirit leads to resurrection.13

Another time Rabbi Pinchas complained about the low moral state of the Jewish people and he declared that since the destruction of the temple scholars are shamed and decent people go about with bowed heads; the desire to do good deeds is weakened and men of strong arms and arrogant tongues have gained the upper hand. Nevertheless no one wishes for anything, for all things have lost their worth and any man who is dissatisfied may only look to הטוס ט״מ ׳א . (God.14

The Talmud relates that on one of his journeys to redeem captives Rabbi Pinchas came to a river named Ginai and he could not cross it because there was no bridge nor boat at hand. He then addressed the river: “Make way that I may cross!”, but the river answered: “You are about to do the will of the Creator and I always do His will, but you are not certain whether your journey will be successful while my path has been laid out by God. I therefore need not change my course.” Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair commanded: “If you will not make way for me I will decree that your sources be dried.” Upon hearing this threat the river was frightened and at once made a path for Rabbi Pinchas.

Then there came a man who carried a sack of Passover wheat on his back. Rabbi Pinchas commanded the river to let this man also pass because he was on his way to fulfill a

36 commandment. This time the river parted its waters at once. Meanwhile there came a wanderer who joined the other two and Rabbi Pinchas again asked the river to let the wanderer pass so that it might not be said that a companion of his was discriminated against ילוח ן ז ׳ ׳א . (and the river parted its waters for the third time.15

When the disciples of Rabbi Pinchas heard of this occurrence they asked their master whether they would ever be able to perform the same miracle and he replied: “If you will feel certain that you never harmed a Jew nor shamed any person you will be able to perform the ימלשורי יאמד קרפ ׳א הכלה ג ׳ . (same.”16

It is further related that Rabbi Pinchas never ate at a stranger’s table and that after he grew of age he did not even eat at his father’s table. When Rabbi Jehudah once heard that he had arrived in the city he invited him to dine with him and Rabbi Pinchas accepted the invitation. Rabbi Jehudah was overjoyed at this and openly showed his gladness. Seeing Rabbi Jehudah’s joyful expression Rabbi Pinchas said: “You seem to think that I had vowed not to derive any benefit from Jews but the situation is entirely different. It is true that Jews are a holy people, but there are some who would gladly give you food but have none while others have enough but do not want to share it. I therefore decided never to take any food that was offered to me.”

When Rabbi Pinchas reached the door of Rabbi Jehudah’s house he saw there two white mules and he exclaimed: “The angel of death is in this house, how can I eat here?” (His reference to the mules as the angel of death is explained by the fact that the people of that time believed, that a blow of a white mule could never be healed.)

As Rabbi Jehudah heard the exclamation of Rabbi Pinchas, he came out of the house and said: “If you are not satisfied that I keep white mules I will sell them.”

“You must not do so,” Rabbi Pinchas replied, “for that would amount to putting a stone in the way of a blind man that he may stumble on it.”

“Then I will disclaim ownership of the animals so that anyone may take them, that you may come into my house,” Rabbi Jehudah continued.

“You must not do so either because of the loss that you will suffer,” Rabbi Pinchas responded.

“In that case I will have their hooves removed that they may harm no one,” Rabbi Jehudah urged.

“If you do so you will commit the sin of causing suffering to an animal,” Rabbi Pinchas objected.

“Then I will kill the mules that you may enter my house,” Rabbi said.

37 “You must not do so either,” Rabbi Pinchas said, “for it is against the law to damage objects of value.”

In the end Rabbi Pinchas did not enter the Nasi’s house and since that time the two became estranged and never met again.17)