x-mailing-list: daf-disc...@shemayisrael.com
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
d...@dafyomi.co.il
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Re: Melachim I 011: Achav's Teshuvah
David asked:
>>I have difficulty understanding what Achav's great teshuva was, including
fasting and accepting malkos from King Yehoshafat when it had no effect on
the reality of his wife Izevel, or the fact that he did not destroy Dan and
Beis El, remove the checkpoints, and go to Yerushalayim himself, whereby so
many bnai yisroel were oyver issur kares eating korban..... pesach outside
Yerushalayim.. Thus he was still causing Jews to sin....!!. How could this
be considered a sincere repentance when people were punished for much less
severe sins??! What kind of teshuva is that, especially for someone of his
madrega??!
Plus....if an idolator is considered a mumar it is inconceivable that a
tsaddik would allow his son to marry that person's daughter, if the person
was an idolator be-fo'al, and someone who lived with a shiksa, or a
convert whose devotion to idolatry made her geyrus questionable.
I refer to the interesting point made in Vayoel Moshe, siman 135 of Maamar
Shalosh Shvuas about Menashe.<<
The Kollel replied:
>>1) I will start from the end, namely the reference to Vayoel Moshe. I
looked this up and found it in Shalosh Shvuas #131. However he stresses
there that we cannot change the verses in Nach from their simple meaning.
In DH AK'P he writes that Menasheh was a great man, apart from the sin of
Avoda Zarah. The aveirah of Avoda Zarah by which he sinned and caused the
people to sin was very grave.
The Satmer Rebbe zt'l adds that we lack understanding on this matter:- how
such a great person could do such a terrible crime of Avoda Zarah.
I think this is quite similar to the comparison I have cited from the
Chazon Ish about explaining colors to a color-blind man. We are lacking the
tools to understand this properly.
2) In DH v'Omar he writes that certainly Achav and Menasheh sinned greatly
by the aveira of Avoda Zarah and they caused the public to sin.
3) Then Vayoel Moshe cites the idea that you have mentioned. He cites this
in the name of the Holy Tzadik from Radzal zt'l who said that when it was
stated that Menasheh erected an idol in the Heichal this means that he
possessed foreign thoughts in the middle of Tefilah.
The Satmer Rebbe then adds that certainly Menasheh also literally
worshipped Avoda Zarah, as is clear at any rate from the passages in Nach
and from the words of Chazal.
4) In other words Vayoel Moshe is stressing that we cannot change the words
of Nach and Chazal from their simple meaning. I understand that he is
saying that whilst the Kodosh from Radzal zt'l says that Menasheh thought
bad things in the middle of davening, he also is not attempting to suggest
that Menasheh and Achav did not do Avoda Zarah as well. However the Kodosh
of Radzal is teaching us that bad thoughts in the middle of davening can be
just as serious an aveira as Avoda Zarah, but he is not saying that Achav
and Menasheh did not worship Avoda Zarah at all.
5) Now I will go back to the first question about the teshuva of Achav. The
answer is that if a person does Teshuva on one aveira but does not do
teshuva on his other aveiros, this is also considered as Teshuvah. We did
not say that a person is only considered as doing teshuvah if he did
teshuvah on all of his crimes.
6) We see this in the Rambam Hilchos Teshuva chapter 2. The Rambam relates
to doing teshuvah on a specific aveira, not on all the aveiros at once.
Therefore since Achav did teshuva on the actual Avoda Zarah, this is also
considered as Teshuvah.
7) Again, I am not going to be able to answer everything now but I will
just mention one more thought. You say:- how can this be considered
teshuvah for someone of such a high madreigah?
8) Well, the Gemara Sukah end 52a says that the greater a person is, the
greater his Yezer Hora is.
9) In addition, we see that despite Achav's greatness in Torah he had this
terrible inclination for Avoda Zarah, which not only destroyed him, but
destroyed the entire People also. So it must have involved an incredible
effort for him to admit that what he had being perpetrating all these years
to Klal Yisroel, was simply a terrible mistake.<<
---
Davic1 asks:
Thank you. My understanding from Vayoel Moshe was that if indeed they
performed avoda Zara kipshuto it is inconceivable that no mention of mecha
is recorded anywhere or by chazal, or that kohanim could have possibly
performed their avoda in such a impure environment. Thus their behavior in
machshava is AS IF it were actually done kipshuto, and therefore the
outcome is essentially the same result as if it were kipshuto.
Besides, being ovyver avoda is being a mumar who should be killed,
especially when they were people who were killed for much less severe
severe sins!!
------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
1) David, I will try to support what I wrote last time, that the Vayoel
Moshe is stressing that one should not change the verses of Nach from their
simple interpretation, and that Menasheh and Achav did worship Avodah
Zarah. Vayoel Moshe (Shalosh Shavuos #131, end of DH v'Amar ha'Kasuv)
writes this explicitly (as I wrote in my earlier response): "Certainly,
Menasheh did actually practice Avodah Zarah, as one is forced to say from
the words of Tanach and Chazal."
2) Slightly earlier, in the same paragraph, he writes: "Certainly Achav and
Menasheh sinned very much with the sin of Avodah Zarah, and caused the
public to sin."
3) At the beginning of that paragraph, Vayoel Moshe cites the sin of the
sons of Eli who "laid with the women." Chazal say that this is not to be
taken literally. Then he cites the sin of Reuven who "laid with Bilhah,"
which Chazal also say is not literal. Then he writes that in Tanach and
Chazal, very sharp words are said about Shlomo ha'Melech. Later he writes
that we do not understand the phrases in Tanach and Chazal about the
earlier sages at the time of the Nevi'im.
4) After he finishes his comments about Shlomo ha'Melech, the Vayoel Moshe
returns to the subject of Achav (which he discussed at length in previous
pages). He writes the statement that I cited above, that certainly Achav
and Menasheh sinned very much. Then, the Vayoel Moshe writes a somewhat
ambiguous phrase which you might believe, David, is a support for your
argument. He writes that we cannot know the boundary of the deep phrases of
the Torah and of Chazal, to know how far they go in their expressions that
we do not understand.
Possibly, one could get the impression from this that what Tanach or Chazal
say is not to be taken literally.
5) Then he proceeds to cite the statement of the Kadosh of Radzal zt'l,
that when it is said that Menasheh set up an idol in the Heichal this means
he had foreign thoughts during Tefilah. At this point, one could think that
these two statements of the Vayoel Moshe -- that we do not understand how
far to take the expressions of Chazal, and the idea that Menasheh had bad
thoughts during Tefilah -- are intended to tell us that we are not meant to
take literally what the verses say about Achav.
6) However, in my opinion, the next line in the Vayoel Moshe says clearly
that this is not the case. He writes that the idol in the Heichal certainly
was literally Avodah Zarah, as I cited above. It seems to me that the
Vayoel Moshe was very careful to add this clear comment immediately at this
point, so that one should not make the mistake of thinking that it is not
literal.
7) Therefore, it seems to me that the Vayoel Moshe is making an important
distinction between the sons of Eli, Reuven, and Shlomo ha'Melech -- where
we are not meant to take things literally -- and Achav and Menasheh --
where it should be taken literally.
8) I will just point out briefly that Vayoel Moshe writes in a number of
places that Achav was very particular about all of the Mitzvos, with the
exception of Avodah Zarah. In #128, he writes that the Yetzer ha'Ra for
Avodah Zarah was very powerful over the entire generation, until the Men of
the Great Assembly abolished this Yetzer ha'Ra at the beginning of the
period of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. In #131 (DH v'Hineh), he writes that
Achav was not suspected of any laxity in matters of Kashrus, with the
exception of the problem of Avodah Zarah. In DH Al Kol Panim, he cites
Rashi who says that the Yetzer for Avodah Zarah was very powerful.
Again, there are still a lot of issues that I have not addressed, but I
hope that in this reply I have established that Vayoel Moshe understood
that the verses about Achav must be taken literally, and that the root of
the problem rests in the powerful Yetzer ha'Ra that engulfed almost the
entire generation.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at d...@dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Tel/Fax(US): 646-820-3315; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://mail.shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
