Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai may be
the principle figure in the Talmud. As a jurist he tends to focus on what
actually happened. For example the Mishna in Baba Kama (6:2&4) examines a
situation where a person’s flock eats produce from a farmer’s field and another
where he starts a fire which goes out of control. In both cases Rabbi Shimon
seems to hold the liability to be the actual amount of damages as opposed to
using some sort of rule of thumb.
Likewise, the Mishna in Baba
Kama (7:2) discusses various situations where a person steals an animal for the
purpose of either selling it or eating its meat. The penalty specified in the
Chumash is that the thief must pay four or five times the value of the animal.
A debate is brought concerning an animal which is treif with Rabbi Shimon
saying that there would be no penalty in this case. It seems that even though
the thief intended to do bad, he did not actually succeed, because the animal
in fact had no value and its meat could not be eaten.
If a Mishna is written without
attribution, the origin of its opinion is not clear. Often it is like Rabbi
Meir and many times it is like the sages. Mishnahs tend to focus on their own
logic and apply it to other situations. Rabbi Shimon on the other hand is
firmly grounded and greatly focused on the Chumash. As a result his reasoning
may depart from the reasoning of the Mishna.
As a result there are
positions that are generally stated in the Mishna with Rabbi Shimon offering a
different opinion. For example in the section “Idolatry” (Avoda Zarah 3:7)
there is a discussion about the prohibition against items used for idolatry as
it relates to buildings, stone bricks, and trees. The Mishna discusses three
situations. The first is if the article from its inception was dedicated to
idolatry in which case it could not be used. The second is when the article was
later adapted for idolatrous use, in which case it would be permitted if the
adaptions were removed. The third case is if the article was used intact
temporarily for idolatry, in which case it could be used as is.
The Mishna calls a tree like
this an asherah. It then asks, “What is an asherah”, and answers any tree which
has an idol under it. This answer is pretty much consistent with the Mishna.
Rabbi Shimon, however, says it is a tree which itself was the object of
idolatry. Unlike buildings or quarried stones, the Chumash specifically forbids
idolatrous trees. It would seem to be trees that were specifically worshipped.
As a result Rabbi Shimon’s thinking is in line with the Chumash, while the
thinking of the Mishna is in line with a specific halacha.
Rabbi Shimon seems to see the
central thrust of the Torah as being benevolence to man. This shows up in a
discussion about how to behave when a donkey belonging to somebody you hate
collapses under its load (see Baba Metzia 2:10). This situation is governed by
a verse in the Chumash (Exodus 23:5) that can be difficult to understand. It
basically says that if you see the donkey of somebody you hate collapsed under
its load even though you don’t want to leave with him, you must leave with him.
Everyone agrees that you must
help unload the poor donkey but not if the owner of the donkey tries to push
all of the work onto others by claiming that they have a Biblical obligation to
do this but he, himself, does not. The Mishna states that there is no
obligation to help reload the donkey; however Rabbi Shimon rules that one is indeed
obligated to help reload it.
It seems that the scenario
envisioned by the Chumash is that of a group traveling together. If a
misfortune strikes one of its members, the others cannot simply leave him
behind. Rather they must help him as best they can. While kindness to animals
is an issue, the central objective is kindness to people.
לע"נ האמא מלכה בת חיים ז"ל נלב"ע טז ניסן תשנ"ח
Blogger English
http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com/2015/05/behar-lag-bomer-legal-approach-of-rabbi.html
Blogger Hebrew http://dyschreiber.blogspot.com/2015/05/122.html
YouTube http://youtu.be/2nd8I1A_GbU
No comments:
Post a Comment