ובגד כלאים שעטנז לא יעלה עליך (“And a mixed garment, sha’âtnéz, will not arise upon you;” XIX, 19).
The definition of sha’âtnéz, the subject of our verse, is a garment made specifically of wool and linen together (cf. Deuteronomy XXII, 11).
In several places, the Talmud raises the question of whether or not the obligation to perform mitzvoth continues after death. In the case of sha’âtnéz, specifically, we learn: בגד שאבד בו כלאים כו' עושה ממנו תכריכין למת. אמר רב יוסף זאת אומרת מצות בטלות לעתיד לבא. א"ל אביי ואי תימא רב דימי, א"ר מני א"ר ינאי, לא שנו אלא לספדו אבל לקוברו אסור. א"ל לאו אתמר עלה א"ר יוחנן אפילו לקברו? ור' יוחנן לטעמי' דא"ר יוחנן מאי דכתיב "במתים חפשי"? כיון שמת אדם נעשה חפשי מן המצות (“A garment containing sha’âtnéz... one may make of it shrouds [tachrichin] for the dead. Said Rav Yosef, 'This means [that] the mitzvoth are annulled for the future.' Said Abbaye, and if you say, Rav Dimi, to him: 'Said Rabbi Mani in the name of Rabbi Yannai, "They learnt this only concerning [the dead person’s] eulogy [hesped], but to bury him [in sha’âtnéz] is forbidden."' [Rav Yosef] rejoined, 'Is it not said about this, "Said Rabbi Yochanan, 'Even to bury him?'"' Rabbi Yochanan is following his own reasoning, for Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Why is it written "Concerning the dead, [one is] free [Psalms LXXXVIII, 6]?" Once a person has died he is made free of the mitzvoth;'” נדה ס"א: ).
Though the halacha in these cases generally follows Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion עיי' למשל בהאי גונא רמב"ם הל' כלאים פ"י הכ"ה ושו"ע יו"ד סי' ש"א סעיף ז', אבל ע"ע מעדני יום טוב שם בנדה ס"ק ב' ), it is interesting and noteworthy that the Taz sees fit to add: וכל שכן בבגדים שעושין לו להספד דבבגדים שקוברין אותו הוא עתיד לעמוד בהם (“And of course [sha’âtnéz] is permitted in garments made for [the dead person’s] hesped, since the clothes in which they bury him , he is destined to stand up in them”; ס"ק ט' וע"ע באר היטב שם ס"ק ז').
In other words, the reasoning of Rabbi Yannai et al. is that, whatever the situation whilst one is dead, it is incontrovertible that the shomrei mitzvoth are destined to be resurrected after the advent of Mashiach, and any who have been so unfortunate as to be buried in tachrichin made of sha’âtnéz will find themselves in immediate violation of the prohibition in our verse! What is more, we find similar logic applied elsewhere in the question of whether tachrichin made in the form of a four cornered garment require tzitzith (cf. Numbers XV, 37-41) on the corners ( מנחות מ"א., ובשני הענינים ע"ע עבודה זרה ס"ה:, תוס' שם ד"ה אבל ), though in the latter case, there is no distinction made between hesped and burial.
This raises a couple of interesting questions:
(1) How do Rabbi Yochanan et al. deal with the problem of the clothing of the resurrected dead? And even according to Rabbi Yannai et al,. why does it make any difference whether we are dressing the corpse for the hesped or for final burial?
The matter is sharpened when we take note that one who says: הריני נזיר ביום שבן דוד בא, מותר לשתות יין בשבתות ובימים טוסים ואסור לשתות יין כל ימות החול (“I shall become a nazir on the day the son of David [i.e., Mashiach] comes is permitted to drink wine on shabbathoth and yamim tovim and forbidden to drink wine all the [other] days;” עירובין מ"ג.), since we have to expect the advent of Mashiach at any time (רש"י שםדה"נ כל). If so, what prevents Mashiach from declaring himself whilst we are in the middle of a hesped, in which case the recently departed would be resurrected and suddenly find himself in the same position as his previously buried fellows?
(2) Having dealt with the first issue, why does the distinction of hesped and burial not apply, according to anyone, in the matter of tzitzith on tachrichin?
B.
In search of answers, we first note that, in addition to clear-cut cases of Biblical sha’âtnéz, the halacha also takes into account certain marginal cases prohibited on Rabbinical authority, either because some other material sufficiently resembles wool or linen that someone else might think one is violating the prohibition (mar’ith âyin), or certain temporary instances, otherwise unobjectionable, in which one might forget and actually wear the garment (e.g., a linen laundry tag stitched to a woolen garment or vice versa; רמב"ם שם, הכ"ז).
Needless to say, such rabbinical prohibitions (issurei d’rabbanan), though they must be observed (cf. Deuteronomy XVII, 8-12), are not as stringent in their ramifications as actual violations of the written Torah’s provisions (issurei d’Oraitha). Thus, a bit later in the Shulchan Âruch we learn: הרואה כלאים של תורה על חבירו, אפילו הי' מהלך בשוק, קופץ לו וקורעו מעליו מיד ואפילו הי' רבו כו' ואם הי' של דבריהם אינו קורעו מעליו ואינו פושטו בשוק עד שמגיע לביתו וגו' (“One who sees Torah sha’âtnéz on one’s fellow, even if he is walking in the marketplace, leaps to him and tears it off him immediately, even if [the fellow] is his rabbi... And if it is rabbinical [sha’âtnéz], one need not tear it from him and undress him in the marketplace, [but waits] until he reaches his home....” שם סי' ש"ג סעיף א').
The stringency of the Biblical commandment requires drastic action as soon as the violation has been noted, even at the considerable expense of embarrassing one’s teacher and mentor in public; the Rabbinical decrees are not so serious.
Hereon, I think, lies the key to the matter. It seems to me, in light of the above, that both Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan are considering not sha’âtnéz d’Oraitha, but sha’âtnéz d’Rabbanan. Were it not so, given what we have already learnt, it is hard to see how Rabbi Yannai could permit tachrichei sha’âtnéz under any circumstances, however temporary, since removal of the issur d’Oraitha so clearly takes precedence over kvod ha-briyoth, “the honor of [G-d’s] creatures,” unlike the d’Rabbanan. This said, the difference between Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan appears to come down to the applicability of a principle called lo’êg la-rash (roughly, mocking the helpless méth; cf. Proverbs XVII, 5).
As Rabbi Yannai sees the matter, it is all right to dress the méth in tachrichin made with sha’âtnéz d’Rabbanan for the occasion of the hesped, if such tachrichin are the best available, despite the possibility that Mashiach might make his appearance during the hesped and the dead be revived, since he would then be able to proceed with dignity, decently dressed in his tachrichin, to a private place to change his clothes. Burial, however, is a different matter. The grave is a private place, and so the méth, resurrected from the grave, would be obligated immediately to change his clothes and, of course, there will be none at hand. Hence, burial in sha’âtnéz, even sha’âtnéz d’Rabbanan, constitutes lo’êg la-rash.
Rabbi Yochanan, for his part, appears to have no problem with lo’êg la-rash. Once one is dead, he is dead, and the mitzvoth are no longer his concern. Hence, from his standpoint, even sha’âtnéz d’Oraitha could be used for tachrichin. What will happen in the Messianic Era will be decided then.
C.
If we turn to yet a third place in the Shulchan Âruch, we can discern how sha’âtnéz and tzitzith differ in this application. Concerning tzitzith, we are informed: אם נודע לו בשבת בכרמלית שהטלית שעליו פסול לא יסירנו מעליו עד שיגיע לביתו דגדול כבוד הבריות (“If one becomes aware on shabbath in a karmelith [a semi-enclosed area in which carrying would be permissible on shabbath] that the tallith he is wearing is pasul, he need not remove it until he reaches his home, for great is the honour of [G-d’s] creatures;” או"ח סי' י"ג סעיף ג'). On this, the Rema amplifies, in part: ודוקא בשבת דאסור לעשות ציצית אבל בחול כהאי גוונא אסור (“And it is specifically on shabbath [that wearing the tallith psula is permitted] for it is forbidden to make tzitzith, but on a weekday in such case it is forbidden”).
In other words, the only time that kvod ha-briyoth takes precedence is shabbath, because it is impossible to repair the garment and correct the problem; on any other day, the tallith psula must be removed immediately, even in public.
This being so, there is no circumstance in which it would be permitted for the méth to wear tachrichin in the form of a tallith psula, given Rabbi Yannai’s view of things. In the grave, he would be obligated on remove the offending garment immediately on resurrection; at the hesped, the same would be the case. The exemption of the public event does not apply, since (as we have already learnt above) Mashiach will not reveal himself on shabbath or yom tov. For Rabbi Yochanan, of course, there is no problem, since the méth is not obligated in the mitzva of tzitzith, and he does not believe in lo’êg la-rash.
D.
It remains to be seen why the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan, and why he does not agree concerning the application of lo’êg la-rash.
At first glance, Rabbi Yannai’s position appears to be the most reasonable. A dead person is incontrovertibly helpless, and cannot prepare himself for burial. The people who do engage in such acts in every organised Jewish community, the Chevra Qadisha or “Sacred Society,” are said to be engaged in a chesed shel emeth, a truly altruistic act of kindness, since the méth is unlikely to be in a position to repay it. Under such circumstances, and confident of the eventual advent of Mashiach and subsequent resurrection of the dead, surely to bury the méth in tachrichei sha’âtnéz, and thereby set him up so that immediately upon revival he would be guilty of a violation of halacha (even though it is a d’Rabbanan), is a quintessential case of lo’êg la-rash. What sort of chesed would that be?
But ponder a bit and see a bit deeper. The Rambam, in the final chapters of Hilchoth Mlachim, assures us that in the Messianic Age the laws of nature will not change. All of the prophecies concerning the lion lying down with the lamb, and so on, are allegorical on the physical level; we will understand them when see them fulfilled.
However, this is not entirely true of halachoth, particularly halachoth d’Rabbanan. We know, for instance, that the many rulings which today follow the opinion of Béyth Hillel will in that age follow the opinion of Béyth Shammai.
Rabbi Yochanan, it seems to me, is cautioning us not to pasqen for the future. As of now, people die, and when they do, they are free of mitzvoth. What will be when (perhaps next week) Mashiach reveals himself and the dead are resurrected will be dealt with at that time. Mashiach will be preceded by Eliyahu the prophet, who will answer all of our questions. Leave the matter to him and his Sanhedrin.
No comments:
Post a Comment