This medrash says it is referring to Dovid HaMelech.
Bamidbar Rabbah (21:5): Harass the Midianties (Bamidbar 15:17): Even though [says G-d], I have written that When you come close to a city to fight against it you should ask them to make peace (Devarim 20:10) – in the case of the Midainates you must not do so. You should not seek their peace or their welfare (Devarim 23:7). You find that the one who in fact approached them with mercy in the end brought on himself degredation, war and affliction. Who was that? It was Dovid. Thus Dovid said (Shmuel II 10:2), I will show kindness to Chanan the son of Nachash. G-d said to him, Will you transgress My words? I have written, You must not seek their peace or their welfare. And you want to show them kindness? Be not righteous overmuch’ (Koheles 7:17)! This implies that a man should not go beyond the Torah, yet this man sends to comfort the children of Ammon, and to show kindness to them! The end was that he suffered insult; as it says, So Hanan took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away (II Sam. X, 4), and became involved in war with Aram Naharaim and with the kings of Zobah and with the kings of Maacah and with the children of Ammon, four nations! In this connection it is written, Joab saw that the battle was set against him before and behind, etc. (Shmuel II 10:9). Who brought this on David? It was because he sought to show favor to those of whom the Holy One, blessed be He, had said, ’Thou shalt not seek their peace.’ Accordingly it is written, HARASS THE MIDIANITES.
This warning is addressed to those who are truly righteous and truly wise. It is clear that this means that when a person comes to view himself objectively as a tzadik or chachom - he runs the danger of assuming that whatever he decides - that obviously G-d will agree with him. After all doesn't it say the tzadik decrees and G-d fulfills? And that obviously G-d agrees with what he is doing
Mo'ed Koton (16b) The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: Ruler over man shall be the righteous, even he that ruleth through the [reverent] fear of God. What does this mean? — Said R. Abbahu, It means this: ‘The God of Israel said, to the [David] spake the Rock of Israel; I rule man; who rules Me? [It is] the righteous: for I make a decree and he [may] annul it’.
While this gemora is obviously true - it doesn't apply to violating or perverting halacha. The tzaidk's spiritual test revolves around nullifying his will to what G-d has said in the Torah and not assuming that he is simply anticipating what G-d wants in stretching the boundaries or even crossing them. Even Dovid HaMelech failed this test.
Boidim mit Klutz. There is no comparison and no shred of a hatzdaka to have the mindset of going against The Torah.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, David did not view himself as a person who can go against Hashem. That's ridiculous and terribly wrong to say.
All of the stories that we hear about the true tzadikim who's brachos brought results, were about such tzadikim who were moser nefesh for the kiyum of every diduk kal in halacha and did not chas veshalom think that they could violate a rule.
“This warning is addressed to those who are truly righteous and truly wise. It is clear that this means that when a person comes to view himself objectively as a tzadik or chachom - he runs the danger of assuming that whatever he decides - that obviously G-d will agree with him. After all doesn't it say the tzadik decrees and G-d fulfills? And that obviously G-d agrees with what he is doing”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rabbi Eidensohn “a tzadik or chachom - he runs the danger of assuming that whatever he decides - that obviously G-d will agree with him.” No, everyone makes errors.
I quote:
“In my own brief span of life, I have seen both these things: sometimes a good man perishes in spite of his goodness, and sometimes a wicked one endures in spite of his wickedness. So don’t overdo goodness and don’t act the wise man to excess, or you may be dumfounded. Don’t overdo wickedness and don’t be a fool, or you may die before your time. It is best that you grasp the one without letting go of the other, for one who fears God will do his duty by both. Wisdom is more of a stronghold to a wise man than ten magnates that a city may contain. For there is not one good man on earth who does what is best and doesn’t err. Finally, don’t pay attention to everything that is said, so that you may not hear your slave reviling you; for well you remember the many times that you yourself have reviled others. (Ecclesiastes 7:15-22)
My reading is that King Solomon warns the truly righteous and the truly wise, that they should know that there is no guarantee of their enduring and no guarantee of their not making an error. See “sometimes a good man perishes in spite of his goodness.” Yes, “Wisdom is more of a stronghold to a wise man than ten magnates that a city may contain.” This stronghold can fall because but even the wisest can make errors. Goodness and wisdom, both are not guarantees. What to do? The strongest chess grandmasters are constantly fearful of making errors. The saying is 1 bad move ruins 40 good moves.
King Solomon advises not exaggerate goodness and wisdom, “for one who fears God will do his duty by both.”
please tell me what the medrash cited is saying? G-d said no and Dovid said yes
ReplyDeleteDavid erred by mistake. He thought that it was correct to repay a favor and it wasn't violating The Torah prohibition. This stemmed from his kindness and middos tovos of hakaras hatov. The mistake was that because of his middos tovos he didn't quite fully appreciate what The Torah was saying in the case of how we are to treat Amon and the extent of the animosity that even for the purpose of repaying a favor it is still prohibited.
ReplyDeleteDavid erred by mistake. He thought that it was correct to repay a favor and it wasn't violating The Torah prohibition. This stemmed from his kindness and middos tovos of hakaras hatov. The mistake was that because of his middos tovos he didn't quite fully appreciate what The Torah was saying in the case of how we are to treat Amon and the extent of the animosity that even for the purpose of repaying a favor it is yet still prohibited.
ReplyDeletethat isn't what the medrash says
ReplyDeleteThe medrash doesn't explain one way or the other. You assume that David held he could knowingly go against The Torah and that's a very wrong and krum way to think.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you something personal if I may. When you learn with a chavrusa and have a disagreement in pshat, how often or how seldom do you eventually admit to him that his pshat is correct. Here on the blog we see it very very seldom. It is a katnus not to be able to modeh al haemess.
you are basically saying that my failure to agree with you shows my lack of perfection. Instead of the ad hominem attacks why don't you stick the medrash. The medrash states that G-d doesn't want kindness done to Midian. Dovid knew what was in the Torah. He showed kindness to Midian The medrash said that G-d criticized him for that. Obviously Dovid thought that the verse in the Torah did not apply - why not?
ReplyDeleteYou claim it was a mistaken understanding that if his motivation was hakaras hatov it would be alright. But that doesn't fit the verse that is cited in the medrash. The medrash states he was being too righteous.
Yes, right, he thought it didn't apply. He didn't think that it did apply but that he could go against it anyway. So we could only try to understand his reasoning why he understood that this would be a yotze min haklal.
ReplyDeleteHe was being too righteous, by my understanding, means that he let his middos tovos get the better of him. I think it is a reasonable pshat. But I'm not saying that my understanding is muchach. I am only saying that your understanding that he deliberately violated The Torah is unacceptable and impossible.
If you look at the whole medrash which starts out talking about Shaul it cites the same verse of Don't be too righteous and adds more than G-d.
ReplyDeleteThen it brings up the case of Dovid.
This indicates that Dovid and Shaul were very well aware that G-d had said don't do this - and they both went beyond it showing mercy in a cases where G-d said specifically not to show mercy.
Thus we caqn explain it - that he disagreed with G-d and thought that mercy applied in this case even though G-d had explicitly said it doesn't.
According to your drasha you are saying that Dovid was aware that he was doing something prohibited by the Torah but "he followed his seichel enushi" which required showing mercy in this case despite G-d saying no. How is saying that he violated the Torah because his midos tovos got the better of him differ from my saying that he violated what he knew was prohibited by the Torah because he disagreed with G-d. His midos tovos are part of him and instead of ignoring his gut feeling that this was the right thing to do he should have said "I can't do it because G-d said no?"
Why didn't he ignore his midos tovos? "Don't be too righteous" - more than your Creator.
You are an intelligent man but your need to win this argument renders you incapable of understanding what someone else is saying. (And I'm being dan you lekaf zechus that you're not deliberately twisting things.)
ReplyDelete"If you look at the parallel text in Yoma (22b)talks about Shaul it cites the same verse of Don't be too righteous and adds more than G-d.
This medrash uses the verse in Koheles to criticize Dovid
This indicates that Dovid and Shaul were very well aware that G-d had said don't do this - and they both went beyond it showing mercy in a cases where G-d said specifically not to show mercy."
What do you mean "and adds more than G-d."? In my gemara there is no such addition. Maybe you are reading from a different girsa but I have a regular Vagshal gemara. I don't see anything different from that gemara about Shaul than from the medrash about David.
"According to your drasha you are saying that Dovid was aware that he was doing something prohibited by the Torah but "he followed his seichel enushi" which required showing mercy in this case despite G-d saying no."
No, totally not in line with what I'm saying but rather that's a complete distortion of what I'm saying.
I said his middos tovos got the better of him. That means he was nichshol by mistake, not deliberately, because of his nature of tzidkus which got in his way from understanding the true halacha.
"How is saying that he violated the Torah because his midos tovos got the better of him differ from my saying that he violated what he knew was prohibited by the Torah because he disagreed with G-d."
Because to disagree with Hashem is apikursus!!! (besides being conceited stupidity - ha'enosh ma'eloka yitzdok?!)
you are right it is not the gemora trhat adds that text but several medrashim do
ReplyDeleteagain Dovid and Shaul both were accused of being more merciful than G-d by showing kindness when G-d not did not but when He prohibited it. You your explanation simply ignores that fact by shifting them blame to their kind hearts. Does not absolve either of them from the criticism of deliberately going against G-d's prohibition
“One of the lessons of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter is an old lesson which unfortunately seems to readily forgotten - though it is widely mentioned. That is the warning in Koheles (7:16) Do not be too righteous; nor make yourself too wise; why should you destroy yourself? Why does being too righteous lead to destruction? Why does being super wise bring about self-destruction?”
ReplyDeleteI read the whole of midrashim, English and Hebrew, brought here on errors. Most Interesting. Everyone makes errors. Can we talk of Obama’s errors in our times? We can say to Obama: see the warning in “So don’t overdo goodness and don’t act the wise man to excess, or you may be dumfounded.” (Ecclesiastes 7:25).
Didn’t Obama err in removing Mubarack, 30 years a good ruler of Egypt when Egypt prospered? Didn’t Obama err in trying to reinstate Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood, after Morsi thrown in jail? Morsi was a disaster for Egypt. Didn’t Obama err in rushing to condemn the failed coup attempt in Turkey July 2016, the effort to stop the Islamization of Turkey? Erdogan so far fired 3,700 judges and prosecutors, 1,500 deans of colleges, some 50,000 soldiers, police, teachers, judges, etc and throw some 10,000 in jail.
I’m a Trump supporter. I love Trump’s speech promising safety.
All we see from all of these texts is that is it does say יותר מבוראך. But all that means is that the mussar is telling him that that in effect is what you are doing but it doesn't by any stretch indicate that David or Shaul thought it is correct to think or do different than Hashem's words.
ReplyDeleteBut the Akaida that you bring is a little bit more maarich so he says
וטעה בעיוניו או בדמיוניו שהטוב והישר הוא לעשות על הדרך שעשה ועל האופן ההוא היה שומע בקול ה' במה שנצח המלחמה בתפישת המלך והביא מיטב הצאן והבקר לזבוח לה'
And that is quite clear like I'm saying.
Why would it help to quote all of these sources? do you not agree that it is conceit, stupidity, and worst of all apikorsus to think one knows better than the all mighty creator? I wouldn't think any proof is needed for this because it's so basic and so simple. Do I need to quote sources that show that Hashem knows best and that it's apikorsus to think otherwise?
You write "cut out the ad hominem attacks."
ReplyDeleteWhat should I think when I see that you have misrepresented what I wrote?
obviously Chazal disagree with you and state simply that Dovid and Shaul both thought that they could second guess what G-d wrote and they were wrong. It is a simple as that. They were not ignoring what the Torah said because they were rebelling. They thought that their reasoning justified saying that the mitzva didn't apply and that G-d would agree with their second guessing of the prohibition
ReplyDelete. Which is my point about Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky. He is well aware there is a requirement for a get. He is convinced that the requirement doesn't apply in this case - and he is wrong.
Don't know why you are having difficulty understanding such a simple point - which is repeated in each of the sources that I quoted.
Obviously?
ReplyDeleteI see no further point as it has already been exhausted. I have no difficulty understanding but I disagree with you.
" He is well aware there is a requirement for a get. He is convinced that the requirement doesn't apply in this case"
I don't know why you think that that is his reasoning. I never knew him so I don't know what he's otherwise all about. If he is a yiray chait, then all I can say is that he believes the report that Aharon is whatever and that it was a mekach taus, and he maybe thinks that he has more insight than everybody else collectively. If he isn't a major yiray chait but still not an apikorus, then he is in a tight spot and finds it hard to curl out so he conveniently and with a degree of kalus rosh convinces himself with some sort of convoluted halachic reasoniung that it's halachically okay. Does he believe that although the halacha requires a get, in this case, we don't have to follow the halacha? If he believes that then he's an apikorus.
Wow. A yarei cheit believes that he has more insight than everyone else, collectively, and therefore the halacha is like his insight. Is that a yirei cheit or a zakan mamrei??
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I am mentioning a possibility that I myself don't quite grasp. The technical halacha of zakein mamrei I think don't applies today, but even so....
ReplyDeleteI think the middle possibility that I mentioned is most likely to be true.
ReplyDelete"If he isn't a major yiray chait but still not an apikorus, then he is in a tight spot and finds it hard to curl out so he conveniently and with a degree of kalus rosh convinces himself with some sort of convoluted halachic reasoniung that it's halachically okay. "
Rabbi Eidenson thinks the third thing I mentioned is what's going on here, but in my opinion that would make him an apikorus.
So Honesty, what do you think is the truth of the matter?
zakein mamre is a din in Sanhedrin - not something which is stated explicitly in the Torah
ReplyDeleteרלב"ג פרש"ת בלק
ReplyDeleteהתועלת הט"ז הוא שבכל מקום שיש בו חלול השם יתעלה אין חולקין כבוד לרב אבל כל הקודם
להסיר המכשול זכה ולזה תמצא שעם היות משה רבנו בזאת המדרגה הנפלאה שהיה בה מהמעלה והשלמות הנה לא לקח פינחס רשות ממנו על זה המעשה אבל התעורר מעצמו לבער הרע בזריזות רב ושם נפשו להרוג נשיא שבט ישראל לקנאתו לאלהיו וכבר היה לו מזה גמול טוב מהשם יתעלה שנתן בריתו אתו החיים והשלום וזכה להיות מזרעו כהנים גדולים רבים
It is stated explicitly in The Torah (Devarim 10, 10-12 ) and the din applies to someone who paskens against the Sanhedrin
ReplyDeleteA person who says that a specific statement made in the Torah doesn't apply is not a zakein mamre. He needs to disagree with a psak of the Sanhedrin in an interpretation. Dovid and Shaul decided that that they didn't need to follow the command in the Torah - they were going against the Torah not the Sanhedrin. Look at Hilchos Mamrim. If they used the 13 midos or some interpretation and one of the members refused to obey - then he is a zakein mamre. Please tell me where the Rambam says he is a zaken mamre if there is no psak of Sanhedrin that he is disagreeing with?
ReplyDeleteWe have a communication gap here. I was responding to honesty who was discussing RSK and calling him a zaken mamre for going agains the psakim of all other rabbonim. To which I responded that the technical halacha of zakein mamrei doesn't applies today.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering how עת לעשות לה הפרו תורתך fits in here ? Also I remember the reasoning was when comforting mourners you don't mention ' shalom' and peace but in reality this was an act of darchei shalom
ReplyDelete