Learning Torah Only from the Mouths of Angels

ההוא צורבא מרבנן דהוו סנו שומעניה א"ר יהודה היכי ליעביד לשמתיה צריכי ליה רבנן לא לשמתיה קא מיתחיל שמא דשמיא

א"ל לרבב"ח מידי שמיע לך בהא א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן מאי דכתיב (מלאכי ב, ז) כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא אם דומה הרב למלאך ה' יבקשו תורה מפיו ואם לאו אל יבקשו תורה מפיו

Moed Katan 17a:4

There was a certain Torah scholar who gained a bad reputation due to rumors about his conduct. Rav Yehuda said: What should be done? To excommunicate him is not an option. The Sages need him, as he is a great Torah authority. Not to excommunicate him is also not an option, as then the name of Heaven would be desecrated.

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7)? This verse teaches: If the teacher is similar to an angel [malakh] of the Lord, then seek Torah from his mouth, but if he is not pure and upright, then do not seek Torah from his mouth; even if he is knowledgeable about Torah, do not learn from him.

משנה תורה, הלכות תלמוד תורה ד׳:א׳

אֵין מְלַמְּדִין תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְתַלְמִיד הָגוּן נָאֶה בְּמַעֲשָׂיו. אוֹ לְתָם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הוֹלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ לֹא טוֹבָה מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ לַמּוּטָב וּמַנְהִיגִין אוֹתוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וּמְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים כָּל הַשּׁוֹנֶה לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן כְּאִלּוּ זָרַק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כו ח) "כִּצְרוֹר אֶבֶן בְּמַרְגֵּמָה כֵּן נוֹתֵן לִכְסִיל כָּבוֹד". וְאֵין כָּבוֹד אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג לה) "כָּבוֹד חֲכָמִים יִנְחָלוּ". וְכֵן הָרַב שֶׁאֵינוֹ הוֹלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ טוֹבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָכָם גָּדוֹל הוּא וְכָל הָעָם צְרִיכִין לוֹ אֵין מִתְלַמְּדִין מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שׁוּבוֹ לַמּוּטָב. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ב ז) "כִּי שִׂפְתֵי כֹהֵן יִשְׁמְרוּ דַעַת וְתוֹרָה יְבַקְשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ כִּי מַלְאַךְ ה' צְבָאוֹת הוּא". אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אִם הָרַב דּוֹמֶה לְמַלְאַךְ ה' צְבָאוֹת תּוֹרָה יְבַקְּשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ אִם לָאו אַל יְבַקְּשׁוּ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיהוּ:

Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 4:1

No instructions in the Torah should be given to any but a fit student of proper conduct, or to one indifferently known; but if one followed a way which is not good, we first must bring him back to goodness and lead him in the path of righteousness and scrutinize him, after which we may admit him to the Beth Hamedrash and give him instructions. The sages said: "He who instructs an unfit disciple is likened unto one who serves Mercury by casting a stone upon him, as it is said: "As a small stone in a heap of stones, so is he that giveth honor to a fool'" (Prov. 26.8; Hullin, 133a). There is no honor save in the Torah as it is said: "The wise shall inherit honor" (Prov. 3.35). Likewise, a Rabbi who does not follow the good way, though he be a great scholar and all of the people stand in need of him no instruction should be received from him until his return to goodness, as it is said: "For the priests' lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts" (Mal. 2.7). Thereupon the sages said: "If the Rabbi be like unto the messenger of the Lord of Hosts then shall they seek the Law at his mouth, if not, they shall not seek the Law at his mouth."¹Ta’anit, 7b; Mo’ed Katan, 16a; Makkot, 10b. C. G.

דברי ירמיהו על משנה תורה, הלכות תלמוד תורה ד׳:א׳:ב׳

וכן הרב שאינו הולך בדרך טובה אע"פ שחכם גדול הוא וכל העם צריכין לו אין מתלמדין ממנו עד שובו למוטב שנא' כי שפתי וכו' יבקשו תורה מפיהו אם לאו אל יבקשו תורה מפיהו.

...
אמנם יקשה מאוד דרבינו במורה נבוכים נראה שלמד מספרי חכמי עכו"ם ובראש ספרו שם הביא מקרא זה שמצא ר"מ לדרוש להתיר ללמוד מאחר עיי"ש...שמעתי דיש לחלק בין למוד מפיו של רשע ללמוד מתוך ספר ממנו, דמתוך ספר אדם גדול יש לברור הטוב מהרע אבל מפיו שחיבור עם רשע רע וגורם רעה והשחתה לאדם ודייק כן אם הרב וכו' יבקשו תורה מפיהו ואם לאו אל יבקשו תורה מפיהו דייקא מפיהו...

Divrei Yirmiyahu on Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 4:1:2

And so too a teacher who doesn't walk in good ways, even though she is a great hacham and all of the nation needs her, don't learn from her until she returns to the good, as it says "For my lips..." if the teacher is like an angel, seek Torah from her lips, and if not, do not seek Torah from her lips.

...

However, this is very difficult, as it appears that our teacher (Rambam) learned from the wisdom of idol-worshippers, as seen in Morei Nevuchim, and at the beginning of his book he brought this pasuk, and the teaching that Rabbi Meir was found to expound and permit learning from Acher (Elisha ben Abuya)...and I learned that it's possible to distinguish between learning from the mouth of a bad person and from a book they have written, as within a book a great person can distinguish between the good and the bad, but from the mouth that is attached to a bad person and causes evil and destruction to humans, no. And Rambam was precise in his language--"seek Torah from her mouth, and if not, do not seek Torah from her mouth" her mouth he said precisely.

משלי ג׳:י״ז

דְּרָכֶ֥יהָ דַרְכֵי־נֹ֑עַם וְֽכָל־נְתִ֖יבוֹתֶ֣יהָ שָׁלֽוֹם׃

Proverbs 3:17

Her ways are pleasant ways, And all her paths, peaceful.

יומא ע״ב ב:י׳

(אמר) אביי ואיתימא רבה בר עולא נקרא נתעב שנאמר (איוב טו, טז) אף כי נתעב ונאלח איש שותה כמים עולה

...

מכריז ר' ינאי חבל על דלית ליה דרתא ותרעא לדרתיה עביד

Yoma 72b:10

Abaye said, and some say it was Rabba bar Ulla who said: Not only is such a person not to be considered a Torah scholar, but he is called loathsome, as it is stated: “What then of one loathsome and foul, man who drinks iniquity like water” (Job 15:16). Although he drinks the Torah like water, since he sins, his Torah is considered iniquitous and this makes him loathsome and foul.

....

Rabbi Yannai declared that the situation may be expressed by the following sentiment: Pity him who has no courtyard but senselessly makes a gate for his courtyard. Fear of Heaven is like the courtyard, and the study of Torah is the gate that provides entrance to the courtyard. The study of Torah is purposeful only if it leads to fear of Heaven.

יומא ע״ב ב:י״ד

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (דברים ד, מד) וזאת התורה אשר שם משה זכה נעשית לו סם חיים לא זכה נעשית לו סם מיתה והיינו דאמר רבא דאומן לה סמא דחייא דלא אומן לה סמא דמותא

Yoma 72b:14

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And this is the Torah which Moses put [sam] before the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 4:44)? The word sam is written with the letter sin and means put; it is phonetically similar to the word sam written with the letter samekh, meaning a drug. This use of this word therefore alludes to the following: If one is deserving, the Torah becomes a potion [sam] of life for him. If one is not deserving, the Torah becomes a potion of death for him. And this idea is what Rava said: For one who is skillful in his study of Torah and immerses himself in it with love, it is a potion of life; but for one who is not skillful in his studies, it is a potion of death.

ר"א בן יעקב אומר מה ת"ל ובוצע ברך נאץ ה' משלו משל למה הדבר דומה לאחד שגנב סאה של חטים טחנן אפאן והפריש מהן חלה והאכיל לבניו היאך זה מברך אינו מברך אלא מנאץ ועל זה נאמר ובוצע ברך נאץ

Tosefta Sanhedrin 1:3

R. Elazar ben Ya’akov said—what does the verse teach in saying, one who steals and blesses spurns God? They constructed a parable—to what is this matter similar? To one who stole a se’ah of wheat, ground, baked, and separated hallah from it and fed his children. How could he bless? This one doesn’t bless, rather he spurns! On this it says, one who steals and blesses spurns God.

סוכה ל׳ א:א׳

משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה שנאמר (מלאכי א, יג) והבאתם גזול ואת הפסח ואת החולה גזול דומיא דפסח מה פסח לית ליה תקנתא אף גזול לית ליה תקנתא לא שנא לפני יאוש ולא שנא לאחר יאוש

Sukkah 30a:1

It is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression, which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, as it is stated: “And you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord” (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of a stolen animal is equivalent to that of a lame animal. Just as a lame animal, because it is blemished, has no remedy and is unfit for use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy. There is no difference before the owners reach a state of despair of recovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference after despair. In both cases there is no remedy.

Dena Weiss, "When Good Torah Happens to Bad People"

Questions/Guidelines:

Perpetrator: Is the perpetrator still alive? Is enabling his Torah going to give him more access to victims. Will it give him more honor and thereby dishonor God’s name?

Victim: Is the victim still alive? Is the encounter with this Torah going to cause her pain and/or be triggering? Is the teaching of this Torah going to be perceived by the victim as a legitimization of the crime against them?

The Torah Itself: Is the content of this Torah saturated with/characterized by the sins of the person who produced it? Can there be a core that is pure while the outside is tainted?

The Consumer: Do I feel comfortable supporting this person? Am I successfully extracting the fruit from the peel? Is accepting this Torah into my life having a corrupting influence on my integrity?

Questions NOT to Ask: -Is this Torah meaningful to me? Do I find it spiritually valuable? -Would it be a loss of some kind if this Torah were not in the world? Do I think of this work as “irreplaceable?”

Donniel Hartman, "'It's Muktsa': Building a Fence around a Fence around the Settlements Issue"

For weeks now, our Prime Minister, government, judicial system, and press have been spending an inordinate amount of time discussing the future of six buildings, called Ulpana Hill, in Beit El. The Supreme Court, after years of the issue moving through the courts, ruled that they must be removed, for they were built on privately owned property, a fact which violates both international law and Israel’s own policy regarding settlements in Judea and Samaria, a policy which views settlements only on public land as legal. Prime Minister Netanyahu, as he has done consistently since entering office, and with the support of a number of ministers, has refused to give into populist politics and pressure, standing behind the Supreme Court and the rule of law, has instructed that the houses be removed and that any legislative process attempting to circumvent the Court’s decision should be defeated.

Regardless of the outcome, one thing is clear: the settler movement, its leaders, and its supporters have won today’s battle. The question is whether they have also won the war. One of the brilliant strategies incorporated regularly within Jewish law is the principle of muktsa, literally to set apart, a principle which trains an individual to avoid even touching that which they ought not to use. This principle is part of a larger halakhic strategy to build fences around the Torah to ensure that no one approaches the possibility of violating it. Fences around fences around fences is a behaviorist policy which molds practice on a subconscious level, making certain actions or violations incomprehensible. Building on this Jewish strategy, which guides many aspects of their own religious lives and upbringing, settler leaders are slowly and surely training Israeli politicians and society that settlement evacuation is muktsa. If six houses consumes the political life and process for weeks, one cannot even imagine what would happen when on the table lies the evacuation of all settlements which are not in one of the settlement blocs of Gush Etzion, Jerusalem, Maaleh Adumim and Ariel. But that is the point. The settler leaders want to train us to not even imagine it. They are ingraining in our consciousness the sense that it will be impossible.

The Murder Midrash

ON A DAY IN LATE AUGUST, Rabbi Ya'akov Meidan, head of the Gush Etzion Yeshiva in Alon Shvut, a settlement south of Bethlehem in the West Bank, the most prestigious yeshiva of the moderate Zionist religious movement, began his daily lecture with a different lesson than the usual one on Jewish law.

He held up a copy of “Torat Hamelekh” (“The King’s Torah”), a book with a marblepatterned cover and embossed gilt letters, to his students.

“This is a challenging book, written by learned men,” he said to the assembly of students.

After a short silence, he added, calmly and deliberately, “We should burn this book and never allow its authors to teach halakha ever again.”

Written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elizur, both from the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar, “Torat Hamelekh” was first published by the settlement yeshiva, Od Yosef Hai, nearly a year ago. The book deals with questions, such as the fate of a non-Jew who, in time of war, does not violate what are known as the seven principles of the sons of Noah, considered the basic commandments of all humanity, and the fate of a non-Jew who does violate these principles, and under what circumstances is it permitted to kill children and strangers living in the land. One of its six chapters deals with the prohibition for a Jew to give up his life in order to avoid killing a non-Jew, while another chapter deals with the question of when it is necessary and permissible to kill innocents.