וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הֵיכִי גְּמַר תּוֹרָה מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּאַחֵר? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי שִׂפְתֵי כֹהֵן יִשְׁמְרוּ דַעַת וְתוֹרָה יְבַקְשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ כִּי מַלְאַךְ יהוה צְבָאוֹת הוּא״. אִם דּוֹמֶה הָרַב לְמַלְאַךְ יהוה צְבָאוֹת — יְבַקְּשׁוּ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיהוּ, וְאִם לָאו — אַל יְבַקְּשׁוּ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיהוּ! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רַבִּי מֵאִיר — קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וּדְרַשׁ: ״הַט אׇזְנְךָ וּשְׁמַע דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים וְלִבְּךָ תָּשִׁית לְדַעְתִּי״, ״לְדַעְתָּם״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לְדַעְתִּי״. רַב חֲנִינָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״שִׁמְעִי בַת וּרְאִי וְהַטִּי אׇזְנֵךְ וְשִׁכְחִי עַמֵּךְ וּבֵית אָבִיךְ וְגוֹ׳״. קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי? לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּגָדוֹל, הָא בְּקָטָן. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אֲמַר, אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲכַל תַּחְלָא, וּשְׁדָא שִׁיחְלָא לְבָרָא. דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל גִּנַּת אֱגוֹז יָרַדְתִּי לִרְאוֹת בְּאִבֵּי הַנָּחַל וְגוֹ׳״, לָמָּה נִמְשְׁלוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים לֶאֱגוֹז — לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אֱגוֹז זֶה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּלוּכְלָךְ בְּטִיט וּבְצוֹאָה — אֵין מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ נִמְאָס; אַף תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסָּרַח — אֵין תּוֹרָתוֹ נִמְאֶסֶת.
And Rabbi Meir, how could he learn Torah from the mouth of Aḥer? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah from his mouth; for he is an angel of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7)? The verse teaches: If the rabbi is similar to an angel of the Lord of hosts, perfect in his ways, they should seek Torah from his mouth; but if not, they should not seek Torah from his mouth.Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Meir found a verse and interpreted it homiletically: “Incline your ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply your heart to My knowledge” (Proverbs 22:17). It does not state “to their knowledge,” but “to My knowledge.” In other words, one must listen to the words of the Sages, despite their flaws, provided that their opinion concurs with that of God. Rav Ḥanina said that one can find support for this idea from here: “Listen, daughter and consider, and incline your ear; forget also your own people and your father’s house” (Psalms 45:11), which likewise indicates that one must listen to the words of a Sage while forgetting, i.e., ignoring, the faulty aspects of his teachings. The Gemara asks: If so, the verses contradict each other, for one source states that one may learn only from a scholar who is perfect in his ways, while the other indicates that it is permitted even to learn from one whose character is flawed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This case, in which it is permitted to learn from a flawed scholar, is referring to an adult; whereas that case, which prohibits doing so, is referring to a minor, who should learn only from a righteous person, so that his ways are not corrupted by a teacher with flawed character. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: In the West,Eretz Yisrael, they say: Rabbi Meir ate a half-ripe date and threw the peel away. In other words, he was able to extract the important content from the inedible shell. Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I went down into the garden of nuts, to look at the green plants of the valley” (Song of Songs 6:11)? Why are Torah scholars compared to nuts? To tell you: Just as this nut, despite being soiled with mud and excrement, its content is not made repulsive, as only its shell is soiled; so too a Torah scholar, although he has sinned, his Torah is not made repulsive.
וקאמר שם (חגיגה טו:), רב דימי אמר, אמרי במערבא, רבי מאיר אשכח תמרא, אכל תיחלא*, ושדי שחלא. וכך אמרו עוד שם, רבי מאיר רימון מצא, תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק, עד כאן. וקשה, דמאי תירוץ הוא, דסוף סוף היאך הותר לעשות דבר זה. ויראה דהכי קאמר, דודאי היכי שאפשר לו ללמוד אותה [תורה] במקום אחר, אסור לעשות דבר זה. אבל רבי מאיר לא היה אפשר לו ללמוד במקום אחר. והשתא שפיר שהוא מדמה זה לרימון, שאין מוצאין במקום אחר רימון שאין לו קליפה, ולכך האדם אוכל הפנים, וזורק הקליפה. ולפיכך מותר גם כן ללמוד תורה מרב שאינו הגון, כאשר לא ימצא אותה תורה במקום אחר ללמוד מרב הגון.
And it says there that R. Meir found a pomegranate, ate the insides and threw out the peel. This is difficult, for ultimately, what kind of answer is this? In the end, how was it permitted for him to do this? And it seems this is what it's saying, that certainly when it's possible for her to learn the Torah in another place, it is forbidden [to learn from a corrupted Torah scholar]. But R. Meir did not have the possibility of learning elsewhere. This is why it's compared to a pomegranate, as you can't find any pomegranate that does not have a peel...therefore it is permitted to learn Torah from a scholar who isn't fit, in a case where it's impossible to find one who is fit.
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 יהוה צבאות הוא אם דומה הרב למלאך יהוה יבקשו תורה מפיו ואם לאו אל יבקשו תורה מפיו
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.
ואם לאו אל יבקשו תורה - הואיל וסנו שומעניה הא דצריכי ליה רבנן לאו כלום הוא דמוטב דלא ילפי מיניה:
And if not do not seek Torah -- Since he has a bad reputation, the fact that the rabbis need him is nothing, as it's better to not come from him.
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 יהוה צְבָאוֹת הוּא". אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אִם הָרַב דּוֹמֶה לְמַלְאַךְ יהוה צְבָאוֹת תּוֹרָה יְבַקְּשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ אִם לָאו אַל יְבַקְּשׁוּ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיהוּ:
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.
וכן הרב שאינו הולך בדרך טובה וכו'. מקשים על הרב למה לא חילק בין קטן לגדול כדאיתא בפרק אין דורשין. ולי נראה שסבור הרב ז"ל דכי מייתי תלמודא בתר הכי כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא ר' מאיר אכל תחלא ושדי שיחלא לברא היינו לומר דפליג אמאי דמפלגינן בין קטן לגדול ודוקא ר"מ דרב גובריה הוא דמצי למעבד הכי ולא חכם אחר ומסתייעא הדין פירושא מההוא עובדא דמייתינן בר"פ [בתרא] דמועד קטן דההוא דהוו סנו שומעניה דשמתיה רב יהודה אף על גב דהוו צריכי ליה רבנן וסתם רבנן הוו גדולים..
The challenge is raised on the Rambam, why he didn't distinguish between a child and an adult, as we see in Chagigah. And to me it appears that the Rambam reasons that when the Talmud after that brings the teaching of Rav Dimi it is disagreeing with the distinction made between an adult and a child, and saying davka R. Meir, who was a great man, could act thus, and not even another wise person.
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...
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.
(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
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.
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
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)? 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.
אמנם עדיין צריך עיון, שהרי אסור ללמוד מרב שאינו הגון, כמו שהתבאר למעלה (פ"ח) אצל רבי מאיר, שלמד תורה מאחר (חגיגה טו:). וגם זה אין* ראייה, דשם אמר כשהוא לומד מפיו, ויש לו התקרבות וחבור אל הרב שמקבל ממנו שאינו הגון, ולכך אסור. אבל מן החבורים שחברו אין שייך זה. מכל מקום צריך עיון ללמוד בחבורים שלהם אשר הם דברים נגד תורת משה רבינו עליו השלום, בחדוש העולם, ובידיעות השם יתברך, ובהשארת הנפש, ועולם הבא, אם יש לעיין בהם. כי אולי יש לחוש "כי נופת תטופנה שפתי זרה" (משלי ה, ג), שמדברים דברים לפי שכלם, לא מן הקבלה כלל, רק לפי חקירתם, ויש לחוש באולי יהיה המעיין נמשך אחר דבריהם וראייתם, כמו שמצינו בני אדם שהיו נמשכים אחריהם, כאשר רוצים לפתות* שכל האדם, אשר שכל האדם קצר להשיג הדבר על אמיתתו.
אך אמנם אם דעתו כמו שאמרו (אבות פ"ב מי"ד) "ודע מה* שתשיב לאפיקורס", ואם לא ידע דבריהם איך ידע להשיב על דבריהם, ואם כן צריך לדעת דבריהם. ודבר זה בודאי מותר אם כוונתו ללמוד דבריהם כדי שידע להשיב לאפיקורס, כי דבר זה אזהרה רבה ויתירה כמו שאמרו "ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס", ומנו זה עם דברים גדולים, שמזה תראה כי נחשב זה דבר גדול ביותר. ולענין זה מותר ולא נחוש שיהיה נמשך אחר דעתם, אם תחלת כוונתו לסתור דבריהם כאשר דברו נגד התורה ודעת חכמים.
בדבר למוד דברי רשות לילדים, ואיך הוא כשמחבר ספר ההוא אינו שומר תורה י"ט כסלו תשכ"ו. מע"כ ידידי הנכבד מהר"ר משה הלוי אייזעמאן שליט"א.
הנה ודאי דברים אשר נכתבו שמות המחברים שמפורסמים לרשעים וכופרים בהשי"ת ובתורתו הקדושה, אף שאין בהם דברי כפירה אסור ללמד אותם לילדי ישראל, כי אף שהא דכתב הרמב"ם בפ"ו מיסוה"ת בס"ת שכתבו אפיקורס מצוה לשרפו כדי שלא להניחו שם לאפיקורסים ולא למעשיהם, לא שייך לאסור עניני חול, דרק בעניני קדושה נאמר שלא להניח להם ולמעשיהם שם בקדושה, אבל בעניני חול ליכא איסור זה, כדחזינן מכל דברים שנתחדשו מחכמות הטבע ועניני רפואות שיש בהם הרבה דברים שנתחדשו ע"י רשעים וכופרים וכל העולם משתמשין עמהם, וכן הוא למודי שפה שהוא ענין חול.
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?”
"There are not enough Jews in Eretz Yisrael in general, and in Judea and Samaria, in particular… In other words, as long as there are not enough Jews to settle the entire land, its’ [sic] length and breadth, until there are no desolate places remaining, God sees to it that in a natural way that enemies will remain in the land. As the Torah says: ‘I will not drive them away from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field outnumber you. I will drive them out from before you little by little, until you have increased and can occupy the land’ (Exodus 23:27-31). After Am Yisrael increases and becomes stronger, physically and spiritually — the enemies will leave. Conceivably, some of them will join us, and thus, turn from enemies to allies. And there will probably be those who will fight and be defeated, and others who will prefer to emigrate to another country.⁷"
...Among Melamed’s rulings are attempts to make it possible for Jews who observe stricter standards of kashrut to eat in the homes of those with different practices⁸ and the suggestion that stainless steel may have a different halakhic status for kashrut that would offer more leniency...In his section on kashrut in Peninei Halakhah, Melamed explicitly frames a leniency around permitting wine that has been touched by Jews who are not Shabbat-observant as being “in order to prevent offense or injury to the brotherhood that must exist between Jews.”⁹
These leniencies must be read througwh Melamed’s focus on Jewish unity as an ethnonationalist project. What is the value of breaking bread together? It builds connections. In his own words, eating is not just eating; it is a means by which “we can fulfill our purpose of establishing God’s kingship in the world.”
Further, Melamed was criticized for his lenient niddah opinions in one of the same letters in which he was attacked by critics from the right for dialoguing with liberal Jews....¹⁰
Among Melamed’s landmark controversial opinions, both in content and for his willingness to write it down for the public to access, is permission for women who have frequent menstrual spotting to wear colored underwear, rather than white underwear, during the period of niddah observance when that is typically required.¹¹ This workaround enables women to end their menstrual separation from their partners earlier and resume their sex lives.
On one hand, this is a quasi-feminist position, offering a reading of halakhah that offers women (slightly) more agency and less limitation. However, remember that Melamed is committed to a Jewish majoritarian goal, with one important means being birth. Reading Melamed’s ruling through the lens of his Jewish supremacism ought to make us skeptical of the progressivism of this leniency. After all, enabling more married straight couples to have sex is a key tool for “Am Yisrael [to] increase and become stronger.” Is it feminist, or is it just fascist?
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.