## Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I

###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:1
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20I/r/15:1)

וכמו שכתבנו באות י"א, דחכמי בבל ידעו להוקיר קבלת חכמי א"י, כך ידעו חכמי התו' מעלת הגאונים שראו אור הקבלה, ובכ"פ נחתו גם המה מפני קדושת דבריהם של הגאונים, ואמרו שהם דברי קבלה.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
**SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE APPROACHES OF THE TOSAFISTS, NAHMANIDES AND MAIMONIDES**
JUST AS THE SAGES of Babylonia, as described in chapter 11, were respectful of the sages of the Land of Israel due to their knowledge of Torah traditions, so were the Tosafists [respectful] of the Geonim. The Tosafists were aware of the superior knowledge of the Geonim, which they had [gained from] the light of tradition. Many times the Tosafists modestly humbled themselves before the Geonim because of the holiness of their words, acknowledging that they expressed the words of tradition.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:2
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20I/r/15:2)

אמנם מרוב הרגלם לעמוד על החקירה, לבם לא נכון עמם בהחלט גמורה ולא נתנו אימון בכל דבר שלא מצאו את הפתח והאורה, והרי אנו רואים גאון יעקב ר"ת ז"ל שלענין עדות אשה שראה, בחכמתו הגדולה להתיר אחר ג' ימים ע"י הכרת גוף שלם, ומבואר בסה"י שסומך עצמו על דקדוק קל בלשון בה"ג, ולענין אבלות יום ראשון שנראה להם לפי דרכם שהוא מדרבנן, דחה דברי בה"ג בגילא דחיטתא דסגי נהור הוה כו'.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
However, since the Tosafists were accustomed to relying on deep analysis, their hearts were not with [the Geonim] consistently and with strong conviction¹ [that is, they did not always follow geonic decisions], nor did the Tosafists place faith in any matter if they themselves did not find the entrance and the light.² For behold the great genius, Yaakov – that is, Rabbenu Tam³. of blessed memory. [In one case, where a woman’s husband was missing], he with his great wisdom allowed her to remarry on the basis of testimony from a witness who had seen [the husband’s corpse] three days after he had expired. [Although the facial features were not clear so long after death], he relied on the witness’s recognition of the entire body.⁴92, is cited in Tosafos’s commentary on the *Mishnah* in Tractate *Yevamos* 120a. The *mishnah* in *Yevamos* states: “Evidence [of identity regarding a dead man] may be lawfully tendered [to allow the widow to remarry] only on [proof afforded by] the full face with the nose, though there were also marks on the man’s body or clothing…. Evidence [of identification] may be tendered only [by those who saw the corpse] within three days [after death, since, after this period, decomposition would make identification difficult].” Rabbenu Tam argues that the *Mishnah*’s requirement that the identification of the corpse can only be performed within three days of death applies only when a head remains and parts of the body are missing. However, when a complete corpse is available, the body may be identified even after three days. For the ability of one to recognize an object by viewing it in its entirety, *tevias ayin*, is the strongest form of identification, even if parts of the body such as the face are mutilated. See also *Shulhan Aruch, Even ha-Ezer* 17:26. The Netziv also discusses this topic in detail in *Meshiv Davar* 3:28. It is clear from what Rabbenu Tam writes in his *Sefer ha-Yashar*, that he based his opinion on a nuance in the words of the Bahag.⁵Some, including the Netziv, attribute the work to R. Yehudai Gaon (Yehudai ben Nahman), the director of the academy of Sura from 757 to 761 C.E. Others attribute the authorship to R. Shimon Kayyara (ninth century). Since the Bahag describes the *mishnah*in *Yevamos* using the word *simanim*, Rabbenu Tam uses that as a proof to support his argument that the three-day requirement applies to a case in which there are only ordinary signs and a lack of *tevias ayin.* Rabbenu Tam also infers that ordinary signs, as stated in that *mishnah,* are rabbinic; they are used as a means to verify that a woman’s husband is dead, since the prohibition on her remarrying is based on rabbinic stringencies imposed where her husband was said to have drowned in a very large body of water, *mayim she-ein lahem sof*. The rabbis required witnesses to see and identify the body because it might be possible to say that her husband survived, and we could not see and verify without doubt that he escaped drowning. However, pertaining to the laws of mourning, the Tosafists held that the first day of mourning is rabbinic. Thus, they rejected the words of the Bahag with a straw of wheat [a weak argument]. As [the Tosafist, the Ri] stated, “R. Yehudai Gaon, the *Ba’al Halachos* [the Bahag], was a great lamp [for Israel, yet at times his students would use his name to write matters that he did not direct nor intend to write].”⁶ [Thus, since the Tosafists could not logically accept the Bahag’s opinion as stated. They felt that they could reject that opinion and concluded that it was written by a student].

footnotes:
¹ These words are from Psalms 78:37, “But their heart was not constant… and they were not steadfast….”
² The Netziv is using a metaphor he employed in chapter 9, where the doorway and the light in the palace are representative of the knowledge of the traditions that enable one to navigate the pathways of the Talmud.
³ Jacob ben Meir (Rabbenu) Tam (1100–June 9, 1171), the most prominent of the French Tosafists, was born at Ramerupt on the Seine and died at Troyes. Some of his responsa are collected in Sefer ha-Yashar
⁴ This ruling, which is written in Rabbenu Tam’s book, Sefer ha-Yashar, siman
⁵ Bahag is an acronym for Ba’al Halachos Gedolos, meaning the author of the work Halachos Gedolos.
⁶ According to the Bahag, if one dies on the last day of Yom Tov outside of Israel, mourning must be observed on that day because the first day of mourning is mandated by the Torah, while the last day of Yom Tov outside of Israel is a rabbinic commandment.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:3
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20I/r/15:3)

ועל רבינו בעל השאלתות כ' בסה"י שהוא ראש לגאונים, ולענין דבר שא"מ דחו דברי רבינו בשבת ד' קי"ד כבר בי רב דח"י ולא שמו לב ליישב דברי אור עולם, אשר אין דבר ממנו נעלם. וכבר הראית לדעת בסי' ק"ה בס"ד אשר שיטת הערוך בפ"ר דלא ניחא לי' מדברי רבינו נגזרים, ודבריהם מאירים מוצקים כסיפורים.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
Also, pertaining to our master, the Sheiltos, he is described by Rabbenu Tam in his *Sefer ha-Yashar* as being the most eminent of the Geonim,⁷, the Netziv references *siman* 618 of *Sefer ha-Yashar*. I was unable to find the reference. yet, pertaining to *davar she-eino miskaven*,⁸ 110a. an unintentional activity, the [Tosafists] in Tractate *Shabbos* 100b, rejected our master’s [the She’iltos’s] words, [viewing him] as if he were a [mere] student at the academy, lacking in knowledge. They [the Tosafists] did not attempt to answer the obvious questions that they raised against the one who was the world’s lamp, the one from whom no Torah matter was hidden.⁹) writes that concerning a*davar she-eino miskaven*, Halachah accords with R. Shim’on when it pertains to acts affecting Sabbath observance, but accords with R. Judah when it pertains to other areas of ritual law. Tosafos disagrees with the opinion of the She’iltos, and argues that Halachah accords with R. Shim’on in all areas of ritual law. You already know¹⁰ that I wrote in *Ha’amek She’elah*, chapter 105, Section 4, the true understanding of this Sheiltos and how the opinion of the Aruch¹¹ was written by Nasan ben Yehiel, who is known as the greatest Talmudic scholar of the eleventh century. It explains legal terms, provides etymologies and explanations of foreign words (including those in Aramaic, Latin, Greek, Arabic, and Persian), and made the Talmud more accessible to students. Nasan cited Geonic interpretations, the commentary of Rabbenu Gershom, and relied heavily on the writings of Hananel ben Hushiel. pertaining to *pesik reshe de-lo niha leh¹²).* was derived from the Sheiltos, whose words are illuminating and as impervious as sapphire.¹³ 4:8 says, “Is sapphire a weak item? Said R. Pinhas, ‘There is a story of a man who went to Rome to sell a sapphire stone. A buyer told the seller that he would buy it on the condition that he could inspect it. He placed the sapphire stone upon an anvil and struck it, which caused the anvil to split in half while the sapphire remained intact.’”

footnotes:
⁷ In Pesah Ha’amek
⁸ Translated literally as “an unintentional activity.” If one intends to perform an act that is permissible in itself, it may result in the manifestation of something that is prohibited. For example, if one intends to perform a permissible act such as walking barefoot on grass on Shabbos, this may result in uprooting the grass, which is prohibited on Shabbos. It is a disagreement among the tannaim, with R. Shimon holding that it is permitted and R. Judah holding that it is not. The example cited pertains to the Sabbath, but this issue pertains to other areas as well, such as castration, which is discussed in Tractate Shabbos
⁹ Rav Ahai Gaon in the She’iltos on Leviticus (Emor
¹⁰ Deut. 4:35.
¹¹ The Aruch
¹² This means one who performs a permissible act that will inevitably result in the manifestation of something prohibited, and the performer of the work is satisfied with the result. For example, one washes his hands (a permissible act) above his plants, which will result in the watering of his plants (prohibited because of zorea
¹³ See Lam. 4:7, “Her princes were purer than snow, whiter than milk; their appearance was ruddier than rubies, their form was like sapphire,” on which the Echah Rabbati


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:4
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20I/r/15:4)

גם מאור עיננו הרמב"ן ז"ל אשר מסר נפשו על דברי הגאונים, ובכל כחו עמל ליישבם, בכ"ז באשר לא הי' לו באור דבריהם, מפיהם אלא מפי כתבם, וגם הוא חכם בפלפולה ש"ת כא' מחכמי התו' המורים והמלמדים, לכן במה שאינו בדבריהם כ"כ מפורש יוצא הי' מטה דברי הגאונים לדעתו הגדולה, והוביל תהלוכות לשונם ולשון הרי"ף לדרכו הסלולה.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
Similarly, the light of our eyes, the Ramban [Nahmanides] of blessed memory, sacrificed his life for the Geonim and toiled with all his strength to answer questions that were raised against them. Even so, because he was knowledgeable in the art of pilpul of the Torah, equal [in stature] to the authoritative and erudite sages of the Tosafists, if the explanation of the [geonic sages’] words was not available to him – that is, if he lacked the oral tradition and possessed only their written words, if the latter were not explicitly expressed, he would slant the words of the Geonim to suit his brilliant opinion and would interpret R. Yitzchak Alfasi and the geonic statements to support his paved paths, [that is, his own well-thought-out approach].


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:5
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20I/r/15:5)

לא כן ראשון להוראה הרמב"ם ז"ל אור הגולה, הוא למד מרבו מאביו רבינו מיימון והר"י מיגש קבלת הגאונים וגירסותיהם מלה במלה, המרומז בספרו של רבינו ובה"ג ואחריהם בספר הרי"ף על סדר נכון ונעלה, וידע רמיזותיו ושתיקותיו הכל בקבלה, לבד שיד ה' עליו נגלה להוציא מתעלומות אומר סלה, ובכ"מ שהגאונים ז"ל מחולקים והאמת נשאלת, דעתו הרחבה מני ים סמכתהו לברור סולת מסולת, ולראות בעין יפה מי הוא בא מחטי מכולת.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
This was not so with the foremost of the authorities, the Rambam, of blessed memory, the Lamp of the Exile. He learned the geonic traditions and concepts with the exact version of their [Talmudic] texts, as hinted at in the master’s books, [the Sheiltos], and the works of the Bahag, and afterwards, R. Yitzchak Alfasi. [He learned all this] in a well organized and exemplary manner from his father and teacher, R. Maimon, and from the Ri Migash.¹⁴ The Rambam, apart from the fact that the hand of God was upon him, enabling him to produce eternal words [drawn] from that which is hidden, knew through tradition the hints and unexpressed concepts known to the Geonim. In all instances when the Geonim were in disagreement and the truth was being investigated [in order to determine the Halachah], his intellect, being more expansive than the oceans, assisted him in sifting fine flour into flour of the highest quality, and to distinguish with a perceiving eye the wheat that sustains all who eat it.¹⁵

footnotes:
¹⁴ The Rambam was only six years old at the death of R. Yoseph ibn Migash (Ri Migash, Seville, 1077–Lucena, 1141). Since Rambam’s father, Maimon, taught him many of the teachings of Ri Migash, the Rambam refers to him as his teacher even though he did not learn from him directly.
¹⁵ The determined halachah sustains the world like food.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:6
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part I 15:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20I/r/15:6)

וראוי לנבון לדעת דכמו דהברייתות דת"כ וספרי ומכילתא אע"ג שהמה שביל מפולש מתורה שבכתב לתורה שבע"פ ששנינו במשנתינו, מכ"מ יש הרבה ברייתות שהתלמוד נטה מהם כמבואר אצלי בבאור הספרי בס"ד, ואומרים אנו שחכמי התלמוד ידעו בקבלה שיש חולק בזה הפרט, ולזה שומעין שאמר כהלכה, וע' סי' קכ"ח אות א', כך אע"ג שספרי רבינו ובה"ג והרי"ף הם היו שביל מפולש להרמב"ם ז"ל מהתלמוד לפסק הלכה למעשה, מכ"מ יש הרבה פיסקי דינים, שנטה מהם, ואומרים אנו, שידע בקבלה שיש גאון חולק עליהם, ולזה שומעין שאמר כהלכה.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
It is befitting for those who possess understanding to know that [even though] the *baraisos*of the *Toras Kohanim*,¹⁶, one of the earliest commentaries on Vayikra. the *Sifrei*¹⁷ is the oldest commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy. While both the *Sifra* and *Sifrei* are tannaitic Midrashim because they contain attributions to the tannaitic sages mentioned in the *Mishnah*, they were written by the amoraim. The authorship of these compilations is discussed further by the Netziv in Part 2, chapter 8. and the *Mechilta*,¹⁸ written by the school of R. Yishmael. are an open pathway leading from the Written Torah to the Oral Laws that are taught in our Mishnah, nevertheless, there are many *baraisos*from which the Talmud would deviate. I explained this clearly, with Heaven’s help, in my commentary on the *Sifrei*, where I argue that the sages of the Talmud knew through tradition that there were other Sages who disagreed with these *baraisos*on particular points, and that the Halachah was in accordance with those Sages. See what I wrote in *Ha’amek She’elah*, 128:1, that even though the books of the She’iltos, Bahag and R. Yitzchak Alfasi provided the Rambam, of blessed memory, with an open passageway from the Talmud to practical Halachah, there are, nevertheless, many halachic decisions that the Rambam rendered that deviated from these authorities. As we stated, the Rambam had a tradition that there were other Geonim who disagreed with [the above mentioned geonic authorities], and he ruled that the Halachah was in accordance with those other geonic opinions.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Also known as Sifra
¹⁷ The Sifrei
¹⁸ The earliest commentary on the Book of Shemos