The following question arose while I was learning with someone: since Eliyahu HaNavi attends all britot, surely that means that he goes outside Tchum on Shabbatot?
Thanks, in anticipation
Marc Abrahams, Beit Shemesh, Israel
The CHASAM SOFER in Likutim (6:98) explains that when Eliyahu arrives at a Bris, he does not arrive in physical form. Only the Neshama of Eliyahu arrives at a Bris, just as is said regarding Eliyahu coming to every Pesach Seder. When Eliyahu only comes with his Neshama, he is exempt from Mitzvos. However, when Eliyahu comes to herald the coming of Moshiach he will indeed come in his body, which the Chasam Sofer says is currently resting in Gan Eden. Whenever he is in his body, he has the status of a "regular" person who has to keep Mitzvos.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
Thank you so much for this.
My question would be why the Gemara doesn't take this approach in its answer - I presume Eliyahu HaNavi could have taught the Halachot without being in physical form?
I don't exactly have a precedent to give you about a Neshama giving Derashos in shul. There could be many reasons why Hashem would only allow Eliyahu Hanavi to give a Shiur in bodily form. For example, it is possible that being that Eliyahu has two forms and in his physical form he is Chayev in Mitzvos, Hashem would rather that he give the shiur in a state where he is more subject to Halachah. Alternatively, it is possible that not everyone present would merit being taught by the Neshama of Eliyahu Hanavi. There could be other reasons as well.
Kol Tuv,
Yaakov Montrose
The cited CHASAM SOFER addresses this very question in D"H Aval ha'Emeth.
His answer: If Eliyahu HaNavi would have taught those Halachot, it would have had to be in his carnal form, as is his custom to do when he sheds light on Halachic matters.
(Earlier in that Dibur the CHASAM SOFER has established, that Torah and Dinim taught by Eliyahu in his spiritual form cannot be relied upon to rule in Halachic matters, since we don't rely on a Bath Kol.)
I would think that it would be possible to answer this question based upon the concept that "Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi". One of the interpretations of the term "Teku" regarding a question which remains unanswered in the gemara is that this word is an abbreviation for Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos V'abayos - Eliyahu will answer all questions and difficulties. The Mefarshim explain that Eliyahu will answer these questions in his role as a Talmid Chacham who is intimately familiar with Kol HaTorah Kula through his Limud HaTorah, not in his role as a Navi. Because "Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi", Eliyahu is not permitted to answer Torah questions as a Navi. We could possibly add, then, that when Eliyahu comes in the form of a neshama he is coming as a Navi and cannot decide the halachi in this role. The only way he could come and pasken halachos would be in the form of a human being with a body, and in this form an Eruv Techumim would be required on Shabbos or Yom Tov. I believe this concept was discussed more fully in one of your Insights.
Aharon Levine
The afore mentioned Insight is copied below. (Insights to the Daf, Eruvin 43:3)
3) THE HALACHOS TAUGHT BY ELIYAHU HA'NAVI
QUESTION: The Gemara relates that someone taught seven Halachos before Rav Chisda in Sura at the beginning of Shabbos, and he taught them again before Rabah in Pumbedisa at the end of Shabbos. The Gemara initially assumes that it was Eliyahu ha'Navi who taught the Halachos (because only Eliyahu is able to travel that far in one day). The Gemara concludes that it was "Yosef Sheida," Yosef the demon (who does not observe Shabbos).
The Gemara implies that had Eliyahu indeed taught the Halachos, his rulings would have been accepted. Similarly, we find in Berachos (3a) that Rebbi Yosi learned a number of Halachos from Eliyahu. The Gemara in numerous places leaves certain Halachic questions in doubt "until Eliyahu comes to resolve them for us" (see, for example, Sanhedrin 44a and Menachos 32a).
How are we to reconcile this with the teaching of RASHI in Shabbos (108a) who says that we may not rely on Eliyahu for Halachic questions involving matters of prohibitions (Isur v'Heter), but only for questions involving factual information? Moreover, the Gemara in Temurah (16a) teaches that we may not rely on a prophet even to remind us of a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that was forgotten. Why, then, may we rely on the Halachic teachings of Eliyahu ha'Navi?
ANSWERS:
(a) The MAHARATZ CHAYOS in Berachos (3a) explains that when Eliyahu ha'Navi (or any other prophet) teaches a Halachah as a prophecy, or Nevu'ah, from Hashem, we do not accept that ruling. However, when he teaches the Halachah as his personal opinion of Da'as Torah, then we may accept it. When Rashi in Shabbos says that Eliyahu cannot teach us a Halachah, he means that Eliyahu cannot teach us Halachos as Eliyahu ha'Navi -- in his capacity as a prophet. However, he may teach us Halachos in his role as a Chacham. (See also BIRKEI YOSEF OC 32:4, TORAH TEMIMAH to Vayikra 27:216, and CHASAM SOFER, Teshuvos 6:98, as cited by the DEVAR YAKOV to Bava Metzia 114a.)
The Maharatz Chayos in Bava Metzia (114a) explains that when Eliyahu gives a reason and a source for his ruling, his ruling is no different from the ruling of any other of the Chachamim of the generation.
Similarly, the TOSFOS YOM TOV in Eduyos (8:7), when he explains why we may rely on Eliyahu's future rulings on Halachic questions, says that Eliyahu will give his reasoning and proofs for his rulings.
(b) Similarly, when Eliyahu merely relates a Halachah that was taught already by someone else, we certainly accept it. Only when he, as a prophet, teaches a Halachah that was never taught do we not accept it. (See also Insights to Bava Metzia 114:1.)