By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

There is no question that Rebbitzen David a”h was a remarkable person, a master mechaneches for over six decades, who imbued yiras shamayim within her thousands of talmidos.  At Nais Yaakov Yerushalayim (BJJ) and even earlier, she had literally changed the landscape of Torah Judaism.

The fact is, however, that the name “Bruriah” was not a common name among eastern European Jews, nor was it common among western European Jews.  True, there is no question that we was a tzadaikes and in the times of the Tannaim and Amoraim she was quite legendary.  She was the daughter of Rav Chananya ben Tradyon, and the wife of the great Tannaitic sage, Rabbi Meir – but there appears to be a very disturbing incident recorded in Rashi in Avodah Zarah 18b.

It is an incident that would appear to be a game-changer regarding naming someone after her.

The incident in the Rashi would appear to indict her for two very serious offenses – that of taking one’s own life and that of, when greatly challenged, marital infidelity.

Rav Hutner zt”l, a close Talmid of the Alter of Slabodka had certainly absorbed both aspects of the Alter’s understanding of Dakei Dakos.  The first is that when we speak of the Avos and others in Tanach, any aveirah is one that is infinitesimal from our perspective.  The Alter’s second understanding of this idea is that even a subtle encounter with something wrong, can cause a microscopic, barely detectable change in our apperception of the seriousness of an aveirah.

How then could it be that Rav Hutner zt”l would name his daughter after such a serious indictment of her namesake in the Rashi of Avodah Zarah 18b?

A SECOND QUESTION

Another question that can be posed is where on earth did Rashi get this startling information from?  It is not found anywhere in the Bavli nor in the Yerushalmi or any of the extant Midrashim.  This second question is so profound that Rav Yosha Ber Soloveitchik zatzal’s son, Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, in his most recent book, employs this as a proof that there was another, third Yeshiva community in Babylonia – that was different than the Yeshiva communities of Sura and Pumpedisa.  This third Yeshiva had its own traditions and teachings that were received.  This third Yeshiva community, according to Professor Soloveitchik were the antecedents of the Chasidei Ashkenaz and had made their way toward Germany from Bavel.  The Chasidei Ashkenaz were the teachers of Rashi, and he had received the tradition of that incident from them, according to Professor Soloveitchik’s theory!

A NEW THEORY

Perhaps a theory can be proposed as to why Rav Hutner zatzal named his daughter after Rav Meir’s wife.  This theory, can also provide a different answer as to the source of this Rashi.  Finally, this theory could gives rise to a secondary problem, which could have been the reason why Rav Hutner chose to remain silent about why he named his daughter after Rav Meir’s wife – Bruriah.

Rav Hutner zatzal, no doubt, thoroughly reviewed every aspect of the sugya in the Gemorah.  His mastery of the mesechta and of the ways of the Rishonim was also quite legendary.  He is known for his Pacha Yitzchok, but anyone that has ever examined his Toras HaNazir begins to realize and appreciate the profundity and sheer brilliance of this great Rosh Yeshiva.

A TRIP BACK IN TIME

Let’s use our imagination a bit, and travel back in time, to an earlier period in Rav Hutner’s life.  We are in the Beis Midrash in either Chevron, Eretz Yisroel or in Slabodka, Lithuania (or perhaps even earlier).  Before us stands a young and somewhat perplexed Rav Yitzchak Hutner.

Let us attempt to unfold his latent processes of thinking.  Rav Hutner reads the Rashi.  He does a double take.  How could it be that Rabbi Meir suggested a clear violation of the Torah prohibition of Lifnei Iver?  It is also a double Lifnei Iver – one for his student, and one for his own wife!?!  He now does a triple-take.  He is also bothered by the second question mentioned above – how come there is no mention of this in Shas or elsewhere?  “Hmm..,” he considers. But, no conclusions yet.

Now, he does what other Yeshiva students do, and have done for centuries.  Rav Hutner subjects the words of the Tosfos to intense scrutiny – not just on this sugyah, but on the entire amud and chapter.

“Wait!  There is no mention of the entire topic here!” How could it be?  Perhaps an error entered the text? And how could it be that there is no mention of this incident here with Bruriah when it comes to the permission to take one’s own life?”

Rav Hutner, it seems, concluded that a grave error had entered into our texts – and this grave error had destroyed the pristine and pure reputation of this  incredible person!  Furthermore, she was orphaned from her parents!”

He researches further.  He sees the approach of the Tiferes Yisroel on the topic, but rejects it.  “That approach as well, does not do justice to either of them.”

And now the quandary.  Re-correcting an error that crept into a Rashi could open the door to other people, incorrectly, re-correcting Rishonim.  He chooses to name his daughter after her, but he remains quiet about his reasoning.  True, we must do what we can to salvage her reputation and that of Rav Meir too.  But, perhaps, Rav Hutner reasoned, “we cannot do it at the expense of the future Torah learning of Klal Yisroel.”

And so, Rav Hutner remained silent as to his reasons.  His action of naming saved the reputation of Bruriah.  And his silence, or inaction,  vouchsaved the correct methodology of not changing texts indiscriminately. It is a unique combination.

And perhaps, even more uniquely, this father and daughter team, was perhaps the greatest such promoters of future Torah learning of any father-daughter team in all of Jewish history.

The author can be reached at [email protected]