Eliyahu HaNavi Zachur La’Tov

Often, the Gemara faces a halachic question that it can’t resolve. In that situation, the Gemara declares, “Tayku!” The simplest explanation of that word is that the question should stand. The Tosfos Yom Tov offers a variant explanation which has become very popular. He suggests that Tayku is an acronym for Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos V’Abayos – Eliyahu HaTishbi will answer these unresolved questions when Moshiach comes speedily in our days.

Fascinatingly, the Gemara (Bava Metzia 114b) records an incident where Rabba Bar Avuha asked Eliyahu HaNavi a question, and Tosfos says we do not follow his answer! Tosfos then enumerates other halachic rulings of Eliyahu that we do not follow. Tosfos wonders at this. Indeed, one could suggest that “Lo baShamayim hi,” and we should not follow Eliyahu HaNavi’s rulings at all. Tosfos does not entertain this possibility. The Chasam Sofer suggests that when Eliyah HaNavi takes an angelic form such as his appearance at a bris milah, we would not follow his rulings. However, in Bava Metzia and elsewhere, where Eliyahu took a corporeal form, he is to be treated as an eminent sage, and we would follow his rulings just as we would a living Torah scholar.

Rabba Bar Avuha asked Eliyahu HaNavi about a scenario where Beis Din enforces a monetary judgment and confiscates the debtor’s assets. Do they leave the debtor with some essentials such as cows to plow with? (According to some Rishonim) Eliyahu HaNavi answered there is a way to derive that law from the Torah that some of the debtor’s assets are exempt from collection. Yet, Rabbeinu Tam rules that those assets are not exempt from collection. If Rabba Bar Avuha asked Eliyahu this question, then we should accept his answer. Tosfos explains that Eliyahu was not deciding the halacha. The question has sages on both sides of the issue. The real question was what could be the Torah source of that law? Eliyahu answered what the source could be but didn’t mean to favor one side of the issue over the other side.

Rabba Bar Avuha then asked Eliyahu HaNavi why he was standing in a non-Jewish cemetery. He reasoned that since Eliyahu is a kohen he cannot stand there. Eliyahu HaNavi responded that gentile graves do not transmit tumah via ohel. Again, Tosfos says that we rule against Eliyahu HaNavi! Gentile graves should be treated the same as Jewish ones. (The Rema suggests that kohanim be strict and follow Tosfos’s opinion. (See “A Grave Matter” by this author for a fascinating story connected to this halacha.) Again, Tosfos is bothered by why Eliyahu’s specific ruling is not followed. Tosfos suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi did not mean to actually rule on this issue; he was simply trying to initiate a conversation with Rabba Bar Avuha to ascertain why Rabba Bar Avuha was not proficient in the laws of Taharos. (That’s one possible explanation of Tosfos.)

Tosfos cites yet another example where we do not follow Eliyahu HaNavi’s explicit ruling. After Rebbe Akiva was murdered by the Romans, Eliyahu HaNavi took upon himself the mitzvah of burying the martyr. Someone asked Eliyahu, “How could you bury Rebbe Akiva? Aren’t you a kohen?” Eliyahu HaNavi responded that righteous tzaddikim do not transmit tumah even after their passing. Tosfos says this ruling should not be followed. Indeed, the Pischei Teshuva quotes this very Tosfos to rule that a kohen cannot become tamei meis even to a tzaddik. Again, Tosfos wonders why we do not follow Eliyahu HaNavi’s clear ruling. Tosfos explains the real reason Eliyahu HaNavi was burying Rebbe Akiva was that no one else wanted to. It was dangerous to bury a man executed by the government. Therefore, Rebbe Akiva was a meis mitzvah, and even a kohen is allowed to bury a meis mitzvah. Eliyahu HaNavi felt that this answer would have slighted Rebbe Akiva to suggest that no one wanted to bury him. Instead, he suggested that Rebbe Akiva was so righteous that he was above the laws of tumah. Eliyahu did not expect his ruling to be followed.

Then, Tosfos records a fascinating incident which provides an alternate answer to the last two questions. The real reason that Eliyahu HaNavi was allowed to stand in a cemetery and bury Rebbe Akiva was that, in fact, he was not a kohen! Tosfos cites Eliyahu Rabba that suggested that Eliyahu HaNavi was a descendant of the children of Leah. Eliyahu HaNavi himself responded that, in fact, he is from Shevet Binyamin! He even cited his lineage. They countered that in Melachim (11) Eliyahu HaNavi told a woman to bake bread for herself and her son. However, he asked that he should be given the first small loaf. They suggested, “Weren’t you asking for a small loaf first because you wanted the widow to separate challah? As a kohen is entitled to challah.” Eliyahu responded, “No. I asked for a small loaf because that child was Moshiach ben Yosef. I wanted to hint to him that when the time comes, I will arrive first to herald the arrival of Moshiach ben Yosef.”

Why didn’t Eliyahu HaNavi want to admit that he was not a kohen? Tosfos suggests an answer. The time for Moshiach should come soon, and we will be able to ask Eliyahu himself.