Kol Hamevaser Contents Volume IV, Issue 4 December 21, 2010 / 14 Tevet 5771 Editorial Jonathan Ziring 3 Derekh ha-Limmud: The Means, Modes, and Methodologies of Jewish Learning Letters-to-the-Editor Staff Daniel Danesh 4

Reuven Rand 4 Editors-in-Chief Sarit Bendavid Derekh ha-Limmud Shlomo Zuckier Aryeh Klapper 5 Can Retson Hashem matter in Lomdus? Mitsvah ha-Ba’ah ba-Aveirah and the Associate Editors Ilana Gadish Limitations of Formalism Jonathan Ziring Danny Shulman 6 Torat Hesed and Torat Hayyim: Learning Layout Editor as a Living Document Shaul Seidler-Feller Gabriel Weinberg Ilana Gadish 8 Torah al Levavenu: Learning Transformatively Staff Writers Daniela Aaron AJ Berkovitz 10 Why Chicken Scratch on Stone, Clay, AJ Berkovitz and Pots Matters: A Case Study in Amos Yitzhak Bronstein and Archeology Ariel Caplan Chana Cooper Jake Friedman Ilana Gadish 11 An Interview with Rabbi Moshe Kahn Ori Kanefsky Chesky Kopel Moshe Peters 12 Yivhar E-lohim Hiddushim Danielle Lent Toviah Moldwin Daniela Aaron 14 Theodicy in Tanakh – A Practical Lesson Eli Putterman in Knowledge of God Kaitlyn Respler Danny Shulman Staff 18 An Interview with Rabbi Eli Baruch Yaakov Taubes Shulman

Webmaster David Pruwer 20 Why Doesn’t Halakhic Man Learn Ag- Ariel Krakowski gadah? Cover Design Yehezkel Carl Dani Lent 22 On Things, Theseus and Tum’ah: Meta- physical Underpinnings in the Talmud

Rabbi Micha Berger 24 Brisk and Telz About Kol Hamevaser Ariel Krakowski 26 To Understand and to Comprehend: The Study of Talmud From Joshua to the Kol Hamevaser, the Jewish thought magazine of the University stu- Present dent body, is dedicated to sparking discussion of Jewish issues on the campus and beyond.The magazine hopes to facilitate the religious Joshua E. Broyde 29 Who’s in Charge of Understanding the and intellectual growth of its readership and serves as a forum for students Mishnah? to express their views on a variety of issues that face the Jewish community. It also provides opportunities for young scholars to grow in their intellectual General Jewish Thought pursuits and mature into confident Jewish leaders. Kol Hamevaser is pub- lished on a monthly basis and its primary contributors are undergraduates, Chana Cooper 30 Rock the Vote: , Politics, and Tikkun although it also includes input from RIETS Roshei Yeshivah, YU Professors, Olam and outside scholars. In addition to its print magazine, it also sponsors spe- This magazine contains words of Torah. cial events, speakers, discussion groups, conferences, and shabbatonim. Please treat it with proper respect. The magazine can be found online at www.kolhamevaser.com. 2 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud Derekh ha-Limmud: The Means, Modes, and Methodologies of Jewish Learning BY: Jonathan Ziring what standards are expected, and we become we expected to bring ourselves to the texts? The question can also be raised as to whether accountable to those standards that we have set Peters argues for the importance of hiddush such findings can change Halakhah? The ha- ocrates famously said, “The unexamined up. To develop a methodology is to both rec- (novel understandings) generally, while Broyde lakhic process generally does not allow for it, life is not worth living.” The same can ognize the complexity of the topic at hand and focuses on whether we should attempt to un- but are there circumstances in which it might? Sbe said of the methods applied in schol- to admit that the process of human thought derstand the Mishnah independently of the Even if they should not change Halakhah, arship. Almost all fields of study are dominated must itself be subjected to rigorous analysis if Gemara’s lens. Each of these articles raises the should they change how we view or frame the- by methodology; it is rare to find an area of it is to be as objective as possible. For both question of why it is that we traditionally as- ology, the stories of Tanakh, and the aggadot scholarship that does not attempt to approach these reasons, if we value the subject matter, we cribe more validity to sources simply due to and midrashim of Hazal? Are there distinctions the issues under investigation in a rigorous must value and understand the process we use their historical precedence.x between these categories, and, if so, why? manner, with each discipline developing its to study it. This means not just developing and With the questions of how and what we Jews are the people of the Book. Study own tools and techniques to approach the ques- explicitly explaining methodologies, but ques- should study come the even broader questions: has always defined us and continues to do so, tions it is devoted to exploring. This process is tioning them. In other words, to paraphrase why do we study in the first place? To gather and thus it behooves us to understand what we often subconscious: the methodology may be Socrates, “The unexamined methodology is not knowledge? To understand the word of God? do in our study and how we do it. For a people used, but not understood. Sometimes the ma- worth using.” We must question the classic To derive practical legal conclusions? Ilana whose identity is tied up with erudition, there terial is subject to rigorous study, but the modes of study and ask how we can use new Gadish discusses the importance of connecting are few things as central to understanding our- process itself is not. methodologies and new resources to enhance existentially to even the most complex Talmu- selves than developing and understanding dark- However, sometimes this process is a our understanding of every facet of Torah. dic discussions. Daniela Aaron analyzes how hei ha-limmud. conscious one, and in recent years many disci- With self-conscious study come many questions of theodicy should be approached in plines have attempted to become more aware questions, many of which will be dealt with in the study of Tanakh. Do we want to engage Jonathan Ziring is a senior at YC major- of the methodologies they use. As a friend of this issue, both through the articles written and the word of God in its original context or un- ing in Philosophy and Jewish Studies and is an mine once put it, “All good history these days the interviews conducted with Moshe derstand it simply as it speaks to us today? Per- Associate Editor for Kol Hamevaser. is historiography.” But what about Torah Kahn and . For example, haps we should attempt a balance between study? Should we cognizantly develop a the question arises as to how much time should these two, creating a calibrated worldview that methodology, either by trying to understand be spent studying Talmud and Tanakh, respec- combines both, understanding to what the i This is evident from the mass of literature that and formalize the tools that were previously im- tively? This question finds many answers in Torah was responding and internalizing the val- has developed about historiography, philosophy plicitly used or by developing our own methods the various medieval understandings of the Tal- ues that emerge from the Torah’s unique per- of science, and the like. by assessing our goals in study and the best mud’s suggested division of study,iv an issue spective. R. Micha Berger explores whether ii For an argument against removing ourselves means of achieving them? Some would aver which Ariel Krakowski examines in his article. we are looking for the “what” or the “why,” from texts, see “The Path of Torah” – Introduc- that we should not. I remember that one late Within the Talmud, what is the role of the legal showing the problems of removing philosophy tion to R. Eliyahu Bloch, Shi’urei Da’at (Tel Friday night in Yeshiva, a student from another portions in contrast to that of the aggadot? from legal questions. R. Berger highlights the Aviv: Netsah Publications, 1948). He develops yeshivah argued that when studying Torah we David Pruwer explores this question in his ar- potential shortcomings of the “Brisker a theory of that posits an intrinsic are looking for truth, and thus we should not ticle. When we study the commentaries on the Derekh,” the dominant approach to Torah study connection between understanding of the self bind ourselves to any specific methodology, be- Talmud (or the legal codes that attempt to cod- in most Lithuanian yeshivot, as developed by and understanding of the Torah. cause if we were do that, we would inevitably ify the laws of the Talmud), should we focus on R. Hayyim Soloveichik of Brisk (1853-1918), iii Sanhedrin 17a. end up worshiping the methodology and look- or Aharonim? If we are to favor the by comparing it to the Telzer approach. We iv Gerald J. Blidstein, “Who is Not a Jew? – The ing for answers that we think should flow from study of one over the other, is that a function of must ask whether this will depend on the texts Medieval Discussion,” Israel Law Review 11 that methodology rather than simply searching the assumed formal authority ascribed to the we are studying. Perhaps we only care about (1996): 369-390. for truth. By doing this, we would have forgot- authors of the texts, or is it based on the as- the “what” in legal discussions, but the “why” v See Kiddushin 30a, Tosafot ad loc., s.v. lo ten our commitment to understanding the word sumed quality of their work?v Should we study has value on a philosophical level. Is it even tserikha, and Rambam, , Hilkhot of God and replaced it with a commitment to theoretical texts or practical-legal ones?vi possible to separate these two? R. Klapper and 1:11, for example. our derekh ha-limmud. When you have a ham- Within legal texts, should precedence be given Danielle Lent each choose particular topics as vi This question is debated by Kesef Mishneh, mer, everything looks like a nail, and by creat- to codes of law or responsa, which reflect the case studies, applying Talmudic methodologies Hilkhot Mamrim 2:1, Hazon Ish ad loc., and ing a structure within which to understand application of the law in reality?vii How much to each area. R. Klapper analyzes the Minhat Kovets Shi’urim to 663. Torah, you may forget to let the Torah speak to focus should be placed on Mahashavah (philos- Hinnukh’s treatment of mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba- vii See the introduction to R. Ovadia Yosef’s you and rather force the Torah to say what you ophy and theology in the broader sense) and averah (a positive commandment whose per- Yabbia Omer for a vitriolic attack on those who think it should. It may be that you end up using Musar (ethical and exhortative literature)? formance is predicated on sin) through Brisker choose to focus on theoretical conceptual study similar means to understand different topics, Others questions relate to our focus within eyes and demonstrates the potential shortcom- rather than practical-legal study. but to spell out what tools should be used is to the texts. Should we focus on iyyun (in-depth ings of extreme legalism. Danielle Lent applies viii See Responsa Ri Migash 114. limit the tools you can and will use. analysis) or beki’ut study (cursorily covering philosophical categories of metaphysical iden- ix See the concluding discussions in both However, as appealing as this claim may ground)? This question has been debated since tity in studying the legal discussions of tum’ah Masekhtot Berakhot and . be, it seems to me that the opposite is true. To the Talmud, which asked what type of scholar (impurity) and tohorah (purity). x Exegesis refers to the study of texts to derive completely remove ourselves from the texts is is most qualified to lead the academy: the Many of these questions have been asked the meaning of the texts themselves, while eise- impossible.i While we must try to be as objec- sharper scholar (oker harim) or the one with a in every generation, whether implicitly or ex- gesis refers to the study of texts by reading tive as possible, at some point we are going to greater mastery of the basic texts (Sinai)?viii plicitly. However, there are other questions that one’s own ideas into them. put ourselves into the texts anyways. As the There are also the important questions regard- are unique to recent generations. With the ad- xi See n. 4. Talmud itself claims, “Ein moshivin ba-San- ing whether we are concerned with authorial in- vent of academic scholarship of the Tanakh and xii See, for example, the introduction to Yabbia hedrin ella mi she-yakhol letaher et ha-sherets tent in Torah study, or whether our Talmud, including the discovery of materials Omer, R. Hayyim of Volozhin’s Nefesh ha- min ha-Torah, we do not appoint judges to the interpretation is more important. In modes of from the Ancient Near Eastern context of the Hayyim, Sha’ar 4, and Rambam, Mishneh High Court who cannot [find a way to] purify interpretation, should we put our energies into Tanakh and the Persian context of the Talmud, Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah, ch. 10, etc. an impure creature on a biblical level.”ii As exegesis or eisegesis?ix Danny Shulman will new questions have come to the fore. Should xiii For further discussion on these issues, see Gerald Blidstein puts it, “Texts can be inter- analyzes different perspectives on issues of we introduce historical evidence to the discus- Kol Hamevaser’s issue on Academic Jewish preted [... and] Scripture is never a match for truth in Torah study, building off of R. Aharon sion, and, if so, is it appropriate for the study of Studies, Volume 3, Issue 3, available at: ingenuity.”iii A sufficiently potent scholar can Lichtenstein’s distinction between Torat hesed all texts – Talmud and Tanakh? AJ Berkovits http://www.kolhamevaser.com/wp-content/up- explain anything in any way he wants. and Torat emet. Moshe Peters and Josh Broyde considers some of these questions and shows loads/2009/12/khm-academic-jewish-studies- There are ways of minimizing this danger. deal with the questions of to what extent are we the benefits of using these tools in learning iii-3r.pdf. When we actively develop a methodology, we limited to precedent, bound to the understand- Tanakh through a case study of the insights into formally stipulate what tools are to be used and ing of earlier authorities, and to what extent are Sefer Amos provided by the field of archeology. Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 3 Kol Hamevaser Letters-to-the-Editor

BY: Daniel Danesh plete lack of respect or regard for R. Ovadia BY: Reuven Rand whether they are excusable. Yosef and possibly for other major Orthodox Returning to Mr. Danesh’s point, I do not n Kol Hamevaser’s last issue, Reuven rabbinic leaders, as well. y editorials for Kol Hamevaser in- claim to know how the Jewish People chooses Rand had a piece on Modern Orthodoxy’s Though the democratic society in which variably generate controversy from its leaders. I do claim to know that most of Iunderstanding of interpreting natural dis- we live grants us freedom of expression, re- Mthe very lines that strike me as the those leaders recognize a concept called hillul asters as a form of divine punishment.i While garding our sages, such as R. Yosef, we are not least controversial. In his letter to the editor, shem Shamayim ba-rabbim (desecration of it is not my intention to comment on the nature allowed to castigate them or their actions. One Daniel Danesh castigates me, together with God’s name in public).x I am not sure how R. of Mr. Rand’s article or the correctness of his can question a leader in order to better under- Jack Katzenell of The Independent, for show- Yosef gets around this problem, and Daniel opinions (or his choice of title, for that matter), stand his statements or rulings, but to present ing “a tremendous lack of respect” to the for- Danesh does not address this in his letter. How- it is my intention to protest the great amount the view of a Torah leader such as R. Yosef and mer Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, R. Ovadia ever, this is an immensely important issue for of disrespect which he displayed towards one begin to degrade him in a public forum is sim- Yosef, in noting the reaction to his remarks on Orthodox to deal with, and I thank of the leading authorities of Orthodox Jewry. ply inexcusable. the Holocaust. I will begin my response by de- him for bringing it up. The Torah requires us to revere and, if I close by respectfully asking Mr. Rand to fending Mr. Katzenell. Katzenell did not write necessary, protect the honor of a talmid express sincere regret for his uncomplimentary an opinion piece; he wrote a news article which Reuven Rand is a senior at YC majoring hakham.ii This commandment certainly in- remarks concerning R. Yosef’s statement. The consisted of facts, and facts cannot be disre- in Mathematics and Computer Science. cludes the honor of a leading sage such as R. true test of man is not whether or not he is spectful. The Independent, along with the above making mistakes, but whether he pos- BBC,i New York Times,ii Post,iii and “Though the democratic sesses the ability to correct his mistakes. other national and international news services, i society in which we live felt that R. Yosef’s speech was newsworthy Jack Katzenell, “Rabbi Says Holocaust Vic- and consequently published his remarks, along tims were Reincarnations of Sinners,” The In- grants us freedom of Daniel Danesh is a Sophomore at SSSB with the responses of public figures like Ehud dependent (August 6, 2000), available at: expression, regarding our majoring in Finance. Barak and Tommy Lapid. They were not dis- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mi respectful – they were accurately reporting the ddle-east/rabbi-says-holocaust-victims-were- sages, such as R. Yosef, we news – and while most of these organizations reincarnations-of-sinners-711547.html. are frequently excoriated for one perceived ii “Fury Over Holocaust Remarks,” BBC News are not allowed to castigate i Reuven Rand, “On Bikinis and Earthquakes,” bias or another, I think, in this case, we should (August 7, 2000), available at: http://news. them or their actions.” Kol Hamevaser 4,3 (October 2010): 18-19. applaud them for a job well done. bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/868578.stm. ii Vayikra 19:32, as interpreted by Kiddushin The cited article, which also quotes R. iii John F. Burns, “Israeli Rabbi Sets Off a Po- Ovadia Yosef, who, aside from his secondary 32b. Yosef accusing Ehud Barak of “bringing litical Firestorm Over the Holocaust,” The New role as the Shas Party’s chief decision-maker, iii In the interest of full disclosure, I should snakes beside us” in negotiating with Palestini- York Times (August 7, 2000), available at: is one of the most respected leaders in the Or- point out that I am of Sephardic descent and ans, was not the last time R. Yosef appeared in http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res thodox world today, with Ashkenazim and though my custom is to follow R. Yosef, by no the news: he reappeared the following year =9501E3D7103CF93BA3575BC0A9669C8B Sephardim alike showing him due honor.iii means should anyone mistakenly assume that calling for the “annihilation of Arabs.”iv R. 63&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=ovadia%20yo Therefore, I was quite shocked when Mr. Rand I write this letter out of personal affront; rather, Ovadia Yosef “caused outrage by apparently sef&st=cse. wrote, I write because all of our rabbinic leaders – calling on God to ‘strike down’ Prime Minister iv “Ovadia Yosef: Shoah Victims – Reincar- “When R. Ovadia Yosef famously pro- though not necessarily above making mistakes Ariel Sharon in a sermon,” the BBC reported nated Sinners,” The Jerusalem Post (July 5, claimed that the six million victims of the – are beyond criticism. in 2005.v Later that year, he blamed the flood- 2009), available at: http://www.jpost.com/Is- Holocaust were gilgulim, or reincarna- iv Rand, p. 19. ing of New Orleans on George W. Bush’s sup- rael/Article.aspx?id=147578. tions, of earlier sinners, many Jews were v Jack Katzenell, “Rabbi Says Holocaust Vic- v “Rabbi Calls for Annihilation of Arabs,” BBC justifiably outraged. Though he was talk- tims were Reincarnations of Sinners,” The In- “I do not claim to know News (April 10, 2001), available at: ing about the beloved parents and siblings dependent (August 6, 2000), available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/127003 of Jews still living that had died gruesome http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mi how the Jewish People 8.stm. deaths, he somehow found it within him ddle-east/rabbi-says-holocaust-victims-were- chooses its leaders. I do vi “Rabbi Says God Will Punish Sharon,” BBC to label them the reincarnated thugs, mur- reincarnations-of-sinners-711547.html. (Orig- News (March 9, 2005), available at: derers and rapists of previous generations. inally cited in Rand’s article, n. xii.) claim to know that most of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/433309 But for all of R. Yosef’s insensitivity, we 9.stm. cannot ignore the Holocaust from a theo- those leaders recognize a vii Zvi Alush, “Rabbi: Hurricane Punishment logical perspective.”iv concept called hillul shem for Pullout,” YNet News (September 7, 2005), I understand that Mr. Rand refers the available at: http://www.ynetnews.com/arti- reader to an earlier essay by Jack Katzenell,v Shamayim ba-rabbim cles/0,7340,L-3138779,00.html. who also shows a tremendous lack of respect (desecration of God’s viii “Rabbi Yosef: Lieberman Voters Support for the sage. However, I am at a loss to under- Satan,” YNet News (February 7, 2009), avail- stand where Mr. Rand himself acquires the name in public).” able at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ ability to refer to R. Yosef as insensitive. It is 0,7340,L-3668135,00.html. beyond any stretch of my imagination to try to port of the disengagement from Gush Katif and ix “Abbas, Palestinians Should Die: Israeli comprehend how Mr. Rand, as an Orthodox on a lack of Torah study there: “Blacks will Rabbi,” Reuters (August 29, 2010), available Jew, can publish such comments. Does he feel study the Torah?” he asked.vi In 2009, he fa- at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS- he is qualified to dismiss R. Yosef’s remarks mously proclaimed that anyone who votes for TRE67S0GU20100829. as just those of another famous man who does Israeli politician Avigdor Leiberman “supports x Jonah Mandel, “Yosef: Gentiles Exist Only not understand the Holocaust and its disastrous Satan.”vii Finally, this very year, he received in- to Serve Jews,” The Jerusalem Post (October ramifications, like the Iranian president or ternational press when he called for Mahmoud 18, 2010), available at: http://www.jpost.com/ some other bigoted leader? Is he of the opinion Abbas and the Palestinian population to be JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=19 that our leaders are chosen solely because of killed by the plagueviii and again when he 1782. their academic merit and not because of their claimed that “[g]oyim were born only to serve xi Yoma 86a. immeasurable amount of care and concern for us [the Jews].”ix I leave it to the reader to de- every living person? His words indicate a com- cide whether such statements are offensive and

4 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud Derekh ha-Limmud Can Retson Hashem matter in Lomdus? Mitsvah ha-Ba’ah ba-Aveirah and the Limitations of Formalism

BY: Rabbi Aryeh Klapper to olah sacrificesiii and the lulav in order to ex- categories: on the first night, the obligation de- mally translatable statement made by him. plain why one will not fulfill his obligation if volves on all male Jews, but on the other nights However, I will now argue that it utterly ig- e live in the universe Brisk hath he uses a stolen object;iv on 94a only on male Jews who eat a particular amount nores the semantic content of Minhat Hinnukh. wrought, and I do not propose to with regard to making a blessing when taking and type of food. Here is a roughly literal translation of some rel- Wbegin Cartesian-style from first hallah from stolen dough (according to R. c) Failure to fulfill a mitsvat aseh de- evant sections of his exposition on this topic: principles. So, in approaching the issue of Eliezer ben Yaakov); and on Berakhot 47b with Oraita, when one is obligated to fulfill it “It seems to me that there are two kinds mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah (a commanded regard to a minyan formed by illegally manu- (whether Category A or B), is considered a vi- of mitsvot aseh: act accomplished through a transgression), let mitting an eved Kena’ani (non-Jewish slave). olation of Halakhah known as “bittul aseh;” “1) One which is an obligation imposed us grant that the term “mitsvah” must be for- Other versions, cited by Rishonim, record it failure to arrange for an external condition nec- on every Jewish male, such as and mally analyzed into such categories as de- (on the equivalent of Sukkah 35a) with regard essary to achieve obligation, however, is not etrog and eating matsah. A mitsvah such Oraita/de-Rabbanan (biblical/rabbinic), rather to an etrog taken from an ir ha-niddahat (city such a violation. Thus, there is no obligation as this – if he fulfills it, he does the will than hamur/kal (severe/mild), de-rabbim/de- deserving destruction due to its mass idol wor- to eat the appropriate amount and type of food of the Creator, may He be blessed and ex- yahid (communal/personal) rather than ship) or from an asherah de-Moshe (a tree that on the second through seventh nights of alted, because he was thus commanded by rabba/zuta, (big/small), hiyyuvit/kiyyumit was treated as a deity), each of which it is ille- Sukkot. the King Who is blessed, whereas if he is (obligatory/elective), ma’aseh/dibbur (action- gal to benefit from and both of which must be d) Mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah, with re- mevattel (nullifies) this mitsvah and does based/speech-based), and the like. Let us grant burnt. gard to Category A mitsvot, makes the at- not lay tefillin or did not take the lulav, he a similar analysis of “aveirah.” Let us grant The challenge posed by the Tosafists here tempted mitsvah-fulfiller guilty of bittul aseh; was mevattel the mitsvah and acted that “ha-ba’ah” must be interrogated to see is not so much to find the common ground however, with regard to Category B mitsvot, it against His will, may He be blessed, and whether it implies physical or legal necessary among whichever of these positions one ac- does not make the attempted mitsvah-fulfiller he will certainly be punished. or sufficient causality, or simultaneity, etc. Fi- cepts le-halakhah (normatively), as to deal guilty of bittul aseh. “2) [...] The general principle is that if he nally, let us grant a full conceptual compare- with the broad array of cases in which mitsvah e) Thus, with regard to the second fulfills this mitsvah, he does the will of the and-contrast regimen with such principles and ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah seemingly ought to be through seventh nights of Sukkot, the principle Creator Who is blessed, whereas if he categories as aseh doheh lo ta’aseh (positive cited and is not. This challenge is particularly of mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah does not in does not fulfill the mitsvah, he does not commandments override negative ones) and acute, ironically, not where citing mitsvah ha- practice ban eating in a sukkah roofed with transgress His will; he just does not fulfill lav ha-nittak la-aseh (negative prohibitions ba’ah ba-aveirah should generate a contrary stolen materials. A Jewish male eating in such the mitsvah. [...] linked to remedial positive commandments) result, but rather where it should generate the a sukkah would neither fulfill the mitsvah nor “So it seems that the reason that one does (and/or kevod ha-beriyyot [great is same result that a verse of the Torah is cited to be guilty of bittul aseh. not fulfill one’s obligation with a mitsvah human dignity],i va-hai ba-hem [“and live generate, which appears to make the verse re- f) The verse cited to invalidate a sukkah ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah is that the Holy One through them”],ii et al.). dundant. roofed with stolen materials is therefore nec- Who is blessed does not will this and it is Now, the accepted categories in the para- Tosafot to Sukkah 9a specifically raise the essary even if mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah ap- not in accordance with His will that a de- graph above can all be seen as formal rather question of why a verse is needed to prove that plies to this case, because it declares that a fender become a prosecutor, as “I am God than religious, by which I mean that they can the mitsvah of sukkah cannot be fulfilled in a Jewish male eating in such a sukkah on the sec- Who hates robbery with regard to olah be understood without checking whether they sukkah roofed with stolen materials.v Their an- ond through seventh nights is, in fact, guilty of sacrifices” (Isiah 61:8) [...] Because of correspond to any belief(s), text(s) or experi- swer is that the rule invalidating a mitsvah ha- bittul aseh. this, it is properly reasonable to say that ence(s) outside the formal boundaries of ha- ba’ah ba-aveirah is itself only de-Rabbanan, Thus far I have presented the pure me- he has not fulfilled his obligation with re- lakhic deliberation. This can be seen as an and therefore, were it not for the verse, such a chanics of Minhat Hinnukh’s answer. From a gard to the mitsvah, because this is not the advantage. While the impact of logical posi- sukkah would be valid on a biblical level. Brisker perspective, the rationale behind his will of the Creator, may He be blessed, tivism has proved less lasting than that of There are many difficulties with this answer, approach is clear: mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah and therefore he has not fulfilled the Brisk, I still find its wholesale destruction of some of which are raised in this same Tosafot, is a din (legal qualification) in the ma’aseh ha- mitsvah. This is properly reasonable with metaphysical language challenging and pro- and most Rishonim and Aharonim treat it as mitsvah rather than the heftsa shel mitsvah; regard to mitsvot hiyyuviyyot (obligatory ductive. unsatisfactory. Among them is Minhat Hin- namely, it invalidates the act but not the object. mitsvot) [...] but with regard to mitsvot The positivists argued that metaphysical nukh, to whose treatment of the issue we now This in turn raises the question of why sit- that are not hiyyuviyyot, such as tsitsit and language has no nafeka minnah (practical ram- turn. ting in a valid heftsa shel sukkah is sufficient sukkah after the first day of the festival, if ification), as any metaphysical statement (think Minhat Hinnukh himself offers the fol- to avoid bittul aseh with regard to Category B, they are ba’im ba-aveirah (done via a “God is just”) is compatible with any observed lowing complex resolution:vi but not with regard to Category A. A possible transgression), it is true that he has not ful- data (think genocide). In our conversation a) Mitsvot aseh de-Oraita (positive bib- answer is that with regard to Category A, bittul filled the will of the Creator Who is space, the first question is whether a proposi- lical commandants) can be divided into two aseh is defined as failure to perform a ma’aseh blessed, because this is not His, may He tion of the form, “Halakhah does not count categories: those whose obligation precedes ha-mitsvah that fulfills the mitsvah (ma’aseh be blessed’s, will, but it is only that he has mitsvot as fulfilled if they are done with stolen any condition external to the personhood of the kiyyum ha-mitsvah), whereas with regard to not fulfilled it, and it is as if he is not objects because God does not want mitsvot ful- obligated (Category A) and those whose obli- Category B, it is defined as failure to perform wearing a garment at all or did not eat at filled with stolen objects” means something gation depends on such conditions (Category a ma’aseh ha-mitsvah simpliciter. (This, in all. [...] Because, in truth, he is wearing different, i.e., generates a different understand- B). As an example of the former, he cites turn, requires us to claim that using an invalid tsitsit and eating in a sukkah, just that this ing of the practical or theoretical halakhah in a tefillin, where the obligation is generated by heftsa shel mitsvah invalidates the ma’aseh ha- is not in accordance with His will so it is particular case, than the shorter proposition, Jewish maleness; as an example of the latter, mitsvah and not just the kiyyum ha-mitsvah,the as if he has not fulfilled the mitsvah, but “Halakhah does not count mitsvot as fulfilled he cites tsitsit, where the obligation is gener- action and not just the fulfillment.) we cannot judge him as if he has been if they are done with stolen objects.” ated by Jewish maleness plus the wearing of an The Brisker approach thus generates what mevattel the mitsvah, since regardless he Let us turn to the Talmudic discussions. appropriate garment. I believe is a reasonably accurate positivist is doing the mitsvah. [...] But if the Torah In the Vilna Shas, the term mitsvah ha-ba’ah b) The mitsvah de-Oraita of eating in a translation of Minhat Hinnukh, meaning that it specifically invalidates a stolen sukkah, it ba-aveirah is cited on Sukkah 30a with regard sukkah can itself be divided into the above two accords with the formal content of every for- is as if he roofed with invalid roofing that

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 5 Kol Hamevaser did not grow from the ground or that can (invalid object). From a formal perspective, it receive tum’ah (impurity), which is not a likely follows that mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba- sukkah at all, so that if he eats inside it, he aveirah should not invalidate a mitsvah per- Torat Hesed and Torat Hayyim: is like one eating in a house, for the Torah formed with a heftsa stolen by someone else has decreed that this is not a sukkah at all. but which you legitimately acquired and/or [...]” legally own. Learning Torah as a It should be clear that the Brisker analysis However, Minhat Hinnukh himself is free requires one to believe that much, perhaps to contend that the type of pesul created by Living Document most, of the language Minhat Hinukh uses here mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah depends on the is meaningless blather. Here is the same para- severity of the aveirah, or the public impact of BY: Danny Shulman text is naturally infused with the author’s in- graph in literal Brisker translation, in the man- the aveirah, or the relationship between the tentions, the Torat emet, there is also latent in ner of Rudolf Carnap’s memorable positivist aveirah and the heftsa, or the centrality of the merican law, like Halakhah, rests upon that text the potential for alternative under- translation of Hegel:vii heftsa to the mitsvah – so long as he can ex- documents at the heart of its legal sys- standings and approaches, namely the Torat Atem. This gives rise to the ongoing de- hesed. Developing this point, Lichtenstein “The Brisker analysis requires one to bate as to whether the American Constitution explains that Hakhmei Yisrael (the “wise men” should be read as a “living document” whose of the Torah tradition) have believe that much, perhaps most, of the words can be understood and interpreted in “a dual corpus: their Torat emet – that various rational and logical ways to reflect the which, as best as can be perceived, con- language Minhat Hinnukh uses here is fluctuating needs and trends of society, or as stitutes, [sic] an accurate statement of reflecting only the “original intent” of the Con- their consciously willed position; and meaningless blather.” stitution’s authors regarding how to understand their Torat hesed – the possible multiple “So it seems that the reason that one does plain why in each case that criterion is spiritu- the law. In this vein, Supreme Court Justice readings of their dicta which, in a sense, not fulfill one’s obligation with a mitsvah ally significant. Thus, he may say in the case Antonin Scalia, a leading voice of the “original lead their own lives, regarded both as in- ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah is that NOTHING of a transferred stolen object that God does not intent” school, once commented that “the Con- dependent entities and in relation to the [...] because of this, it is properly reason- will mitsvot that remind Him of other people’s able to say that he has not fulfilled his ob- sins any more than He wills mitsvot that re- “If a given text becomes accepted or incorporated into ligation with regard to the mitsvah, mind Him of the mitsvah-performer’s sins. because NOTHING. This is properly rea- This position is possible within the Brisker the corpus we call ‘Torah,’ does the author’s original sonable with regard to mitsvot hiyyuviyyot translation, but I contend it is vastly less likely intention define how we must understand the text or [...] but with regard to mitsvot that are not than in the original. hiyyuviyyot, such as tsitsit and sukkah I have presented this issue solely within legal decision, or can we approach the text and legiti- after the first day of the festival, if they the context of regaining access to a particular mately suggest any interpretation which fits into our are ba’im ba-aveirah, NOTHING it is Aharon, but I presume that the potential impli- only that he has not fulfilled it, and it is as cations for our own learning discourse are overall conceptual or analytical framework?” if he is not wearing a garment at all or did clear, especially for those of us prone to (ex- not eat at all. [...] Because, in truth, he is cessive) legal formalism. stitution is not a living organism […] it’s a halakhic order as a whole.”v wearing tsitsit and eating in a sukkah, just legal document,”i and legal decisions must In this light, R. Lichtenstein explains and NOTHING it is as if he has not fulfilled Rabbi Aryeh Klapper is Dean of the Cen- therefore be based on probing the author’s analyzes the words of Rishonim in alternative the mitsvah, but we cannot judge him as ter for Modern Torah Leadership and Rosh original intention in formulating the text. On and innovative ways – without concerning if he has been mevattel the mitsvah, since Beit of its Summer Beit Midrash Pro- the other hand, Justice William Brennan Jr. himself with apprehending the mind of any regardless he is doing the mitsvah. [...] gram, Instructor of Rabbinics and Medical maintains that “the genius of the Constitution given Rishon – because his primary concern is But if the Torah specifically invalidates a Ethics at Gann Academy, and a member of the rests not in any static meaning it may have had learning “the Torah of Rishonim.”vi Thus, al- stolen sukkah, it is as if he roofed with in- Boston Beit Din. in a world that is dead and gone, but in the though understanding the Rishon’s viewpoint valid roofing that did not grow from the adaptability of its great principles to cope with would be an exercise in studying the Torat ground or that can receive tum’ah, which current problems and present needs;”ii thus, the emet of his words, when R. Lichtenstein ap- is not a sukkah at all, so that if he eats in- i The implications of these principles are words of the Constitution can be analyzed and proaches a sugya (Talmudic discussion), his side it, he is like one eating in a house, for spelled out in Berakhot 19b, Shabbat 81b, and expanded upon based on cultural trends and so- understanding “is marked by vitality and the Torah has decreed that this is not a many other places. cietal demands. growth”vii as he works to learn the Torah as a sukkah at all [...]” ii This verse is used as the basis of the law that Shifting this mode of analysis into the dis- living entity with multiple levels of meaning I suggest that something has been lost if all obligations and prohibitions, with several cussion of talmud Torah, we are faced with a that can transcend the author’s viewpoint. the words of Minhat Hinnukh have become exceptions, are waived in life-threatening sit- similar question. If a given text becomes ac- R. Lichtenstein clearly serves as a meaningless, and that it is worth considering uations; see Sanhedrin 74a and Yoma 85a. cepted or incorporated into the corpus we call rav ha-makhshir (a rabbinic kashrut certifier), whether we ought not make every effort to re- iii In Sukkah, the statement is presented by R. “Torah,” does the author’s original intention if not more than that, of learning with such a discover their meaning. Yohanan in the name of R. Shimon bar Yohai. define how we must understand the text or perspective. However, in addition to explain- In the above exposition, I contend, Minhat A version of the same statement appears on legal decision, or can we approach the text and ing what we are really doing when learning Hinnukh clearly believes that there is a spiri- Bava Kamma 67a, but there it generates a ha- legitimately suggest any interpretation which Torah, this theory, I think, can safeguard tradi- tual rationale to his legal distinctions. In other lakhic principle related to property ownership fits into our overall conceptual or analytical tional learning from potential criticism. In this words, in his system, it is legitimate to ask why rather than mitsvah ha-ba’ah ba-aveirah. framework? Are we trying to probe Rava’s in- light, I would like to share some thoughts God would regard someone who uses a stolen iv This law is presented by R. Ammi, whom the tentions when we study his view? Does Ram- which demonstrate how and why R. Lichten- sukkah on the first night as transgressing His Talmud presents as disagreeing with R. Yitshak bam actually agree with R. Hayyim’s stein’s view is so important for an inquisitive will, but not on the second night. In yet other bar Nahmani. Hiddushei Rabbeinu Hayyim ha-Levi al ha- mind that approaches traditional talmud Torah words, in his system, it is legitimate to reject v Tosafot ad loc., s.v. “ha-hu.” Rambam, which presents novellae on Ram- in search for truth. approaches that make lucid formal distinctions vi Minhat Hinnukh, mitsvah 325. bam’s teachings? Similarly, can we suggest an My first thought relates to the general no- on the basis of recognized formal categories if vii Rudolf Carnap, “The Elimination of Meta- interpretation of a text if the author himself of- tion of intellectual endeavor. As a rule, what one cannot give spiritual significance to the ha- physics Through Logical Analysis of Lan- fers a different explanation in a responsum?iii does the study of a given discipline mean? lakhic outcomes thus generated. guage,” in Logical Empiricism at its Peak: In his essay, “Torat Hesed and Torat Studying Physics, for example, means achiev- This may have applications le-ma’aseh, Schlick, Carnap, and Neurath, ed. by Sahotra Emet: Methodological Reflections,”iv R. ing understanding of the universe and laws that as follows: in the Brisker translation, Minhat Sarkar (New York: Garland Pub., 1996), pp. explains that any given govern the world in which we live. Studying Hinnukh is bound to the claim that mitsvah ha- 10-31. Available at http://www.scribd.com/ text has two layers of meaning and can be ap- Biology means learning about the cells and ba’ah ba-aveirah can only generate a pesul doc/ 10161587/01R-CarnapThe-Elimination- proached in two ways: through the aspects of DNA of organisms. Therefore, in order to ma’aseh (a ruined action), not a pesul heftsa of-Metaphysics. Torat hesed and Torat emet. While any given study these fields, a student will look to the ex-

6 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud perts in the field and, using the hierarchy of compelled to study their personal interpreta- mankind. Thus, studying Torah entails appre- a living system of law which is composed of significant opinions, attempt to understand and tions and views.viii However, because talmud hending and appreciating all the laws, details, all the contributions of the Hakhmei ha-Maso- grasp the particular discipline. When studying Torah is the study of a legal system which tran- and permutations. That being the case, any rah, culled from logical, analytical, conceptual Physics, names like Newton and Einstein are scends the individual contributors, we must given thinker’s interpretation or understanding or other modes of analysis. revered and respected, while biologists em- separate the contributions and understandings is insignificant. Learning a halakhic text means brace the works of Watson and Crick. of each figure and focus on the entity of Torah viewing the words as if they are alive and can Danny Shulman is a senior at YC and However, is anything which these experts as an independent discipline. Thus, when ap- be continually reinterpreted and re-understood, SSSB majoring in Jewish Studies and Account- say in their fields inherently meaningful or cor- proaching a halakhic topic, our goal is to un- much like the way we approach the Constitu- ing and is a Staff Writer for Kol Hamevaser. rect? Of course not. Newton, Einstein, Wat- derstand the law with all its complexities and tion if we regard it as a living document. son, and Crick are only meaningful to their nuances. Just like a physicist studying relativ- Therefore, it is only in light of R. Lichten- fields if the scientific evidence supports their ity theory guided by Einstein’s insights, the ben stein’s approach to talmud Torah that hours theories. Since their ideas have been proven, Torah approaches a halakhic topic with the aid spent analyzing a halakhic text can be seen as i Chris Tisch, “Scalia at Stetson Praises Origi- their contributions are significant. Thus, if an nal Intent View of Constitution,” St. Peters- expert carried his correct theory to a faulty “Learning a halakhic text means viewing the words burg Times (April 5, 2007), available at: http: conclusion, or even if a correct conclusion //www.sptimes.com/2007/04/05/Tampabay/Sc emerged from an incorrect assumption, the re- as if they are alive and can be continually alia_at_Stetson_pra.shtml. sult is nonetheless meaningful and truthful, be- reinterpreted and re-understood, much like ii “Biography of William J. Brennan Jr., Asso- cause we ignore the particular understanding ciate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,” Ar- of the individual and focus on the truthful com- the way we approach the Constitution if lington National Cemetery Website, Historical ponent involved. Ultimately, all that matters is Information, available at: http://www.arling- that the theory can be proven correct in the we regard it as a living document.” toncemetery.org/historical_information/willia context of the larger field of study. Thus, while of the Hakhmei ha-Masorah in an attempt to an exercise in the Torah of the Hakham ha-Ma- m_brennan.html. the expert’s particular understanding, interpre- analyze and comprehend the profundity of the sorah, and not simply as a study in theoretical iii Marc Shapiro asks this question in “The tation, and perspective comprise a fascinating Torah. Although understanding the view of a thinking or intellectual history. Thus, as tradi- Brisker Method Reconsidered: Review Essay,” component of the intellectual history of his or particular Rishon might be a fascinating study tional learning appears to be the study of ideas Tradition 31,3 (1997): 78-102. her personality and field, they are insignificant in intellectual history, it is not important for tal- and texts, R. Lichtenstein’s penetrating insight iv R. Aharon Lichtenstein, “Torat Hesed and in relation to the veracity of the emergent mud Torah. allows the modern student to feel that talmud Torat Emet: Methodological Reflections,” ideas. In other words, talmud Torah is the study Torah is not a dry and arid study of a particular Leaves of Faith: The World of Jewish Learning Similarly, if talmud Torah were based on of Devar Hashem (the Word of God). It con- figure’s viewpoint, but rather a probing of the (Jersey City: Ktav, 2003), pp. 61-87. Also see the authority of individual Hakhmei ha-Maso- sists of analyzing and understanding Halakhah, depths and brilliance of the divine legal sys- Marc Shapiro’s review essay (ibid.) for a sim- rah and their contributions, then we would be the legal code which God transmitted to tem. ilar discussion of this topic. Moreover, and R. Lichtenstein makes this v R. Lichtenstein, “Torat Hesed and Torat point in passing, viewing talmud Torah as a Emet,” p. 80. search for historical accuracy poses an addi- vi Ibid., p. 78. tional problem. If I were really searching for vii Ibid., p. 63. Rambam’s viewpoint in his writings, I would viii A corollary to this point is the fact that non- be better advised to study his culture, family halakhic works of Rishonim (philosophical history and societal influences, as well as who works, etc.) have neither the status of talmud his teachers were and what their methodology Torah nor the flexibility of interpretation being Questions?Questions? was. I should find out what girsa (version of afforded them in halakhic contexts. However, ? the text) he was reading and ascertain the areas this is assuming that such works are not within Comments?Comments of Halakhah in which he was best versed. I the purview of halakhic analysis. In some in- Suggestions?Suggestions? should determine which parts he wrote when stances, it is possible that they are within this he was young and which he wrote when he was purview. Alternatively, it is possible that such older. In fact, this is exactly what Academic works are otherwise meaningful, because they WeWe want to hhear!ear! Jewish Studies entails. As R. Lichtenstein instruct us regarding the particular thinker’s notes, “the world of the Wissenschaftix envi- view of a pressing issue. Said differently, [email protected]@gmmail.comm sions itself as primarily devoted to Torat emet. surely it is worthwhile to know what someone It focuses upon facts, is committed to the hege- as esteemed as Rambam thinks about ta’amei mony of authorial intent, and is marked by a ha-mitsvot (the reasons for the mitsvot) or Cre- measure of austerity – critics would say, of ation, regardless of the question of whether this aridity.”x However, because the goal of tradi- view can be considered as formal talmud tional learning is to understand Halakhah, the Torah. divine and transcendent legal system to which ix A movement of Jewish intellectuals dedi- Rambam contributed invaluable insight, we cated to the scientific study of Judaism. These can and must study his words and ideas with- 19th-century German thinkers were the forerun- out the limitations or backdrop of his personal ners of modern academics of Jewish Studies. viewpoint. x R. Lichtenstein, “Torat Hesed and Torat Nonetheless, understanding Rambam’s Emet,” p. 83. view of his work, or his life in general, based on the questions posed above, is certainly a fas- cinating and intriguing issue for a ben Torah who reveres Rambam. However, these pur- suits are best carried out in the halls of acade- mia and not in the beit midrash. Such questions are irrelevant to the lamdan (the trained and skilled student of Torah law). When one learns Torah, he learns God’s law. KOLKOL HAMEVASERHAMEVVAASEER Law, by nature, transcends its individual con- TheThe JewishJewish ThoughtThought MagazineMagazine ofof thethe YeshivaYeshiva UniversityUniversity StudentStudent BodyBody tributors. It is the compilation of countless de- Avery 5371 bates, discussions, and decisions. Halakhah is

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 7 Kol Hamevaser Talmud Torah al Levavenu: Learning Transformatively

BY: Ilana Gadish in an environment that cultivated a love for harder to have an existential connection with top of the middle one; in which case we learning Gemara from a young age. Many such texts. assume that they were placed thus. If, ne of the most famous appearances of might argue that Torah learning is a mitsvah li- While Tanakh gives us broad values by however, they are of one king, all being God in the Gemara is found in the ag- shemah, for its own sake, and thus is not fo- which we should live – “…leahavah et of equal size, then even if they are lying Ogadeta (homily) about the tannur shel cused on achieving the distinct goal of Hashem E-lohekha lalekhet bi-derakhav ve- upon each other they belong to him [the Akhnai (the oven of Akhnai).i At the beginning increasing one’s connection to God.iv Similarly, lishmor mitsvotav ve-hukkotav u-mishpatav – finder]: we assume that they fell thus to- of the story, R. Eliezer is found disagreeing one might claim that it does not matter if one to love Hashem, your God, to walk in His gether by mere chance. R. Johanan [how- with the Rabbis regarding the purity of an oven enjoys figuring out whether the three years it ways, and to keep His commandments and His ever] maintained: Even if of the same that has been cut into pieces and put back to- takes to establish a hazakahv on a house is statutes and His ordinances,”ix or “tsedek, king, he must proclaim them.””xii gether with sand. After citing multiple proofs based on the concept of three gorings of an ox tsedek tirdof – justice, justice you shall pur- The sugya does not end there; the intricate and arguments to prove to the Sages that the or some other logical deduction based on sue”x – the Gemara provides the finite exam- discussions continue. Detail-oriented sugyot oven is impure (all of which they reject), R. shetarot, documents, for example.vi It should ples in which those values find normative, such as the one above hardly proffer the oppor- Eliezer calls upon a carob tree to move, a river not matter if you revel in hakirot (halakhic in- legal expression. Tanakh characters teach us tunity for a personally transformative learning to flow backwards, and the walls of the beit quiries) or not. However, we know this is not about how (or how not) to relate to God and to experience. It is quite difficult to feel devekut midrash to fall down, attempting to use these exactly true – the Torah does want us to have each other; characters in the Gemara give us in determining whether a stack of coins is con- miracles as divine confirmation of his position. some sort of internal connection to the mitsvot insight into how to relate to Torah and how to sidered distinguishable enough to return or not Though all three miracles end up occurring and their study: “ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-elleh relate to the mitsvot with the most fine-tuned based on the number of coins found and the (except for the third one, which only partially asher Anokhi metsavvekha ha-yom al lev- accuracy. It is precisely this fine-tuned accu- manner in which they are stacked. occurs, as the walls stop midway once R. avekha – and let these statutes that I am com- racy and extrapolation of mitsvot in the most Similarly, for a student who spends hours Yehoshua demands that they not fall), the Rab- manding to you today be on your heart.”vii The exaggeratedly detailed manner that oftentimes breaking down the lengthy sugya about deter- bis ultimately declare that such occurrences more pointed question is not whether or not it engenders a feeling that learning Gemara is mining who has to do bedikat hamets, the cannot be used as proof for a halakhic position. is important that learning is enjoyable, but more about the intricate details of a halakhah search for leavened bread, in a case where a R. Yehoshua then makes his famous proclama- rather, does learning need to have an internal than about Godliness. person rents someone his house on the eve of tion about the Torah being in the hands of men effect on a person, and, beyond that, how does It is easy to get frustrated with the level of Pesah, it is hard to remember that the conver- and not under God’s jurisdiction: “lo ba- one go about achieving this effect? detail into which the Gemara delves in laying sation there really stems from an obligation re- Shamayim hi – not in the Heavens is she [the In an article discussing the importance of out the parameters of a halakhah. Take, for ex- lated to a holiday commemorating Yetsi’at Torah].” Following this, R. Natan asks identifying existentially with Tanakh, R. ample, the mitsvah of hashavat avedah, return- Mitsrayim, the miraculous Exodus from Egypt. Eliyyahu ha-Navi what God was doing at the writes: ing a lost object. The Torah tells us, “Hashev The inability to remember the divine frame- exact moment of this event, and he reports, “This means that (1) it [Tanakh] should be teshivennu – You shall surely return it to work of a halakhah adds to the challenge of es- “He [God] was laughing and said: ‘My chil- part of our lives and (2) that we involve him.”xi The second chapter of Bava Metsi’a is tablishing a personal and existential connection dren have defeated me; my children have de- ourselves in its life, i.e., the lives of its dedicated to expounding upon that very with complex Gemara sources. When learning feated me.’” ii protagonists. Thus, the ethos of the neviim mitsvah. Almost thirteen dappim, full pages of Gemara, especially be-iyyun, in depth, it is im- While this aggadah has been fleshed out (prophets) should challenge us to live ac- Gemara, are spent laying out the parameters of portant to remember the sugya’s context. It is and interpreted in various ways to shed light cording to their charge, and we should upon approaches towards Torah and the ha- turn to them in times of tragedy and tri- lakhic process, one idea that can be gleaned umph as a source of inspiration and direc- “It is precisely this fine-tuned accuracy and extrapolation of from this aggadah is that God, as a character tion.”viii mitsvot in the most exaggeratedly detailed manner that of in rabbinic literature, is quite removed.iii From Such an approach stresses the need to re- tentimes engenders a feeling that learning Gemara is more a historical point of view, it is obvious that God spond to life with a consciousness of Torah. By is “removed” during this period – prophecy no learning Tanakh with this goal in mind, we about the intricate details of a halakhah than about Godliness.” longer exists, and thus, God is surely displayed confront the texts and connect with them exis- as less involved, not openly revealing Himself tentially so that they impact our personal lives. when, where, and what to return to someone. always helpful to try to work out in one’s mind like He does in the Tanakh narratives. Within Though the scope of R. Lichtenstein’s article When a student is inside the sugya, it is easy the development of the halakhah or legal con- the text of the Talmud, it is more difficult to focuses more on Tanakh, I think this approach for him or her to get lost in all of the details. cept being discussed and to work backwards to find God as the focus of a discussion, for it is is equally relevant to Gemara study. However, Consider this complex discussion about return- the place from whence it originated. Zooming primarily a legal work concentrated on deriv- the application of learning Gemara with this ing lost coins: out of a sugya can be helpful every now and ing laws and understanding them from their goal in mind might prove to be more challeng- “All [coins] not arranged conically, the then to remember what exactly it is that one is original sources and is less explicitly focused ing. Tanakh presents existentially compelling Tanna designates as scattered. R. Hanina learning, how it relates back to the broader pic- on relating the laws back to God. In this spe- stories, stories with dilemmas and well devel- said: This was taught only of [coins of] ture, and what about it is existentially com- cific story, God does appear as a character, but oped characters. The relationships between the three kings; but if of one king, he need not pelling. explicitly states His non-involvement in the ha- characters are complex, the narratives are proclaim them. How so? If they lie pyra- It is also important to pay attention to the lakhic process. So while Tanakh presents char- thrilling; even the “boring Vayikra stuff” is mid-wise, then even [if they are] of one surrounding aggadot of a sugya. While many acters with whom, and stories where God is filled with the notion that one must be meticu- king [the proclamation should be made]; aggadot are perplexing and sometimes strange, involved, the Gemara only portrays God as a lously careful in the avodah, the service of the if they do not lie pyramid-wise, even if many can be understood and can provide en- character in order to inform us that He will not Tabernacle and Temple, as well as with the ko- they are of three kings there should be no during themes and messages relevant to the be involved. rbanot, sacrifices. One can read those perakim need [to proclaim them]? – But if stated, legal discussions of the surrounding sugyot. It is no surprise, then, that students some- and understand that the Torah is talking about it was thus stated: ‘This was taught only These can only be gleaned if one spends some times remark that studying Gemara is not the aspects of the avodah that are filled with ke- of [coins of] one king, yet similar to those time thinking deeply about an aggadah as op- best means towards achieving devekut ba- dushah, holiness. In contrast, when studying of three.’ How so? When they lie pyra- posed to skipping over it. While many aggadot Hashem, a state of cleaving to God. This is es- technical details and halakhot in the Gemara, midically, the broadest at the bottom, the have weird anecdotes and incomprehensible pecially true for students who did not grow up one is potentially less inspired, and thus it is medium-sized upon it, and the smallest on plotlines, it is not helpful to characterize all of

8 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud them as “fluffy aggadot” that can be ignored. Furthermore, the characters of the value system. R. Mosheh Lichtenstein, at the statement by God, “Nitsehunni banai – My It is difficult to imagine that Hazal thought they Gemara, though not always as fully developed beginning of the article quoted above, insists children have defeated Me,” is found in the text were very fluffy. as Tanakh characters, also offer important on the importance of imbuing talmidim with a via a report given by Eliyyahu, and is not retold There are many examples of aggadot that moral guidance.xiv Their devotion to Torah and love of Torah: “Simply put, Ahavat Torah is in- by the aggadah as “God said,” etc. Even here, provide insight into complex legal issues in the the ethical lifestyle of hesed they promote deed religiously more important than Torah in this famous divine intervention, God is not Gemara. After a series of halakhic discussions should be noted when learning; this type of knowledge, and, therefore, its needs must be explicitly involved. about the laws regarding returning new, indis- sensitivity and awareness fosters a personally taken into account as a major factor in choice iv “Many argue” refers to the opinion most ex- tinguishable vessels to their rightful owners, transformative learning experience. of curriculum.”xvii plicitly developed by R. Hayyim of Volozhin the Gemara recounts this story: In our learning, we should see the charac- It is easy to make intellectual strides in in his Nefesh ha-Hayyim, Sha’ar 4. This opin- “Mar Zutra once had a silver cup stolen ters of Hazal as our heroes in the same way learning, but if intellectual growth is not ac- ion interprets “li-shemah” to mean “le-shem from one of his guests. He saw one of the that, as R. Mosheh Lichtenstein advocates in companied by a personally transformative ex- ha-Torah,” for the sake of the Torah, and not students there wipe his hands on his his article, Tanakh characters should be our he- perience, then the point of talmud Torah is for the sake of God. Many thanks to my fellow friend’s cloak. Mar Zutra then declared. roes. Why should our children only look up to being missed by a wide mark; then we are not Associate Editor, Jonathan Ziring, for clarify- ‘That is him – the one who was not con- athletes and celebrities, such as Brett Favre or ensuring that the words of Torah that we learn ing this point. siderate of his friend’s property!’ They Miley Cyrus? Should our teenagers learn how are al levavenu, on our hearts. v An established ownership of permanent habi- pressed him and he admitted to it.”xiii to treat their parents like the obstinate, exorbi- tation. The Gemara continues with the discussion tantly wealthy characters of the television Ilana Gadish is a senior at SCW majoring vi Bava Batra 28a-29a. of whether or not one must return new vessels. show “Gossip Girl,” or should they learn from in Judaic Studies and is an Associate Editor for vii Devarim 6:6. Preceding this aggadah, there is a legal state- R. Tarfon, who held his hands under his elderly Kol Hamevaser. viii Mosheh Lichtenstein, “Fear of God: The Be- ment by Mar Zutra, so one could conclude that ginning of Wisdom and the End of Tanakh the story is simply added here because it is “Why are the protagonists of ‘Desperate Housewives’ Study,” in Marc D. Stern (ed.), Yirat about the author of the previous statement. But discussed more often than the Talmudic heroine, Beruriah, Shamayim: The Awe, Reverence, and Fear of Hazal did not include short aggadot about an God (New York, NY: Yeshiva University Amora after every statement he made (this a brilliant, learned female scholar with an outstandingly Press; Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2008), pp. 135- would be absurd). Hazal’s inclusion of this deep sensitivity to the hardships of life?” 162, at p. 144. story is an interjection within a heavily ha- ix Devarim 30:16 (author’s translation). lakhic discussion about hundreds of distinc- mother’s feet when her sandal broke?xv Why i Bava Metsi’a 59a. x Ibid. 16:20 (author’s translation). tions made between different types of objects are the protagonists of “Desperate House- ii Translation found in Devora Steinmetz, xi Shemot 23:4. and their characteristics that would determine wives” discussed more often than the Talmudic “Agada Unbound: Inter-Agadic Characteriza- xii Bava Metsi’a 25a (Soncino translation). whether a person is required to return them or heroine, Beruriah, a brilliant, learned female tion of Sages in the Bavli and Implications for xiii Bava Metsi’a 24a (author’s translation). not. This interjection reminds us of why we are scholar with an outstandingly deep sensitivity Reading Agada,” in Jeffrey L. Rubenstein xiv While many of their statements regarding steeped in such a detailed discussion: one’s at- to the hardships of life?xvi Do we not want our (ed.), Creation and Composition: The Contri- scientific matters or attitudes towards women tentiveness to the smallest details (i.e., minute youth to be excited and inspired by Reish Lak- bution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to are off-putting to those of us with modern sen- details about the arrangement of coins, as men- ish, brawny robber-turned-fierce talmid the Aggada (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), sibilities, their ethical and moral guidance, as tioned above, or, here, someone merely drying hakham? Yes, we should appreciate gifted pp. 293-337, at p. 311. well as their fascinating and powerful person- his hands on his friend’s cloak) is indicative of singers, actors, artists, and sports players for iii God, in a literal sense, does not appear at all: ality traits, are parts of Talmudic texts that one’s attitude towards larger, more important their amazing talents. But should they be our the voice from Heaven is a bat kol, not the ac- should not be overlooked or downplayed. values (such as taking the time to fulfill the community’s primary role models, the people tual voice of God, and the miracles being per- xv Kiddushin 31b. mitsvah of returning a lost object, or here, to whom we look for ideals and lifestyles? formed are described passively, “the carob tree xvi As evidenced by her response to the death stealing someone’s expensive silver cup). Ag- The Modern Orthodox community seems was uprooted from its place a hundred cubits of her two sons that occurred one Shabbat, gadot can offer a breath of fresh air that re- to value learning on an intellectual level, but, […] the stream of water turned backwards [… while her husband, R. Meir, was in the beit minds us of how the elaborate details in a in my opinion, does not stress the importance ] the walls of the beit midrash leaned to fall” – midrash, a story recounted in Midrash Mishlei halakhic discussion in the Gemara are micro- of imbuing the values and lessons about hu- the aggadah does not describe the miracles as, 31:10. cosmic expressions of the important mitsvot manity that the Gemara presents, in addition to “God moved the carob tree, God reversed the xvii Lichtenstein, p. 139. and values that Torah learning espouses. the intellectual challenges it offers into its stream of water,” and so on. Even the famous

M

[email protected]

WANT KOL HAMEVASER DISTRIBUTED NEAR YOU?

LET US KNOW!

KOLKOL HAMEVASERHAMEVVAASER TheThe JewishJewish ThoughtThought MagazineMagazine ofof thethe YeshivaYeshiva UniversityUniversity StudentStudent BodyBody

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 9 Kol Hamevaser Why Chicken Scratch on Stone, Clay, and Pots Matters: A Case Study in Amos and Archeology

BY: AJ Berkovitz gions in the U.S.A. Take, for example, the made no distinction between the “ay” diph- derstand either Amos’ intentional wordplay or word used to describe a flavored carbonated thong and “e,” so the “ay” diphthong was al- some unconscious textual pun. Amos, origi- lthough Tanakh is a work in which one drink: while people in the East refer to it as ways pronounced as an e. For all those who do nally from the south of Israel, does distinguish finds ever-reverberating messages, it “soda,” those in the Midwest call it “pop.” not understand academic gibberish, let me ex- between kayits and kets. Thus, when he an- Ais important to acknowledge that its They are identifying the same substance, albeit plain. A diphthong is a complex vowel sound swers God that he sees “a basket of summer authors composed their various books while with different words. The phenomenon of var- that begins with the sound of one vowel and fruit,” he thinks it is an innocent object. Now actively interacting with a certain time and cul- ied dialects, perhaps even by tribe, clearly ap- ends with the sound of another vowel, in the imagine, for a moment, Amos’ audience. To ture. By seriously understanding this environ- pears in Tanakh. For instance, in the bloody same syllable. Thus, the vowel sound a + y = them, there is no distinction between kets ment and its effect on the authors of Tanakh, war between Jephthah and the tribe of the “ay” diphthong. This is frequently found in (summer fruit) and kets (end). While Amos we can gain a greater appreciation for, and Ephraim, we are told of the ingenious strata- Hebrew words like bayit (notice the “ay” may not foresee the outcome of his description, more precise interpretation of, our Holy Scrip- gem used by the people of Gilead to ensnare sound) and also appears in the word kayits. In once his audience hears “summer fruit,” they tures. One aspect of that culture still visible the fugitives of Ephraim. Whenever someone Biblical Hebrew, when a word with this diph- will presumably begin cringing, understanding today that we can easily incorporate into our would attempt to cross the Jordan, the men of thong is placed in the construct state, meaning his words as a prediction of the destruction. studies of Tanakh is the inscriptions and Gilead would say to him, “‘Say now ‘shibbo- “x of y” (e.g. House of Jacob), the “ay” diph- Using inscriptional evidence further colors the archival evidence from the ancient Near East. leth,’ and he would say, ‘sibboleth,’ for he was thong changes to an e (a tseireh). Thus, “House biblical account. Starting with a single word- While there are many extra-biblical texts that not able to correctly pronounce it.”ii Appar- of Jacob” is rendered as Beit Ya’akov. In the play, the evidence above allows us to explore have drastically altered the landscape of bibli- ently, Ephraim, the chief tribe of the Northern case of Amos, the Northern Israelites presum- both what lies behind the wordplay, as well as cal scholarship, this article will focus specifi- kingdom, spoke with some dialectic variance ably did not distinguish between kayits and the direct result of it. cally on those related to the Book of Amos. that pronounced the letter “shin” as if it were a kets, pronouncing both as kets. Since Tanakh was written in a definite Inscriptional and archival evidence has “samekh.” Both the Gezer Calendar and the Samaria context, recourse to the world around it is of drastically increased our understanding of the In order to convincingly argue that hozeh Ostraca indicate that people in Northern Israel utmost importance. As seen above, inscrip- linguistic components of Tanakh. We can only is disparaging, we need to see what the com- may have always been pronouncing their “ay” tional evidence elucidates and elaborates the understand the complexity of meaning in any mon word for prophet in the Northern King- diphthongs in the construct state. The Gezer biblical text. With it, we have understood some given language if we are able to differentiate dom or in Aram was. This can only be done Calendar is our oldest known example of He- of the inner workings of the Northern dialect between similar words. Hence, by understand- using inscriptional evidence. Lucky for us, we brew writing. Like most early inscriptions, it of Biblical Hebrew. Once we have done that, ing diction, we can understand the subtleties of have the Zakkur Inscription. is written in Paleo-Hebrew, what the Talmud we see that hozeh is a non-disparaging term for a text. This pursuit is productive, however, The Zakkur Inscription, found near calls Ketav Ivri. Discovered in Gezer in North- prophet and that Amos’ audience may have only if we understand the context of that lan- Aleppo, describes King Zakkur of Hamath in ern Israel, this four-inch tall rock bears an in- seen the future before Amos himself. Allowing guage both internally and in relation to the lan- his beleaguered city. In order to protect him- scription that dates to the 10th century B.C.E. oneself to be open to this method of analysis guages of the neighboring areas. One self, he builds a higher wall, digs a deeper Because of its content, many scholars believe will ultimately deepen one’s understanding of misunderstanding that results from not prop- ditch, and prays to his god Baal Shamen for as- it was either a scribal exercise or a ledger of the world which produced the Tanakh, thereby erly understanding Biblical Hebrew in this way sistance. The answer to his prayers, according sorts. It is called a calendar because it divides strengthening his or her connection to its time- can be seen in Amos. While prophesying about to the inscription, comes “byd hzyn wbyd the year into eight distinct time periods. The less messages. the destruction of the house of Jeroboam and `ddn,” “through the seers and `ddn.”iii Baal last time period is called “yrh kz”(yereh kez), the temples associated with it, Amos encoun- Shamen says to him, “Fear not, for I have made month of summer fruit, using the word kez, AJ Berkovitz is a senior at YC majoring ters fierce opposition from the priest Amaziah. you a king and I will stand by you and I will which is a diphthong but is presented here in in Jewish Studies and is a Staff Writer for Kol The priest says to Amos, “Seer (hozeh), leave deliver you from all these kings who have laid construct form. From this calendar, we see that Hamevaser. and flee to the land of Judah. Get your suste- siege on you.”iv In this inscription, the agent at least in the Gezer region the people con- nance there and there prophesy. Stop prophesy- through whom the news is delivered is called structed their “ay” diphthong as an e. ing in Bet El because it is a sanctuary and a hozeh. In addition to being the conduit be- Another group of artifacts that supports i Amos 7:12-13. palace.”i Amaziah, seething at Amos, dispar- tween King Zakkur and Baal Shamen, the seer the conclusion above is the Samaria Ostraca ii Judges 12:6. ages the prophet and encourages him to leave. is delivering good news. Using this informa- (plural for ostracon, which is a piece of shat- iii For a discussion of what exactly this word During his diatribe, he calls Amos a hozeh, tion, it is very likely that when Amaziah calls tered pottery containing written words). People means, see Hans M. Barstad, “The Prophet seer. In common biblical parlance, the word Amos a “seer,” it is not disparaging but is in ancient societies constantly sought suitable Oded and the Zakkur Inscription: A Case of for a prophet is generally navi. Because of rather an example of simple Northern parlance. writing media. Therefore, rocks, papyrus, clay, Obscuriore Obscurum?,” in J. Cheryl Exum Amaziah’s peculiar use of hozeh, one might be By understanding how the word hozeh is used and anything receptive to the written word and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Reading from tempted to conclude that this word is part of in this inscription, we can confidently say that were all fair game. Pottery shards were partic- Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in the general polemic leveled against Amos. Amaziah’s intentional diatribe against Amos ularly favored. Surfaces otherwise unused and Honour of David J. A. Clines (Journal for the Such a conclusion, however, fails to take the did not include a unique usage of the word disposed of, pottery shards were frequently Study of the Old Testament Supplement #373) broader context of Amos and his residence in hozeh. turned into “I-owe-you”’s and various sales (London; New York: T & T Clark Interna- the Northern Kingdom into consideration. Another section of Amos elucidated by in- documents. The Samaria Ostraca represent one tional, 2003), pp. 25-37. As seen from the Elijah and Elisha stories scriptional evidence is his “Basket of Summer collection of such documents, specifically tax iv Translation according to Simon B. Parker in in I-II Kings, the Northern Kingdom had ex- Fruit” prophecy. In the midst of a slew of records, that date to somewhere between the Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Compar- tensive dealings with the Arameans. These en- prophecies against the North, Amos says, 8th and 9th centuries B.C.E. Ostracon #9 says: ative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Se- counters led to an exchange of goods and “Thus God showed me: a basket of summer “In the ninth year, from Qosah, to Gediyahu: a mitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (New services, as well as, for our purposes, an Ara- fruit (keluv kayits). And He said, ‘What do you jar of aged wine.”vi Although we normally ex- York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 107. maic influence on the Northern Kingdom’s di- see, Amos?’ and I said, ‘A basket of summer pect wine to be spelled yyn (yayin), in this os- v Amos 8:1-2. alect of Hebrew. The notion of a slightly fruit.’ God said to me, ‘The end (kets) has tracon it is spelled yn (yein). This document is vi Translation by Mark W. Chavalas, The An- different dialect between Judah and Samaria come to my nation Israel.’”v While the word- close enough to the time of Amos to allow us cient Near East: Historical Sources in Trans- should not be surprising. This difference may play between kayits and keits seems obvious, to further establish that the people in the North lation (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell be likened to the differences in dialect found it may have resonated more sharply in the ears did not distinguish the “ay” diphthong. Publishing, 2006), p. 396. between English speakers living in various re- of a Northern Israelite. Northern Israelites In light of this evidence, we can better un-

10 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud An Interview with Rabbi Moshe Kahn BY: Ilana Gadish ban, Rashba, Ritva, and Tosfos on a sugya and you say about the Rishon should come out of without them being rooted in a text, it is more understand what each one is saying, and what his words. We should not be putting things in like wild speculation than true learning of ow would you describe your approach the differences are between them – and you un- that are not really emerging in a compelling Torah. towards teaching Talmud? What are derstand it based on the text. I am very much way. The other point which I said was that we Hyour goals when you tackle a sugya? opposed to offering an interpretation of a Ris- have to use our own brains to think things When learning Halakhah, how would you hon if it is not really coming out of the text of through, to ask questions, not to rely on what recommend that students focus on understand- The first thing that I would want to em- the Rishon; it has got to be compelling, and if somebody else said – we have to make it our ing sources in depth while also emerging with phasize is that the goal of teaching Talmud, or it is not, then I think it is best not to say it. own Torah, and we have to use our own brains practical halakhic knowledge? teaching anything, is to teach students how to to do so. learn. I think sometimes that gets lost, in that How do you think your own learning ex- If the goal of teaching Halachah is simply teachers or rabbe’im want to tell their students periences when you were a student were form- to tell students and to let them know what to their chiddushim or their sevaros or how they ative in developing your own derekh do – what do you do for this, what do you do understand a particular sugya – which is all ha-limmud? for that – just a practical guide to how to con- very nice and wonderful, but it has to be done duct yourself – if that is the whole purpose of in a way that allows the students to learn how One of the things I really did on my own, the Halachah class, then we do not need a Ha- to learn, and, therefore, it has to be developed even before I got into the Rav’s shi’ur, was de- lachah class in the first place. There are so from the ground up. Students have to learn veloping reading skills – just simply knowing many things now that are written in plain Eng- how to read a particular Gemara, how to go how to translate something. This was some- lish and Hebrew that if you want to just know through a Rishon carefully and properly, and thing that my rabbe’im never did with us. We what to do, you could find out without entering whatever sevara is going to emerge has got to were expected simply to know it, but the truth a classroom. If you want to have a Halachah emerge from the text. Therefore, the job of a is if you do not work on it, you are never going class, the goal should be to see the develop- is to teach students how to approach a to know it. I found myself really working on ment of the halachah from its original source: text and how to learn. That is what I do when knowing exactly what words mean, simply you go back to the Chummash, Mishnah, and I learn a sugya; I identify which Rishonim I being able to read something and translate it Gemara, etc., leading up to the want to work with and I assign these Rishonim, You mentioned your teachers, and how correctly. I did that on my own, and eventually and posekim post-Shulchan Aruch. But just to and the purpose is for students to be able to go most of them taught mostly Rishonim. Who was I felt that, in terms of being a teacher, that was get the bottom line without the entire back- through the Rishon carefully, line by line, your most formative Talmud teacher, and what critical in teaching students how to learn. If ground of what led to it – to me, that is not a knowing exactly what they are reading. What- was the most important skill that you learned you do not know the language, then you cannot meaningful study of Halachah. Of course, at ever conceptual ideas one would want to attrib- from him? progress, you cannot develop the end of the day you want to know what to ute to this Rishon have to emerge from the text, do, but the goal in a Halachah class should not and if they do not, then I do not think that it is The most formative teacher I had was the Do you feel that there are shortcomings to be simply to teach students what to do; the goal pedagogically correct to offer a sevara, be- Rav. I was in his shi’ur for about seven years. the standard methodology of the Brisker Aha- should be to show how the halachah got from cause it is not helpful to the students. I learned a lot of Torah from the Rav, which ronim? If so, how can one overcome those de- A to B to C to D and so on. Therefore, there goes without saying, but in terms of skills that ficiencies? has to be a balance between the development What should the balance be between Ris- I really picked up, I think two stand out the of the halachah, and, of course, the final pesak. honim and Aharonim in the study of a sugya? most in my mind. One of them is that he taught The truth is, people say they are learning us how to think things through on our own. using the Brisker method and I might debate if You have been teaching Talmud at Stern All the rabbe’im that I had in yeshivah That might sound dangerous in today’s time, what they are doing is really the Brisker College for Women since the mid-1980s. How just worked with Rishonim. The Rishonim are to be a thinker and to think independently, but method or not. It is hard to answer that ques- have you seen the field of Talmud for women the ones who really tackle how to work that is absolutely necessary in order to be able tion because when people say “the Brisker progress since then? through peshat in the Gemara, how to under- to learn Gemara. You have to be able to come method,” I am not sure I know what they mean stand the sugya. The tend to build in with your own mind, in terms of going by that. I think people mean different things. I think it has progressed – I remember the on what the Rishonim said, and there is a value through the sugya, and try to understand it on One of the things that I alluded to before was very beginning. The Advanced Talmud class to that, but in terms of training students how to your own; you have to rely on your own ability that people think that the Brisker method is only met twice a week. I think in the very first learn, I feel that the best way to do that is to to be able to do that. One of the things that the simply to suggest sevaros, even when they are class there were four students who came, and work with the Rishonim who are working re- Rav taught was that learning is not just repeat- not compelling. For me, that is not the Brisker for a number of years that is how it was – a ally closely with the text, in explaining the text ing what other people say; it is using our own method. The Brisker method is where some- very small group of students. I remember there of the Gemara and raising all the relevant is- minds to understand something very well, very thing comes out of the Rishon’s words them- was one year when I only had two students. sues. Acharonim will do that at times as well, carefully, and, where necessary, to come up selves; I do not feel that Rav Chayyim just For quite a while, the class met twice a week. but I think on a consistent basis the Rishonim, with a sevara and try to develop it by our- formulated ideas without being able to root But now – and I do not remember when it in terms of pedagogy, offer a better way to do selves. This is something that the Rav did all it. the time, and I think he certainly instilled this in his students. “We have to use our own brains to think So if students master reading the text and The other thing was that the Rav used to reading the Rishonim accurately, how do you read Rishonim; he would take out a Ramban things through, to ask questions, not to rely think Aharonim help? Once students reach a and read it, telling us that while we know how certain level, what should be the balance be- to say a sevara, we do not know how to read a on what somebody else said – we have to tween Aharonim and Rishonim, when learning Rishon correctly. That is really something that a new sugya, for example? I find, at times, lacking in many students who make it our own Torah.” learn Gemara; they might know a lot but they I feel that that could be something that do not read through the Rishon carefully, prop- them in a particular Rishon in a compelling started, probably sometime in the ‘90s – it has students can decide on their own; if they know erly, and fluently. I think if one is not able to way. If it is not compelling, then I really feel it been increased to four times a week, and there how to go through a sugya with Rishonim, they do so, that is a big chissaron in one’s learning. should not be said, and certainly not in a class- is an Intermediate Talmud class as well. I feel can learn through Acharonim as well. How I really was impressed by the Rav emphasizing room. Our primary job is to teach students how that more people are studying, although I still many Acharonim they decide to do, I do not the importance of reading every word of the to learn and it has got to be done with a very feel that in terms of numbers, it is a very, very think is critical. In terms of pedagogy, I think Rishon, so that every word should fit in and clear and distinct methodology and in a very small percentage of the student body that stud- what is critical is if you can go through a Ram- nothing should be extra, and so that whatever controlled way. I feel that if sevaros are said ies Talmud.

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 11 Kol Hamevaser Why are other students not taking advan- come normative. All girls’ schools have to start text. Once you feel you know, textually, the tage of this opportunity? If they just do not feel introducing Gemara – not as a bedieved, but as facts that the Rishon presented, you can try to that they have the ability, because Gemara is a lechatchilah, with the feeling that there is explain them in different ways, and that should Yivhar very hard to learn, that is one thing. But – and nothing wrong with it. And it should be done be a personal choice. If a particular method ap- this is getting involved in another problem – if intensively, no differently than you would do peals to you and it fits into your style of think- there is a hashkafic issue about women study- with a boy. ing, that is fine. But for me, the major concern E-lohim ing Gemara, that because of this haskhafah stu- should be with being sure that the reading of dents at Stern choose not to learn it [Gemara] Do you believe that there is a general dif- the text is accurate and that what you are say- – not because they lack the desire or the ability, ference between male and female learning ing is really in the Gemara or the Rishon. This Hiddushim but simply they feel the hashkafah that they styles? Do you believe that there should be, or should be the mehallech and derech ha-limmud BY: Moshe Peters have been taught is against it – I think that that there always will be? that everyone adheres to. issue needs to be addressed. I think that is one magine the following scene: you are in the major issue that holds back more students from No, I do not think that in terms of learning So you are saying that in that respect, it beit midrash learning Gemara or Tanakh, taking Gemara. style that gender is an issue or should be an depends on the teacher and his or her own and you offer your own novel interpreta- I do feel that the level of women’s learn- issue – I think it really depends on one’s intel- style, and that even within an institution differ- I tion of the source text – a hiddush. Your ing, from its inception to now, has increased lectual ability. Obviously, I am now teaching ent rabbe’im have different darkhei ha-limmud havruta (study partner) or friend responds that dramatically. There is the GPATS program women and I have taught men, and I still teach for either men or women? he or she cannot accept what you just said. (Graduate Program in Advanced Talmudic men, but I have found that those who are intel- Why does he or she refuse to accept it? Not Studies for Women), which was unthinkable lectually capable of learning Gemara do well Yes. And to me, again, it should not be because he or she was able to disprove your back in the ‘80s – there was barely a Gemara regardless of gender and those who are weaker based on gender; it has got to be based on the hiddush, not because there was some logical level of the students. If you are giving a shi’ur flaw in your argument, but rather because, as “Our primary job is to teach students to people who are advanced, then you should your friend explains, “it’s not found in any ear- be giving an advanced shi’ur regardless of gen- lier sources – if it were really true, someone how to learn. I feel that if sevaros are der. And if you are giving a more intermediate would have said it before you.” Such an inci- or beginner’s shi’ur, then, again, it should have dent would prove to be extremely frustrating. said without them being rooted in a text, nothing to do with gender – it has got to do But is your friend’s claim valid? Is there a with intellectual ability. basis for such an assertion? What about the it is more like wild speculation than true And with regard to learning style, while concept of “shiv’im panim la-Torah – there are we tend to be more conceptual and people do seventy perspectives to the Torah?”i Is the fact relate to that a lot: sometimes people work on that your idea cannot be found in an earlier learning of Torah.” the sevara very much – they try to work out source a reason to discount it? the sevara of what the machlokes is about; if The question at hand is a very broad one class then in the College. The very fact that we in terms of having or developing Gemara skills someone wants to do that, that is fine, but the and, as such, the focus of this article will be on have a graduate program in Gemara is a find it harder to learn Gemara, again regardless thing that we should all have in common is that hiddush in interpretation as opposed to hiddush tremendous achievement, and it really shows of gender. So I do not think there should be a we have to make sure that we are true to the in its application to practical legal decisions significant progress, but I feel there is still difference. To me, it is no different than Math text. I keep repeating that same point because (although some of those issues will be touched quite a ways to go. The Hashkafah issue is a or any other discipline; you teach it on the I think that that is where there are differences upon inevitably as well). real one, and I wish there were a way to ad- same level regardless of the gender of your stu- – people are suggesting ideas and sevaros that The Mishnah in Massekhet Orlah states: dress it more directly here at Stern College, so dents. You do not teach it to men differently are really not compelling in the text. And I feel “he-hadash asur min ha-Torah be-kol that students who would really gain from a than you teach it to women. I do not think we very strongly that as a teacher, it is not good makom,”ii which, in context, translates simply Gemara class would not feel that it is wrong would do it for Chummash, so I do not feel that pedagogy to interpret Gemaros or Rishonim in as: “the hadash (new grain) is prohibited on a for them to study Gemara. Gemara is any different in that regard. a way that is not compelling. Even if it is a biblical level in all places.”iii Hatam Sofer, R. nice idea and a wonderful sevara, if it is not Moses Sofer,iv famously commandeered this What do you think is the most important Institutions for advanced women’s Talmud compelling, then I think it would be wrong to mishnaic statement and (ironically) applied it thing that must be improved for women’s learn- are generally not under the direct auspices of offer that peshat. in a completely new context, explaining that ing? How do you think we, as a community, a traditional yeshivah with a set derekh ha-lim- all hiddushim are forbidden. According to this should go about that? mud. Do you think that in this respect, women Rabbi Moshe Kahn is an instructor of Tal- interpretation, the line from the Mishnah are at an advantage, in that their learning is mud and Halakhah at SCW and GPATS. would read as follows: “the hiddushim (novel The Hashkafah has got to change. I think not limited by one mode of learning, or is the ideas or interpretations) are always forbidden within the Modern Orthodox community there lack of a unitary derekh ha-limmud detrimen- Ilana Gadish is a senior at SCW majoring biblically.” Given this comment of Hatam are still educators and rabbanim who are not tal in some way? in Judaic Studies and is an Associate Editor for Sofer, it would appear as though the contention really happy with women learning Gemara. Kol Hamevaser. that “no one said it before you” is a valid one. Maybe they do not oppose it openly, but they If you take the yeshivah uptown, the However, before we jump to any conclusions, do not support it openly either. And then there rabbe’im have different styles of learning; the let us first examine some other literature.v are those who actually oppose it openly. So learning is all based on conceptual analysis, but Devorah the prophetess, in what is com- within the Modern Orthodox camp, number even so there are differences in style and in monly referred to as Shirat Devorah, the Song one, there has to be a change in attitude, and how to analyze something. Whichever style of Devorah, says, “Yivhar elohim hadashim – number two, the learning of Gemara for young appeals to the student would be perfectly fine they chose new gods.”vi The Yalkut Shim’oni women has to start, at the latest, in high school. to accept. However, in a broad sense, there is has a novel midrashic reading of this verse.vii When students come to college and they want a process everyone should follow. Whichever The interpretation offered there completely to take Gemara and are then exposed to it for method you use, you have to get there in the changes the meaning of the verse, looking at it the first time, they are at a disadvantage be- same way. In other words, if you are going to in a positive light instead of the negative light cause they are coming in at the age of 18, 19, be using a Brisker method, whatever you think implicit in the literal reading. The Yalkut etc. They are only at Stern for a few years, and that is, you have to get to the issues by analyz- Shim’oni explains: they are taking a full secular studies program, ing the text that you are studying and you have “…ve-kol mi she-mehaddesh divrei Torah so there is only so much time that they can de- to be able to be true to the text. So whatever al piv, domeh ke-mi she-mashmi’im oto vote to Gemara. And it is a shame – had they method you take, I feel that you have to be on mi-shamayim ve-omerim lo, ‘Kakh amar come in with 4 or 5 years of having learned the conservative side and make sure that what ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu: “Banneh li bayit,” Gemara intensively, they would be much more you are saying is actually what the Gemara or she-sekhar gadol shello.’ Hu she-ne’e- progressed. But this goes back to Hashkafah, the Rishon is saying. Everyone needs to ap- mar: ‘Yivhar Elohim hadashim’ – and too. Learning Gemara for women has to be- proach it in the same way, to be faithful to the

12 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud anyone who is mehaddesh words of Torah but as he studies and expounds it, “nikret Assuming we bypass the problem with mind of God, to which Eliyyahu responded, in his mouth is likened to a person about Torato – it is called his Torah.”xiv proposing novel ideas, there is a second ques- “Ellu va-ellu divrei E-lohim Hayyim – They are whom it is proclaimed from the heavens, Hiddushim are valued so much that the tion: are we really saying anything new? Are all (both) the words of the Living God.” This saying, ‘So said the Holy One blessed be Shulhan Arukh tells us that while it is forbid- all (or any) hiddushim really novel? Is there a incident highlights the fact that there can be He: “Build for Me a house,” as it is a great den to write on hol ha-mo’ed, writing down a possibility that everything that a person is more than one explanation to a pasuk or a reward for Him,’ as it says: Hashem cher- hiddush in Torah so that it will not be forgotten mehaddesh has already been said previously? sugya, etc. Furthermore, we see something ishes novel ideas.”viii is among the few legitimate cases in which the Based on this Yalkut Shim’oni, it appears prohibition can be waived.xv While this might that not only are hiddushim permissible, but only tell us the value of hiddush in Torah in the “There is room to deduce, expound, and in- even warranted and “cherished.” R. Hayyim general sense, it does not say anything about Volozhin, in his work Nefesh ha-Hayyim, ex- an imperative to develop our own novel inter- terpret in ways of which earlier generations presses this sentiment and stresses the fact that pretations. The Mishnah Berurah, however, Hashem cherishes hiddush immensely.ix He takes this one step further, explaining: were unaware, allowing us to develop new takes this idea even further, explaining that be- “[It is permissible to write down a hid- cause of hiddush (in Torah learning), Hashem dush [on hol ha-mo’ed] even without the ideas and explanations in our learning.” renews and creates new worlds, and that in any reason that it may be forgotten. This is place where people are “mehaddeshim hid- because it is incumbent upon a person at How do we relate to the verse, “Ein kol hadash even more amazing here: each explanation of- dushei Torah, simhah mithaddeshet la-Kadosh all times and every moment to toil in tahat ha-shamesh – there is nothing new under fered was also being offered by God Himself, Barukh Hu – interpreting the Torah in a novel Torah and produce new, novel interpreta- the sun”xx? The Midrash explains that all ha- lending divine legitimization to each and every fashion, joy is renewed to the Holy One tions and understandings – each according lakhot were given to Moshe Rabbeinu at Mat- statement. blessed be He.” R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, in to his own level. Therefore, it is impossi- tan Torah,xxi including “Mikra, Mishnah, Avot de-Rabbi Natan takes this idea even his work Halakhic Man, also states that “‘the ble for one to wait until after the festival halakhot, Talmud, Toseftot, Aggadot,” and con- further.xxiv Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai tells Holy One, blessed be He, rejoices in the dialec- in order to write down his hiddush, for at tinues: Rabbi Eliezer that he had the ability “to say tics of Torah’ [a popular folk saying]. Read not that time, there is a new hiyyuv (obliga- “Va-Afilu mah she-talmid vatik atid lomar words of Torah above and beyond what was here ‘dialectics’ () but ‘creative interpre- tion) upon him to produce other hid- lifnei rabbo – kullan ne’emru le-Moshe said to Moshe on Sinai.” At first, Rabbi tation’ (hiddush).”x dushim. If he were to wait until after the be-Sinai, she-ne’emar: ‘Yesh davar she- Eliezer was hesitant, but he soon “sat and de- The Rav was a very strong proponent of festival, he would have to re-study that yomar, “Re’eh zeh hadash hu.”’ Havero duced words [of Torah] above and beyond creative and novel interpretations in the study which he already learned and remember meshiv alav: ‘kevar hayah le-olamim – what was recounted to Moshe on Sinai and his of Torah – whether in Tanakh, Mishnah, that which he was already mehaddesh. And even that which a veteran student face shone like the light of the sun, and rays Gemara, or any other Torah discipline. He be- This would prevent him from acquiring will say in front of his teacher – they were extended like the rays of Moshe[‘s face] and a lieved that this was the very essence, the sine new hiddushim. There is no greater davar all told to Moshe on Sinai, as it says: ‘Is person did not know whether it was day or qua non, of talmud Torah. “The study of ha-aved (loss) than this!”xvi there a thing whereof it is said: “See, this night.”xxv This story seems to indicate that Torah,” he explains, “by definition, means Such a perspective is fascinating, as not is new?” The following [part of the verse] there is room to deduce, expound, and interpret gleaning new, creative insights from the Torah only does it very strongly support the idea that answers: ‘it hath been already, in the ages in ways of which earlier generations were un- (hiddushei Torah).”xi In one of his other fa- each and every person should be mehaddesh which were before us.’”xxii aware, allowing us to develop new ideas and mous works, U-Bikkashtem mi-Sham, he davar ba-Torah, but it even goes so far as to If we take this literally, then a “hiddush” explanations in our learning.xxvi states: “Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu natan Torah le- give this “hiyyuv” of hiddush halakhic impli- that we might come up with would not really Mori ve-rabbi, R. Aharon Lichtenstein, Yisrael ve-tsivvanu lehaddesh ve-litsor – The cations! be a “hiddush,” per se, as it has already been Rosh Yeshivah of and Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah to Is- We have mentioned several opinions ex- said previously at Sinai. While this might Rosh of Yeshiva University’s Gruss In- rael and commanded us to innovate and to cre- plaining why creative interpretation is essen- seem somewhat disheartening to the most cre- stitute, enjoys relating a story in which he was ate.”xii Talmud Torah requires us to approach tial, and perhaps even necessary, when it ative thinkers, it is in fact very uplifting. For present while the Rav gave a shi’ur.xxvii “He it creatively – Hashem commands us so. comes to Torah study. However, it should be one, it means that these statements have cre- was scintillating. His chiddushim were ab- Many of R. Soloveitchik’s works give the noted that in addition to the opinion of Hatam dence to the extent that they can be considered solutely brilliant. There was one stranger in the impression that the Torah was given on this Sofer, there are other issues that need to be part of “Torat emet – the true Torah.” Addi- audience who was taken aback at the Rav’s in- condition. Hashem wants and commands us to taken into consideration. tionally, going back to the opening situation in tellectual audacity and said to him, after the be partners with Him in Creation,xiii and just as The Mishnah in Avot 3:11 says in the the beit midrash, these “hiddushim” would in lecture, ‘But Rabbi Soloveitchik, what is your He is “mehaddesh be-kol yom tamid – renews name of Rabbi Elazar ha-Moda’i that “he who fact be considered part of the earlier “litera- source?’ The Rav answered: ‘A clear and log- [the world] daily,” so, too, we must do the unveils ideas in Torah that are not according to ture” – and not just any person’s literature, but ical mind.’” same with His Torah that He imparted to us. the Halakhah, even though he has in his hands the literature of Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu Him- We must also keep in mind that there is a We must make it something personal by relat- Torah and good deeds, has no portion in the self!xxiii debate over whether or not one has the right to ing to it in a personal manner, by approaching World to Come.”xvii While this might seem to In a similar vein, the Gemara in 6b argue against previous generations – specifi- it in a way that speaks to us both as individuals be more relevant to issues of Halakhah and is- relates a story in which Rabbi Yonatan and cally the Mishnah and Gemara.xxviii Although and as a collective whole. suing incorrect pesak (legal decisions), Tosafot Rabbi Evyatar were discussing an explanation we will not go into this in-depth here, as this Support for this idea that the Torah is ours issue usually relates more to the world of pesak to develop can be found in Kiddushin 32a-b in “Talmud Torah requires us to Halakhah, Jewish legal rulings, Rosh (R. a discussion about whether a talmid hakham, a Asher ben Yehiel), a major thirteenth-century Torah scholar, can be mohel (forgo) the kavod legal decisor, has a fascinating statement in one (respect or honor) that others are obligated to approach it creatively – Hashem of his teshuvot that is worth mentioning here. show towards him. The Gemara explains that He says: Hashem can forgo His honor because the world commands us so.” “Mi lanu gadol ke-, zts”l, she-he’ir is His and the Torah is His, so the honor is His einei ha-Golah be-perushav, ve-nehleku to forgo. But Rava questions whether the Yom Tov provides an example in Tanakh of a certain story in Tanakh (pilegesh be- alav be-harbeh mekomot yotse’ei yerekho, talmid hakham should have the same right, as where one should be wary of novel interpreta- Giv’ah, the concubine in Gibeah). Both of- Rabbeinu Tam ve-Rabbi Yitshak, z”l, ve- the Torah he represents, and the honor it de- tions, an example that seemingly has no ha- fered their own, seemingly mutually exclusive, sateru devarav; ki Torat emet hi, ve-ein serves, are not his to forgo. Rava subsequently lakhic import.xviii,xix The implication of this opinions. Rabbi Evyatar ran into Eliyyahu ha- mahanifin le-shum adam – Who is as explained, “In – Torah dileih hi, di-ketiv: ‘U- interpretation is that harsh consequences for Navi and asked him what God was doing at the great as Rashi, zts”l, who enlightened the be-Torato yehegeh yomam va-lailah’ – Yes, the misinterpretation of Torah may exist, regard- moment, to which he responded that He was Diaspora with his interpretations, and Torah is his [the talmid hakham’s], as it is writ- less of whether the mistake leads to practical discussing the very same story and suggested whose descendants, Rabbeinu Tam and ten: ‘And in his Torah does he meditate day halakhic ramifications, making us wary about both of the answers offered by these Rabbi Yitshak z”l (for example), argued and night.’” Rashi explains that initially it is creative interpretation and hiddush in our Amora’im. Rabbi Evyatar responded and against him in many places and they con- called “Torat Hashem – the Torah of Hashem,” everyday Torah study. asked how there could be uncertainty in the tradicted his words; for this is a Torah of

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 13 Kol Hamevaser truth (Torat emet), and we do not flatter vi JPS translation. (mahanifin) any person.”xxix vii Yalkut Shim’oni, Shofetim, remez 49. R. , in his book Seventy viii Author’s translation. Theodicy in Tanakh – Faces: Articles of Faith, explains: ix See R. Hayyim of Volozhin, Nefesh ha- “Our Torah is a ‘Torah of truth,’ not a Hayyim, Sha’ar 4, chs. 11, 12, 25. Torah of authoritarianism. We must never x Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, trans. A Practical Lesson confuse authoritativeness with authoritar- Lawrence Kaplan (Philadelphia: The Jewish ianism. A ‘Torah of truth’ requires that we Publication Society, 1983), p. 99. challenge conventional opinions. That is xi Ibid. xii in Knowledge of God what the massa u’mattan, the dialectic of Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Ish ha-Halakhah, Talmud is all about. Flattery – excessive Galui ve-Nistar (Jerusalem, 1944), p. 207. xiii respect – for an individual is harmful for This idea is extremely prevalent throughout BY: Daniela Aaron and, in doing so, sets up an almost fatalist view xxx Torah.” R. Soloveitchik’s Lonely Man of Faith. of the events leading to the exile. The reader xiv If we look at the declaration of Rosh in Rashi ad loc. s.v. u-be-Torato yehegeh. ourses on Jewish philosophy tend to may get the impression that the book is a long xv this light, we can posit that this would apply to Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 545:1,9. focus on studying theology through the list of our ancestors’ failings; however, it is xvi “flattery” of previous generations as well, for, Mishnah Berurah to Orah Hayyim 545:47 Clens of medieval treatises rather than much more than that, for there are several as Rosh correctly points out, Rashi’s own (author’s translation). through the lens of Tanakh. What knowledge kings who are described not only as good, but xvii grandchildren argue against him! Author’s translation. we have about how God works is not culled as exceptional, even ideal. Yet, the impression xviii The value of hiddush is so great; it is es- Tosafot Yom Tov ad loc. from the narratives in the Torah or prophetic of failure lasts because despite the attempts of xix sential to the definition of a beit midrash. The The discussion here is about how to under- literature, but from such works as Rambam’s kings (often supported by their subjects) to Gemara in Hagigah recounts: stand the story of “Pilegesh be-Giv’ah.” Introduction to Perek Helek or the Kuzari. The forestall destruction through good deeds, de- xx “Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Yohanan b. Kohelet 1:9 (author’s translation). reason for this is quite obvious: little about struction does indeed come, and the text ex- xxi Beroka and R. Elazar Hisma went to pay Vayikra Rabbah 22:1. how God works is readily clear from the plicitly links the destruction of the Judeans at xxii their respects to R. Yehoshua at Peki’in. JPS translation. Tanakh. This is not for lack of illustrations or the hands of the Babylonians with the sins of xxiii Said he to them: What new teaching was Alternatively, we could say that the way in statements about His actions, but because these their ancestors who ruled generations earlier.iv there in the beit midrash today? They which a person relates to or comes to a certain illustrations and statements are often inconsis- The book of Melakhim fosters a sense replied: We are your disciples and your thought or idea is part of interpretation itself, tent with one another, and therefore do not that, to a certain extent, destruction comes waters do we drink. Said he to them: Even thus making all “hiddushim” real “hiddushim.” form a coherent theology, a fact which can be- upon children because of their fathers’ sins. xxiv so, it is impossible to have a beit midrash Avot de-Rabbi Natan 2:13. come uncomfortable for those who view Torah This theme is expressed most eloquently, and xxxi xxv without some novel teaching.” Author’s translation. as the source of their belief. This phenomenon quite explicitly, by the author of Megillat xxvi Later on, the Gemara compares hiddush We can also tie this back to the famous is by no means limited to the discussion of Eikhah, who states, “Our fathers erred but are to a pearl, emphasizing how beautiful it is. Ad- Gemara in Menahot 29b in which Moshe torat ha-gemul (how God metes out reward no longer here, and we have suffered for their ditionally, on the very next page, the Torah is Rabbeinu is perplexed by the Torah teachings and punishment), but as it is a particularly sins.”v Eikhah is a book that goes out of its way compared to a tree. It is not a mere coinci- of Rabbi Akiva. See also the comments of Ets complex and intriguing concept within Tanakh, to detail the breadth of the destruction of dence that this comparison is made right here. Ya’akov and Hiddushei ha-Rim ad loc. I would like to use it to explore how a believer Jerusalem. Each chapter magnifies a different xxvii The Gemara is trying to emphasize the fact that The following quote was taken from Nor- can comfortably read Tanakh and find meaning aspect of the tragedy,vi culminating with the Torah, like a tree, continues to grow and in- man Lamm’s book Seventy Faces: Articles of in its discrepancies. Such a method highlights sense that God’s punishment was drastically crease, eventually sharing its fruit. Faith (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 2002), p. 16. How- the importance of not approaching texts with disproportionate to the Jews’ actions. In conclusion, I would like to offer a cer- ever, I have personally heard this story from preconceived notions, but instead discovering The second model of theodicy assumes tain perspective on the key line in this Gemara. mori ve-rabbi Rav Aharon Lichtenstein him- the truth that actually emerges from them. that God is just and acts in a way deemed just R. Yehoshua says, “I efshar le-beit midrash be- self. The difficulty of the issue of theodicy and by humans. This is a sort of Abrahamic ideal xxviii lo hiddush – It is not possible to have a beit This, however, seems to be more within the God’s providence is most pronounced when in which God’s demands on us to mete out jus- midrash without a hiddush.” Most interpret world of pesak Halakhah. See, for example, studying the books of Tanakh focused on galut tice are matched by His own attribute of jus- this in a positive light – namely, that a beit , Hilkhot Mamrim 2:1 and Kesef and ge’ullah (exile and redemption). A stark tice. This is a far more comfortable mode of midrash will inherently have hiddushim com- Mishnah ad loc., as well as Kovets Shi’urim to contrast is set up within these works between thought for many of us since in this view God’s ing forth from it. However, I believe that R. Bava Batra 663. two models of God’s justice. In the first model, modus operandi does not conflict with our own xxix Yehoshua is making an even stronger point – Responsa Rosh 55:9. vicarious and collective punishments are ac- views of what is just, i.e. that we are only pun- xxx namely, that a beit midrash that does not pro- Lamm, p. 13. ceptable; in the second model, God only pun- ished for our own sins. It is also a far more op- xxxi duce hiddushim is not considered a true “beit Hagigah 3a (translation adapted from Son- ishes based on personal sin. timistic view of the world: each person makes xxxii midrash.” cino). The first model is founded upon the his own destiny, and both good and bad xxxii It should be noted that these accounts in the Torah’s statement that God “is a jealous God, choices are punished or rewarded without Moshe Peters is a junior at YC majoring Gemara highlight what seems to be an ongoing visiting the sins of fathers upon sons until the repercussions on the undeserving.vii This sen- in English. mahaloket (dispute) throughout Shas between third and fourth generations, to those who hate timent is promoted by works such as Divrei ha- R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer regarding Maso- [Him].”i While many commentators try to mit- Yamim and Yehezkel. rah. R. Eliezer insists on Masorah, whereas R. igate the force of this statement,ii the plain Like Melakhim, Divrei ha-Yamim is not i Bereshit Rabbah 13. Yehoshua champions hiddush. meaning is that if someone sets himself against merely a historical chronicle. However, by and ii Orlah 3:9. God, he may expect punishment, even through large, that is where the similarities between the iii Author’s translation. the suffering of his children who may not have aims of the two books end. In its account of the iv See, for example, Responsa Hatam Sofer, sinned against God themselves. It is unnerving deeds of the kings of Yehudah, Divrei ha- helek 4 (Even ha-Ezer 2), siman 19 and helek to think that the Tanakh espouses what we may Yamim includes a considerable amount of in- 1, siman 28, etc. deem such a harsh view, but this is the senti- formation not found in Melakhim. While in v We should note that Daniel Sperber in his ar- ment expressed by the authors of Melakhim Melakhim kings are good or evil, in Divrei ha- ticle, “Paralysis in Contemporary Halakhah?” and Eikhah as well. Yamim everyone is a little of both. Whereas Tradition 36,3 (Fall 2002): 1-13, points out that Melakhim is not merely a chronicle of the Melakhim gives the impression that kings and this statement of Hatam Sofer was meant to kings of the Israelite nation; it is also a work their people may suffer undeservedly, Divrei polemically combat the Reform movement that of profound religious and theological impor- ha-Yamim maintains that each king is met with had been spreading throughout Germany at the tance.iii Set during the period before the de- the end he deserves.viii In this vein, the resolu- time. However, even given that fact, many still struction of the First Temple, Melakhim tion of the book does not focus on the near cen- apply Hatam Sofer’s comment to hiddush in attempts to explain to a confounded people tury of exile after the destruction of the First general (I myself have heard his explanation how they could have fallen so far from God, Temple, but on Cyrus’ proclamation sanction- used in this manner).

14 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud ing the rebuilding of the Temple, thereby giv- ics. Thus, those living through the destruction nisms by which He administers justice in the draws a parallel between acting justly and ing the reader the sense that the Jews are being of the Temple are given the prophet’s sympa- world. If this were the ultimate truth, one knowing God. Similarly, Hoshea associates given a chance to rebuild something wonder- thies and are justified for asserting that they are would assume that the contradictions would “knowledge of God” with “truth and mercy” ful, rather than inviting the reader to dwell on not being punished fairly. Expression of this not be present. Rather, these books discuss as the key elements missing from society in past mistakes. The book draws the reader to- viewpoint is not denied or covered up, but God’s providence in order to express the na- Northern Israel.xix Justice, kindness and hon- ward a view of divine justice that is fairer to rather substantiated. In contrast, those who are humans, one that offers each person the possi- already in exile or who are embarking on a re- “These works are not necessarily trying to give bility to improve his or her situation in life. turn to Israel to renew Jewish life there must While Divrei ha-Yamim alters the mes- be encouraged in their reestablishment of so- us an absolute image of how God works. They sage of Melakhim, the prophet Yehezkel makes ciety. Yehezkel therefore tells them that they his objections to Melakhim’s idea of divine should not fear undue suffering. Similarly, the instead provide us with visions of how to deal providence the subject of a public debate. authorxv of Divrei ha-Yamim stresses the im- Yehezkel speaks to a somewhat reluctant audi- portance of the actions of individuals and the with the situations we find ourselves in, and how ence of exiles who see their brethren still suf- possibilities for change that God affords us. to move on from them.” fering in Jerusalem under siege and begin to However, understanding that the contexts speculate about God’s justice. God responds by of books will affect their message is not quite tion’s grievances and provide them with en- esty, the prophets say, are the makings of da’at instructing Yehezkel to take the people’s enough to solve our problem. If we presume couragement. To some measure, God, through E-lohim (knowledge of God). God asks us to doubts head-on. In a meticulously reasoned that part of the purpose of Tanakh is to impart the prophet-author, acknowledges the “unfair” forgo the pursuit of intellectually understand- passage, the prophet explicitly states that God religious truths, how can two works in the aspects of His action in the world; He allows ing His nature and delving to the center of His punishes and rewards each person according to same canon relate such contradictory ideas? man a space to say that situations of terrible mystery and to instead pursue what He would his personal sins or merits.ix Sons, he says, may Based on this question, we may approach the suffering are unwarranted, to wonder about the rather term “knowledge of God” – the creation only suffer for the sins of their fathers if they text in one of two ways. The first approach at- theological ramifications of affliction. How- of a just society that fosters kindness and truth. continue in their fathers’ evil ways.x,xi tempts to resolve the contradictions between ever, God also wishes His people to move for- The works addressing a nation attempting The clash between these two models is these books by integrating the texts. This kind ward from such speculation and despair. to build such a society emphasize God’s justice obvious enough. Yehezkel publicly denounces of solution involves a deduction like this: God Yirmeyahu told those who left in the first wave because creation of a truly just society must be the catchphrase among the besieged Israelites must authorize both messages, but since they of exile that they must settle in galut and pros- founded on a belief that God is truly just – or, that “our fathers ate sour grapes, but our teeth contradict, one must be the true message while per there.xvii But in order to rebuild a life for rather, that justice is attainable. Perhaps as a re- are set on edge,”xii while Melakhim and Eikhah the other accomplishes another purpose. The themselves – and certainly for the returnees to sult of our creating a culture which embodies quite readily express this view.xiii As readers of difficulty with such an approach to the text, in Israel to recreate what they once had – the peo- two of the deepest values of Judaism, tsedakah the Bible, we are caught in a disturbing dialec- and mishpat, God will in fact show us His jus- tic out of which there is no easy escape. That “If both models of God’s providence are taken at tice and reward us accordingly. At the same said, it seems to me that patterns do emerge time, we must not forget that God’s ways are from the murkiness. The most apparent is that face value, then it cannot be that God is trying to in fact more complicated than this – we must the works written about and for the Jews suf- not stray too far from the text and simplify our fering through the destruction of Jerusalem, tell man through these accounts the ultimate truth understanding of God – for when we do, and such as Melakhim and Eikhah, encourage the of His providence, the mechanisms by which He the focus turns to presumption of understand- view that God punishes people for others’ sins, ing the intricacies of God’s ways rather than while the works written about and for the Jews administers justice in the world.” becoming exemplars of His ways, we arro- who are trying to make a new life post-destruc- gantly forget what God desires from us: to “do tion, Divrei ha-Yamim and Yehezkel, emphasize this case, is that the reader must then decide ple cannot be full of doubt as to whether the justice and love kindness, and walk humbly” God’s absolute justice concerning each indi- which the “true” message is, and such an as- endeavor of building a society based on God’s with Him.xx vidual. sessment will necessarily rely on his precon- laws is desirable or even logical. (For how can What is the significance of this distinction ceived notions of providence rather than on the one build a just society created by an unjust Daniela Aaron is a senior at SCW major- with regard to answering the question of why text alone. The reader may come to a unified God?) These post-destruction works therefore ing in English Literature and Judaic Studies Tanakh provides us with contradictory expla- theory of God’s justice but at the expense of bring something different to the reader: a focus and is a Staff Writer for Kol Hamevaser. nations of divine punishment? To draw out the dismissing half of the material at hand.xvi on God’s attribute of absolute justice. meaning here, we must first consider the role Therefore, I would like to suggest a sec- This should not be confused with saying of a book of Nakh. Whether part of Neviim ond way to resolve the contradictions. For this that the prophets are utilitarian when it comes (prophetic works) or Ketuvim (usually defined solution, the reader must assume that each of to theology. They are not saying something un- as works written with divine inspiration), a the opposing texts means exactly what it says true about God for their own purposes. Rather, i Shemot 20:4. book of Nakh must have a message to express, and that what each says carries some inherent they are saying that knowledge of God is ii Targum Onkelos, Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn some sort of divine imperative or calling – value. That is, it is not only a message for a cer- something far more practical than being able Ezra to Shemot 20:4 (and many more). One often, many such callings. The fact that these tain context, nor do we judge its relevance to account for whether God keeps exact may ask – and would be justified in doing so – works were written or prophesied about a cer- based solely on our own conceptions of truth weights and measures on the scale of our why I do not accept such an explanation that tain generation is significant to this message: value. Rather, the texts together possess a deeds, or whether He is vengeful and punishes mitigates the force of this statement. The an- each author’s work has a theme fitting the set- larger message which is precisely sustained by innocents. These works are not necessarily try- swer is that for the purposes of this article, I ting and situation of the Jews at that time.xiv the contradictions between them. ing to give us an absolute image of how God am relying on an understanding of the peshat works. They instead provide us with visions of (plain meaning) of the text, by which I refer to “The fact that these works were written or how to deal with the situations we find our- the meaning of the words within their textual selves in, and how to move on from them. contexts. There is room to interpret this verse prophesied about a certain generation is Knowledge of God gleaned from the prophets as Onkelos and the rest do, but these commen- is something entirely different from knowing tators are in fact not reading it literally. significant to this message: each author’s work exactly whether or how God tracks our actions. iii I would like to acknowledge and thank Pro- has a theme fitting the setting and For the prophets, “knowledge of God” is fessor Smadar Rosensweig for her class on equated with something seemingly far more Melakhim and Divrei ha-Yamim, which pro- situation of the Jews at that time.” mundane, as Yirmeyahu says about King vided the impetus for much of the work I did Yoshiyyahu, “Didn’t your father […] do justice here regarding the two models of providence. Given that the two sets of books discussed If both models of God’s providence are (mishpat) and righteousness (tsedakah)? [...] iv Towards the end of Melakhim,King above have very different settings and situa- taken at face value, then it cannot be that God Then it was good for him. He judged the cause Yoshiyyahu led a teshuvah movement of pre- tions, we may surmise that their messages are is trying to tell man through these accounts the of the poor and the destitute, then it was good. viously unparalleled scale, but, despite his ef- bound to differ in their treatment of certain top- ultimate truth of His providence, the mecha- Is this not to know Me?”xviii Here, Yirmeyahu forts, was told that the nation would still be

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 15 Kol Hamevaser

)*+

         

                                             1    1                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ! ! "                                                   %  %%    ! "        '    #  $  %           $$   &        #  #                  !"!           !"!                                                        &'            **              )))      "  "                ((    (  ) ))) --  ! #      (  -  $ %&$ '# ((  $ %     ( )   *        "       %& + ((  (  (            $ ''## (( " "  + (  "  ( )   "       ,        ) )))        ))   )      0 ,       - 0     )). / . /  0.                               

16 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud punished for his ancestors’ sins (II Melakhim this also in light of chapter 3, where the narra- seen in terms of being written for Jews rebuild- tradicts the Torah or Melakhim, implying that 23:26): “But God did not return from his great tor begins by describing his situation in terms ing a society, it seems like this idealization is there may be room for two opposing views on anger against Judah for all the incitements with of his being unfairly and deliberately sought meant to provide the Jews with a model to this subject, the impression is that Yehezkel is which Menasheh incited him.” This is more after by God. (His language does not go as far strive for (as opposed to Melakhim which ex- attempting to overturn a divine declaration by specifically referring to his grandfather, as Iyyov’s, but the similarities abound.) There, plains the mistakes as the cause of exile). Ad- introducing an entirely new concept in its stead Menasheh, whose degenerate rule nearly a cen- too, he recoils afterwards from his irreverence ditionally, its negative treatment of Uziyyahu – the prophet (and God speaking to him) has tury earlier is described in II Melakhim 21:10- and describes God’s mercy, insisting in 3:40 and other kings, as well as its descriptions of found the old model wanting and is replacing 12 as the leading cause of the destruction of the that the proper response is to search one’s the various civil wars between the Jewish king- it. Judean kingdom. Menasheh’s father, ways: “We will search our ways and examine doms, seem to point to a different or additional xiv Bava Batra 15a names the authors of the Hizkiyyahu, also made key misjudgments [them], and we will return to God.” The fact motive to the book than merely a glorification books of Tanakh. Yirmeyahu – a tortured fig- which slated the kingdom for destruction; see that they must search in order to account for or legitimization of the kingdom. ure himself in the throes of exile – is listed as ibid. 20:12-19. All told, the general impression the situation suggests that their sins are not ap- ix Yehezkel 18. the author of both Melakhim and Kinot is one of collective punishment; though clearly parent, and, therefore, that actions of others x The question may be asked here, as well as (Eikhah), while Ezra and his assembly are the nation sinned, its later repentance was no might have also been taken into consideration above, why I do not see this as an explanation listed as the authors of Divrei ha-Yamim. Ezra match for the residual evil of Menasheh’s in their punishment. of Shemot 20:4. The answer is two-fold. First, himself was fulfilling the vision of the prophe- reign. vi For a good treatment of this subject, see it is a strange thing to say that the word of the cies of returning to Israel. The Talmud here I do not mention here the kingdom of Northern Gavriel H. Cohn, Iyyunim be-Hamesh ha- prophet should subvert that of divine law by points us to the fact that understanding the his- Israel, which was led by evil and unrepentant Megillot, (Jerusalem: The Jewish Agency for explaining it entirely outside of the peshat. In torical/cultural context of the writing has sig- kings. Seforno, in his commentary to Shemot Israel – Eliner Library, 2006). such a view, the prophetic account says, “She- nificance; that is, the reader should understand 20:4, actually describes the treatment of North- vii The clear detriment to this view is the reality mot had some of it right, but what it really something about the author and thereby the ern Israel as a case of children who are pun- that the good suffer and the evil prosper. But meant was this other thing, which is essentially context of the sefer. ished for their fathers’ sins because they the believer may understand that God has His different.” It makes more sense to say that xv Multiple authors, according to Hazal; see continued the sins of their fathers. That is to ways in governing this world. Alternatively, Yehezkel is fighting against a very strong view Bava Batra 15a. say, they sinned on their own instead of break- one can always hope for justice in the afterlife. in his time – that God punishes vicariously – xvi I have found this to generally be the case. ing away from the idolatrous behavior of their viii For example, II Divrei ha-Yamim 26 views and espouses an entirely different viewpoint, For example, with regard to providence, most forebears and thus were presumably punished Uziyyahu’s (Azaryah’s) theretofore unex- which is that God punishes individuals for their people will choose Yehezkel’s message over for their own actions as well. (Note that Se- plained leprosy as the result of an attempt to own sins. Especially in 18:19, it seems as Yirmeyahu’s when explaining theodicy, de- forno does not provide a similar explanation appropriate a part of the priestly service, while though Yehezkel is being met with opposition spite both accounts being on equal grounds in for the punishment which befell the kings of Menasheh’s lack of a punishment in his life- to this view: “You will say, ‘Why doesn’t that terms of divine origins. In terms of peshat in Yehudah.) time is explained by his eventual teshuvah (re- son carry his father’s sin?’ – but that son did the Torah, people will emphasize the narrative v Eikhah 5:7. Though the poet does add that the pentance); see ibid. 33. tsedek and mishpat and kept all of My laws and of Avraham arguing with God against collec- people going to exile have also sinned in 5:16, It is commonly explained that the additions in did them: he shall live!” The prevalent logic is tive punishment over the legal exposition of the earlier complaint expresses a view that, to Divrei ha-Yamim aim to glorify the Davidic dy- that sons are punished for their sinful fathers. God declaring His vengeance on sons for their my eyes, colors much of the text. I would read nasty, as they idolize David and Shelomoh. If As such, the people of Yehezkel’s time are not fathers’ sins. This suggests to me a skewed way viewing his statements as explanations of their of approaching a text, particularly one which current beliefs, but as entirely new beliefs. the reader believes to be divine in origin. Second, there is cause to believe, given the in- xvii Yirmeyahu 29:4-7. The prophet instructs the formation above, that there are also contradict- people to build a society in the exile. ing prophetic accounts on this matter, such as xviii Ibid. 22:15-16. Melakhim, as explained above. There are two xix Hoshea 4:1. parallel streams of thought on this subject: one xx Mikhah 6:8. is much more clearly expounding on Shemot 20:4; the other seems to be a separate view, probably with a different source. I think this agrees with the statement in Makkot 24a (see n. 13) which describes Yehezkel as “nullifying” Moshe’s decree. He is not explain- ing it but attempting to cancel its force. xi Many connect this statement with Devarim 24:16: “Fathers will not be put to death for their sons, and sons will not be put to death for their fathers; each person will be put to death SPONSOR AN for his [own] sin.” They contend that this Torah ISSUE OF statement reveals the idea that God only pun- ishes people for their individual sins. However, KOL this verse is interpreted differently in Melakhim by King Amatsyah. In II Melakhim 14:6, Am- HAMEVASER atsyah does not kill the sons of his father’s as- sassins because of the Torah’s statement in Devarim 24:16. This implies that the accepted interpretation of this pasuk is not that it de- scribes an aspect of God’s punishment but is FORFOR MOREMORE rather a directive to the Israelites to not punish vicariously in their own courts. ININFORMATIONNFORMAATTION xii Ibid. 18:2. CCONTACTONTTAACCT xiii As mentioned earlier, this tension is noted in Makkot 24a, where R. Yosei ben Hanina in- KOKOLHAMEVASEROLHAMMEVVAASEER terprets Yehezkel as “nullifying” the decree of Moshe (i.e., Shemot 20:4). @@[email protected] This is a more radical understanding of Yehezkel’s prophecy: rather than saying it con-

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 17 Kol Hamevaser An Interview with Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman

BY: Staff sis; R. Aharon was, according to the Chazon the great rashei yeshivah, who were great ped- body is doing a study of a particular sugya, Ish, the greatest product of the Lithuanian agogues. I am not referring to somebody who then he may want to see what all the major hen you approach a sugya, what are yeshivah world. But the shi’ur was tremen- is doing a specific study or a monograph on a Acharonim say on it. R. Shach used to say that, your goals and what steps do you dously difficult to follow, even for seasoned sugya. R. Elchanan Wasserman used to recom- in general, mi’utam yafeh, a little bit is healthy; Wtake in order to achieve them? students. So some of them proposed that he mend learning Rashi, Tosafos, the Rosh, and you can have too much of a good thing. One split each shi’ur into two; one would focus on one Rishon, such as the Rashba or the Ran. should see enough to know what the discourse The first thing that I want to do when I the cheshbon of the sugya, which not everyone Nowadays, for better or for worse, the pace of of the Acharonim is, but he does not necessar- learn a sugya is get a handle on the tsurasa di- could really handle, and the second one would learning in yeshivos has become much slower, ily have to see every Acharon on the sugya. shema’atesa, the structure of the sugya. focus on the sevara, the conceptual analysis, so we usually look at more Rishonim than that, This is not to be dismissive of the Acharonim, “Sugya” in this context may mean the page of which was more accessible. He adamantly re- but there still has to be a limit, especially for but Acharonim are complicated and you can Gemara in front of me, or it may have a larger fused. The students have to know, he insisted, young bachurim. You have to be careful not to easily get lost. In the yeshivos, they particu- ambit and include related discussions else- that sevara is not hefker (a free-for-all) – a se- overload. larly valued certain Acharonim, such as R. where in Shas. I want to know what the issues vara has to emerge from the rigorous working Akiva Eiger, the Ketsos, and the Nesivos, so facing the Rishonim were when they looked at through of the cheshbon of the sugya; other- you do not want to miss those, especially if the sugya and how they dealt with those issues, wise, you would be able to say anything, and they have something major to say on the sugya. as well as how the various pieces of the sugya it would be chaos. If there is a major Ketsos on the sugya and you fit together and how they are interrelated. do not know about it, then there is really a hole Out of this analysis emerge the various is- Are all Rishonim created equal? In other in your learning of the topic. sues in lomdus and the conceptual underpin- words, on a fundamental and educational If a person is learning without a shi’ur – nings of the topic, so that eventually we can get level, should each Rishon’s shittah (position) on his own or with a chavrusa – then I think it a rich account of the whole matter. be studied equally and given equal authority is very worthwhile to find one contemporary The various kushyos (difficulties) that the when studying a sugya? yeshivah-style work that he feels comfortable mefareshim (commentators) point out, or that with, in order to make sure that he is plugged we discover ourselves, are also helpful. They Generally, the rule is that lu yeda’ativ into the discourse; usually, those kinds of are like the irregularities in the marble that tell hayisiv (if I could understand him, then I works will cite the major Acharonim that he re- you where to chisel. R. Aharon Kreizer – who would be him) – we are not Rishonim and we ally should not miss. was a great man, and who taught here at are not in the position to evaluate their stature. Yeshiva for many years – used to say that a Nonetheless, it is accepted that there are Do you feel that there are shortcomings to kushya is a “shpalt” – a crack – that allows us gedolei ha-Rishonim (the greatest of the Ris- the standard methodology of the Brisker to peek inside the sugya. R. Akiva Eiger’s honim), and there is a certain hierarchy. Some- derekh (Brisker methodology of learning), and, questions are particularly good in this regard; one once said to R. Chayyim Volozhin that the if so, how is it possible for one to overcome he has an instinct for the jugular, for the living was like a Tanna. R. Chayyim, those deficiencies? heartbeat of the sugya. whose esteem for the Gaon was limitless, nev- What should the role of Aharonim be in The ultimate goal is to have a clear and ertheless replied that, great as the Gaon was, one’s talmud Torah? Do the answers to the pre- I would begin by observing that in the YU deep understanding of how the various Ris- he was not like a Tanna, nor like an Amora, nor vious two questions depend on whether one is community, the term “Brisk” is used almost in- honim understood the sugya. That is not a like the Geonim, nor like the Ramban, but studying Halakhah le-ma’aseh (practical Ha- terchangeably with the yeshivishe derech ha- small thing. The Avnei Nezer once wanted to maybe he was like the Rashba. (Apparently, he lakhah) or not? limmud. I suppose that is not a cardinal sin, but know what the greatness of R. Chayyim felt that there was a difference between the it is not how the term is used in the rest of the Brisker was, so he sent his student, the Chelkas stature of the Ramban and that of the Rashba.) First of all, it is important to understand Torah world. The yeshivishe derech ha-limmud Yoav, to Brisk to get to know him. When the Of course, when we are working on a that learning Acharonim is different than learn- is the approach to learning that developed in Chelkas Yoav returned, he told the Avnei Nezer sugya, we will begin with the Rishonim who ing Rishonim. Rishonim wrote very precisely, the Lithuanian yeshivos from the founding of that R. Chayyim knows how the Rambam are most on the daf, such as Rashi, Tosafos, the so every word is freighted with meaning. Volozhin until the Holocaust and beyond, and learned every sugya in Shas. The Avnei Nezer Rosh, the Rashba, etc. (Maybe this is related to the fact that the Ris- while it is hard to overstate R. Chayyim responded that if that is the case, then he is honim wrote before there was printing.) So Brisker’s importance in that movement, his greater than the two of them. So it would be okay to move on to the next when you learn a Rishon, you must read it derech was not the only one. Within that The lomdus of the sugya is also very im- sugya if one only learned Rashi, Tosafot, and slowly, exhaustively, and must attempt to un- framework, there are many different streams portant, but it should emerge organically out of Rambam, without learning the opinions of the derstand every word and phrase. Acharonim and battei midrash, creating considerable vari- the internal logic of the sugya. You know, R. other Rishonim on the sugya? wrote much more discursively, so the chal- ety, but it is still a recognizably coherent intel- used to say a shi’ur that was lenge of reading an Acharon is to follow the lectual movement. In a real way, it is also a collaborative movement, perhaps the most col- laborative that the world of learning has seen “It is hard enough to work out how Rashi learned the sugya, and then it is since the days of the great yeshivos of the Ba’alei ha-Tosafos. another whole undertaking to see how Tosafos learned it. If you are going The term “Brisk,” on the other hand, is to do that with twenty Rishonim, you will just walk away confused, and particularly associated with R. Chayyim him- self, of course, but more especially with the you will not get very far either, so you have to limit your scope.” beis midrash of R. Chayyim’s son, R. Yitzchak Ze’ev, the Brisker Rav. (In YU circles, he is usually referred to as R. Velvel, but outside of magisterial in its dissection of the cheshbon – It is hard enough to work out how Rashi thread of his argument, which might extend those circles nobody calls him that anymore.) the logical and textual structure – of the sugya learned the sugya, and then it is another whole over several pages. Very often, our students are Even though the Brisker Rav did not have a in all its complexity; and for R. Aharon, the undertaking to see how Tosafos learned it. If used to reading Rishonim and then they read yeshivah in Europe, R. Leyzer Yudl used to sugya included every discussion in the Bavli you are going to do that with twenty Rishonim, an Acharon and get bogged down because they send the most select talmidim from the Mir to and Yerushalmi that related to the topic. His you will just walk away confused, and you will are not used to the style of the Acharonim. learn by him. These were men, such as R. Leyb technical prowess was unbelievable. The shi’ur not get very far either, so you have to limit your As to how much Acharonim should oc- Malin, R. Yonah Minsker and R. Noach Boren- was also rich in lomdus and conceptual analy- scope. This was the unanimous opinion of all cupy us, again, it is a question of time. If some- stein, who were already accomplished talmidei

18 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud chachamim and steeped in yeshivishe learning, of skills? you what not to say. I think it could be argued What is the role of yir’at Shamayim in yet they would get from the Brisker Rav a cer- that a large part of R. Chayyim’s contribution Talmud or in Tanakh study and in pesak? tain something – a certain austereness, an in- We can talk about derech ha-limmud on lay in teaching us what not to say. tellectual fastidiousness – that was two levels. On the micro level, how do I actu- Of course, R. Chayyim himself was a First of all, “Reshis chochmah yir’as recognizably the hallmark of Brisk. And, of ally go about learning the sugya? How do I titan. The Meytsheter [R. Shlomo Po- Hashem” (Fear of God is the beginning of wis- course, here at YU we associate Brisk particu- start? What do I do first? What do I do second? lachek] said of him that he was simply inca- dom). The gateway to Torah is yir’as larly with the Rav. One of the things I recommend over and over pable of saying anything shallow; everything Shamayim. The Avnei Nezer was once told a In any event, call it what you will, the to my talmidim is to go over the shakla ve- he said reached down into the very depths of Torah idea in the name of the Oneg Yom Tov, derech ha-limmud that developed in the tarya (give-and-take) of the Gemara, Rashi, the sugya. R. Chayyim Ozer, himself a giant whom he did not know personally, and he said Lithuanian yeshivos is tremendously powerful, and Tosafos by heart – not by rote, but simul- beyond our ability to measure, used to quip – that from the lucidity of the idea, he could tell and its influence has spread to other circles as taneously with in-depth learning. It focuses taking the famous taxonomy of domem, what a great tsaddik the Oneg Yom Tov must well. Many Chasidic yeshivos – even before one’s attention on the sugya itself and its struc- tsomeach, chai, and medabber (mineral, veg- be. the war – took Lithuanian rashei yeshivah be- ture. cause of it. R. Shach was a rosh yeshivah in a On a macro level, what are my goals yir’as Shamayim Chasidic yeshivah in Europe. The Tshebiner when I am learning this sugya? What am I “Not only is a Rav, who was the greatest in the Cha- working toward? What are the set of intellec- sidic world after the war, took products of tual tools that I have in my toolbox, and how prerequisite for Torah study; it is Lithuanian yeshivos to teach in his yeshivah. do I apply them? What do I consider an impor- Even in Merkaz HaRav, despite R. Kook’s op- tant issue, and what do I consider secondary? also the result of such study. It is a position to R. Chayyim’s approach, they learn What kinds of questions are admissible, and in this way. what kinds of answers are satisfactory? How A word about derech ha-limmud in gen- do I organize the sugya in my mind? And so virtuous cycle.” eral: If a person has a good, sound derech ha- on. So derech ha-limmud is the overarching limmud, that by itself will not make him a framework, but not a substitute for particular etable, animal, and human) one step further – The Gemara in (22b) says that lamdan, any more than knowing the principles skills or for knowledge. that there are really five categories of being: yir’as Shamayim includes reverence for of good chess playing – that you should try to domem, tsomeach, chai, medabber, and R. talmidei chachamim. The Vilna Gaon used to control the center, for example – will make you You mentioned that the Brisker derekh is Chayyim Brisker. say that if a person learns with showy casuistry a good chess player. To be a lamdan, you need a phrase that is overused. Would you say that One last point: R. Chayyim’s revolution then he grows arrogant, because he convinces a certain set of skills, some of which are not R. Hayyim Soloveitchik and his sons, acknowl- cannot be separated from the yeshivah move- himself that he has solved all the problems that easy to acquire and some of which are best ac- edged for initiating the Brisker derekh, did in- ment as a whole, which brought together the the commentators raise. But if he learns prop- quired when you are young and your mind is deed establish a revolution in Torah learning? finest young minds from all over Eastern Eu- erly, then he constantly sees how the questions still plastic. You additionally must have a cer- rope to a self-contained archipelago of a few which confound him are already addressed by tain critical mass of knowledge. Returning to R. Chayyim changed everything, and he large yeshivos and created an intellectual fer- the Rishonim with a few spare words, and he the analogy of chess, you also have to develop changed nothing. R. Chayyim changed every- ment that did not exist when you only had little grows humble. the knack of seeing the good moves. Perhaps thing in that, through his talmidim and his gen- battei midrash in every town. Not only is yir’as Shamayim a prerequi- most important is a critical sense: the ability to eral influence, he had a very strong impact in site for Torah study; it is also the result of such distinguish between what is plausible and not, shifting the focus of learning in the yeshivos Is there a specific methodology that study. It is a virtuous cycle. R. Yisrael Salanter what is straight and what is crooked. Thirty- away from the kinds of purely textual concerns should be used in the study of Tanakh? used to say that if someone does not toil over five years ago, when I went to study in Israel, that had become the preoccupation of learning the ve-im tomar (question) of Tosafos and over R. Nachum [Partzovitz]’s shi’urim were con- at that time towards the conceptual underpin- One thing I know is that Tanach has to be the ve-yesh lomar (answer), then from where sidered to be the greatest available; since his nings of the topic. Not that textual concerns studied with yir’as Shamayim (fear of will he draw yir’as Shamayim? passing, his reputation has only grown, espe- were abandoned, but there was a shift in bal- Heaven). R. Yaakov Kamenetsky once said R. Eli Baruch Shulman is a Rosh Yeshivah at RIETS and is Rabbi of the Young Israel of “A talmid chacham should know Tanach and have the twenty- Midwood. four kishutim (adornments), which, as the Midrash puts it, are the twenty-four sefarim of Tanach.” i This metaphor can be found in Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 4:11. ii Tehillim 111:10. cially with the ongoing printing of his shi’urim. ance. But at the same time, R. Chayyim that after he passes away, he wants to be buried A major part of his greatness was his critical changed nothing because conceptual analysis next to R. Chayyim Heller (who was a great sense. You could see his shi’urim emerge from existed before him as well – we have it in the academic scholar of Bible, as well as a gadol the words of the Rishonim themselves. He had Rishonim and in the great Acharonim such as in traditional learning), because of an episode a very highly developed sense of what is a R. Akiva Eiger, the Ketsos, and the Nesivos. in which he was deeply impressed by R. plausible reading of the Rishonim and what is The whole of yeshivishe lomdus can be found Heller’s yir’as Shamayim. They were once not. He used to say that he does not believe that in the Ramban. conversing about a certain verse in Tanach, and the Rishonim did not know how to write, so Yet there is something unique and revolu- R. Yaakov mentioned that there are those who whatever interpretation we offer of their words tionary about R. Chayyim which was widely would like to emend the text of that verse. R. has to emerge from those words themselves in recognized, but which is hard to pin down. In Chayyim turned white and almost fainted. a natural way. his own oeuvre, he brought conceptualization So derech ha-limmud by itself will not to a very high pitch. And he conveyed a new Would you say that a bahur yeshivah make you a lamdan. On the other hand, having sense that sevara has to be rigorous in its own should spend some time learning Tanakh while a bad derech ha-limmud will certainly stand in right and that it is not just a handmaiden of he is in his yeshivah years? your way. Roger Bacon writes somewhere that cheshbon. R. Baruch Ber was once asked why genius without method is like being fleet- one needs a rebbe; after all, one can open up a Yes, absolutely. A talmid chacham should footed but headed in the wrong direction. volume of R. Akiva Eiger’s writings and read know Tanach and have the twenty-four the most profound Torah thoughts. R. Baruch kishutim (adornments), which, as the Midrash What exactly does derekh ha-limmud con- Ber answered that R. Akiva Eiger can teach puts it, are the twenty-four sefarim of Tanach.i sist of if it is not a critical sensibility or a set you what to say, but you need a rebbe to teach

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 19 Kol Hamevaser Why Doesn’t Halakhic Man Learn Aggadah?

BY: David Pruwer will be useful to condense the nature of derekh outlook, asserting that when a sufficient level posed fundamental irrationality of Rabbinic Ju- ha-limmud to its two principle elements: it of wisdom is attained, “one should devote daism.xiii “The problem of the Aggada,” in Jew- he arts of defining, categorizing and adopts a certain group of key questions in one’s days solely to Gemara according to the ish historian Marc Saperstein’s assessment of systematizing are hallmarks of the mod- which one ought to engage, and it utilizes a breadth of his heart and the peace of his this age, “had become bound up with the very Tern age. Indeed, sociologist Max Weber very specific set of tools and models with mind.”x No mention, at least here, is made of survival of the books in which it was con- dubbed this an era in which “one can, in prin- which to answer these questions. In short, the Aggadah. There is, however, a more elemen- tained.”xiv ciple, master all things by calculation.”i Along ideal type of Torah study remarkably resem- tary argument that lies at the very heart of this In this volatile context, an eclectic range with a whole tradition of German thinkers, bles the mindset of R. Soloveitchik’s Halakhic attitude. Midrash and Aggadah, as a common of rabbinic responses developed to counter the Weber felt that a spirit of rationalism had in- Man, whereby the entire world is to be broken justification goes, do not necessitate advanced challenge.xv In a famous response to Pablo grained itself within modern man. Much like down into lucid conceptual halakhic cate- proficiency; they can be penetrated with rela- Christiani, Ramban explained that aggadot the persona of Adam the First described in R. gories. tive ease and little effort. Conversely, Gemara were not meant to be accepted at face value Soloveitchik’s Lonely Man of Faith, the dom- But where is the Halakhic Man when it demands a level of expertise and a breadth of and read literally. Given their human origin, inant approach to life in today’s society is en- comes to the world of Aggadah? Does he dis- knowledge that requires a lifetime to master. one does not suffer any harm by either reject- tirely result-oriented, seeking to mechanically card his critically systematic approach to life Aggadot are seen as a mere collection of fan- ing or reinterpreting their meaning.xvi At the explain and produce concrete results rather when studying it? Noticeably, when it comes ciful Talmudic stories that ultimately require turn of the eleventh century, R. Hai Gaon than to ponder abstract and existential notions to learning Aggadah and Midrash, there are neither systematic nor critical thought. The adopted a similar approach to the problem, about the world. In this atmosphere of extreme very few, if any, well-developed darkhei ha- Gemara in Ta’anit 7a reflects a certain strand claiming that Aggadah does not enjoy such a rationalism, Weber understood that “the limmud.vi Together, these portions of Torah of this sentiment: “R. Yirmiyah asked R. Zeira sacred status in the corpus of Torah she-be-Al world’s processes become disenchanted, lose she-be-Al Peh stand in stark contrast to the ha- to teach him (Halakhah). R. Zeira replied: Peh: “Know that aggadic sayings are not like their magical significance.”ii Importantly, lakhic sections of the Gemara, focusing upon ‘Halish libba’i ve-la yakhilna,’ ‘I do not feel a received tradition; they are simply what an Weber saw this modern “drive to methodol- biblical interpretation, stories and moral mes- well and am unable to learn.’xi Whereupon R. individual expresses of what occurs to him per- ogy” as a distinctively negative phenomenon, sages rather than strict legal regulations. Yirmiyah said: ‘Then tell me, master, some- sonally. [...] That is why they enjoy no author- ity.”xvii R. Sherira Gaon, too, wrote that aggadic statements “are approximate assumptions [um- “Aggadot are seen as a mere collection of fanciful dena].... Therefore, we do not rely on aggadic utterances; that portion of their words which is confirmed by reason and the Biblical text is Talmudic stories that ultimately require neither correct.”xviii Thus, one crucial Geonic school of systematic nor critical thought.” thought adopted the stance that Aggadah re- mains within the realm of individual creative interpretation of pesukim and of the world.xix distancing man from his natural and healthy Whenever a wandering attempt to enter thing aggadic [...]’” The message that R. Yir- This explains the rich use of imagery and para- mode of life.iii the chambers of Aggadah is braved, it is invari- miyah imparts is that Aggadah is a lighter and bles in midrashim, whose primarily goal is to However, this sentiment is a far cry from ably approached in a haphazard and sporadic more relaxed endeavour. This suggests that se- express individual and novel conceptions of the dominant view of talmud Torah in the manner. This methodological dearth warrants rious and devoted intellects ought to spend the Torah. The human origin of Aggadah should yeshivah world. As many articles in this issue particular analysis given the singularly high lion’s share of their time and efforts on other, not, of course, degrade its significance; after will no doubt suggest, a methodological and value placed on an orderly attitude in studying more challenging realms of Torah. Whilst this all, it still emanates from the mouths of the systematic approach is not only tolerated but the other spheres of Torah. Maharsha, in his in- remains a rather pervasive belief in contempo- very same Tannaim and Amoraim who fill highly esteemed within the dalet ammot (four troduction to Hiddushei Aggadot, criticizes a rary society, this article will attempt to correct every page of Gemara. Still, if certain cubits) of the beit midrash. Methodology is so remarkably similar trend in his own genera- this misconception. midrashim remain incomprehensible, Rambam ingrained in the very fabric of the yeshivah tion, lamenting that “many who learn Aggadah This article will not focus so much on the calmly allays any cause for distress: we can world that a particular derekh ha-limmud is to are not careful when examining the words of sociological explanations for this phenomenon comfortably dismiss the setback, stating, “I do be expected of its students. The benefits of de- Hazal and do not seek to understand the full as much as the theoretical role that Aggadah not understand the words of this prophet or the veloping a conceptual framework and method- truth of their words, only to utter their voices plays in Jewish thought.xii Understanding the words of this sage.”xx ology hardly need enumeration. As R. Aharon in public.”vii Similarly, in a recent article on the function of Aggadah in Judaism will shed light Lichtenstein has noted, “There is power, current state of Aggadah learning in yeshivah upon the issue of methodology in that realm. Aggadah as Part of Torah mi-Sinai majesty, and grandeur in Torah, conceptually high schools, R. Yitzchak Blau points out the Consequently, a brief analysis of the two broad A drastically different approach has been formulated, that a patchwork of minutiae, widespread practice of Torah educators to skip traditional approaches to Aggadah that contem- exemplified by R. Hayyim of Volozhin. R. largely molded by ad hoc pragmatic consider- midrashic passages altogether when teaching porary Jewish thought has inherited will pro- Hayyim categorically reinstated the divine au- ations, simply cannot match.”iv Not only is a Gemara.viii Although this phenomenon remains vide an excellent point of departure. thority of Aggadah. Just as the Torah she-bi- theoretical methodology viewed as logically perhaps axiomatic for most yeshivah students, Ketav and Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai were elegant, but it is also seen by many of its con- one ought to examine why this trend has be- Aggadah as Human Creation issued in their entirety at Har Sinai, so, too, temporary practitioners as the most efficient come so rife. At first glance, it appears that many of the were all the midrashim. R. Hayyim posits: and effective way to understand a given sugya. From a certain perspective, the lack of Geonim and Rishonim understood Aggadah as “And he should direct his thoughts to- This “Brisker” approach to learning, which has clear methodology in the realm of Aggadah is a human commentary running parallel to Torah wards attaching himself with all his might achieved almost complete acceptance in the justified in light of the issue of priorities. Peo- she-bi-Ketav. This approach became particu- to the Word of God. [...] And even if he yeshivah world, largely due to the influence of ple simply devote a comparatively minute pro- larly strong during the early medieval period. involved himself in the study of Aggadah, R. Hayyim Soloveitchik, seeks to emphasize portion of their precious learning hours to the As Aristotelian Rationalism began to permeate which has no implications regarding law, the “how” of a given concept rather than the world of Aggadah. To an extent, this is justifi- medieval society, initially through the Muslim this, too, is attachment to the Word of the “why.” Strict legal and result-oriented method- able; the bread and butter of Torah study most world, many Christian and Karaite thinkers Holy One, blessed be He, for all the ology is preferred over fanciful metaphysical definitely ought to lie within the discussions of latched onto seemingly outlandish aggadic pas- Torah, down to the last detail [...] came musings.v For the purposes of this article, it Abaye and Rava.ix Rambam iterated a similar sages in order to attack and expose the sup- from His mouth to Moshe at Sinai.”xxi

20 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud On one plane, Aggadah, thus understood, said to him: ‘Let the master teach Ag- for through this endeavour you will come to fire is considered like one’s arrow (for the commands absolute authority and forms a fun- gadah.’ He started to teach Aggadah, and know God and cleave to His ways.”xxvi The purposes of determining tort malfea- damental part of the Masorah that finds its one student did not let him proceed; he goal of Aggadah, in this light, is to accentuate sance).” roots at Sinai. This approach not only asserts started to teach Halakhah, and the other and rekindle our perception of the infinite and The message with which R. Nafha leaves the divine origin of Aggadah, but also impacts student did not let him proceed. He said transcendental nature of life. Rather than fo- the reader is that both Aggadah and Halakhah the way in which we ought to practically relate to them: ‘I will give you a parable for cusing upon external actions, Aggadah offers are enmeshed in the very same pesukim of to this world of learning. Presumably, if comparison to this matter: A man had two a timeless insight into the human condition and Torah. A single verse can convey both pure dis- midrashic passages were iterated at Sinai, then wives, one older and one younger. Since man’s relationship to God. Thus, a vital aspect passionate law and inspiring moral messages. a commensurable response of diligent accept- the younger wife plucked out his white of midrashic texts is lost if we view them A heavy focus on Halakhah, whilst shunting ance ought to follow. In this vein, R. Moshe hairs, and the older wife plucked out his solely as mere tools to glean historical infor- the plethora of aggadic literature to one side, Taku (thirteenth-century Germany) defended a black hairs, the two of them made him mation about the Avot. Aggadah is aimed pri- fails to realize the richness and fullness of the fierce commitment to the plain and simple pe- bald.’” marily at influencing the individual’s Torah. By placing Aggadah alongside Ha- shat of the aggadot.xxii Not only did he dismiss Evidently, there are a number of important existential interaction with the world, and, only lakhah on the very same pages of Gemara, allegorical and literary understandings of Ag- messages embedded within this story. Most as a secondary consequence, stimulating his Hazal patently sought to emphasize the point gadah, but he viewed Aggadah as a source of prominent, however, is that Halakhah is placed external actions. Given the variegated and mul- that both of these perspectives on life ought to historical fact. Thus, midrashim presenting ac- in stark opposition to Aggadah. R. Yitshak tifaceted nature of individual life, it is expected be embraced. This explains why the greatest counts absent in the simple reading of Tanakh Nafha does not even attempt to refute the no- that there will exist multiple layers and themes compliment one could bestow upon any indi- are to be regarded as factually accurate truths. tion that these two realms are distinct; he within the aggadic world. Within the walls of vidual is that “he did not neglect Torah or In this light, the world of Aggadah is much merely criticizes the hostile attitudes that both Aggadah, opposing opinions unite to offer a Mishnah, Talmud, Halakhah, or Aggadah.”xxx closer to the realm of Gemara, which we un- R. Ammi and R. Assi adopted towards each multilayered perspective on life aimed at di- Evidently, a balance between systematic lom- derstand as literal, than we might previously other. So what are these differences? verse people, creating an environment where dus and free-flowing Aggadah is vital. How- have assumed. Consequently, a similar Elaborating upon some of the key distinc- contrasting and disparate views can sit much ever, one ought to be aware of the significant methodological approach perhaps ought to be tions between these two realms will allow us more comfortably side by side.xxvii differences between these realms. The world applied to the study of Midrash. If Aggadah is not merely a mode of expression used by Hazal, but rather contains divine truths and “By placing Aggadah alongside Halakhah on the very same pages facts, a stricter methodology ought to aid the discovery of this information. of Gemara, Hazal patently sought to emphasize the point that

A Synthetic Approach both of these perspectives on life ought to be embraced.” At the current juncture, it would appear as though we need to decide whether Aggadah is firmly rooted in the celestial spheres of Har to appreciate the unique features of Aggadah. In this sense, there appears a rather con- of Brisk hath indeed wrought upon us a great Sinai or if it springs from the more humble and On a superficial level, the very composition of vincing explanation for Halakhic Man’s ab- deal, but perhaps Halakhic Man might benefit earthly origins of human interpretation and ex- the aggadic literature indicates that its ambition sence from the halls of Aggadah. Applying from the occasional leap into the uncharted wa- egesis. Upon reflection, though, perhaps these differs from that of Halakhah. Whilst Aggadah traditional darkhei ha-limmud and approaching ters of Aggadah. two approaches are not as starkly opposed as is generally cryptic, free-flowing and esoteric, one’s learning with a specific set of tools and our senses might have us believe. In a recent Halakhah strives to be concise, precise and questions would harm the infinite spirit of Ag- David Pruwer is a member of the Chaver article outlining his theory on Midrash, R. plain. In contrast to Halakhah, Midrash, by its gadah. The beauty and brilliance of Midrash Program at RIETS and a recent graduate of Mosheh Lichtenstein adopts a model that rec- very nature, does not seek to root itself in day- lies in its ability to capture the imagination and University College London with a degree in onciles these two extremes. R. Mosheh writes: to-day mundane actions, but rather focuses on to inspire the individual with a sense of the History. “Through the midrash, a further layer is added values, emotions, human existence and God. A limitless and divine nature of the world. In ad- to the story, one that joins the pre-existing further difference between Aggadah and Ha- dition, its triumph is its ability to communicate strata to create an expanded narrative [...] in lakhah is the way in which argument and op- with all minds and all intellects. Subjecting this i Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in So- the same way as the Torah Shebe’al Peh is position are treated. In the halakhic realm, one to a strict methodology would critically impede ciology, eds. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills built upon the Torah Shebichtav in the halakhik is generally forced to choose between the dif- this aggadic achievement. Methodology is (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. [sic] sphere.”xxiii In a dialectical manner, Ag- ferent legal positions. Although not always vital when seeking to obtain hard data and to 139. gadah adds new layers to the existing mass of true, contrasting halakhic positions are often achieve results. Aggadah, though, is based ii Max Weber, Economy and Society, eds. Torah, but simultaneously becomes part of its viewed as mutually exclusive of one another. upon experience and existence. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (Berkley: essence. When Hazal developed these If a posek (halakhic authority) decides upon a Although the emphases of Halakhah and University of California Press, 1978), p. 506. midrashim, they were not doing so in a theo- halakhic conclusion in a truly legal fashion, he Aggadah are noticeably distinct, a balance be- iii Wolfgang, Schluchter, The Rise of Western retical vacuum. They were reacting to themes seeks to apply his ruling universally.xxiv Con- tween these two worlds is clearly the ideal. Re- Rationalism: Max Weber’s Developmental His- and ideas already latent in the pesukim them- versely, the world of Aggadah is much less turning to our story in Bava Kamma 60b, R. tory (Berkley: University of California Press, selves. Just like Hazal were given the authority concerned with different parties adopting Yitshak Nafha’s retort to the standoff between 1981), p. 256. to create and add Torah she-be-Al Peh in the seemingly contradictory “aggadic positions.” R. Ammi and R. Assi illustrates this point with iv R. Aharon Lichtenstein, “The Conceptual halakhic sphere, so, too, were they afforded The multilayered and obscure nature of ag- the utmost profundity: Approach to Torah Learning: The Method and this authority in the realm of Aggadah. gadic passages not only implies that Hazal in- “That being the case, I will teach you Its Prospects,” in R. (ed.), Lomdut: Thus, in many respects, Aggadah bears a tended to imbue diverse messages within their something that will please both of you. ‘If The Conceptual Approach to Jewish Learning remarkable resemblance to Halakhah. Both are words, but that they also sought to invite indi- a fire goes out and finds thorns’xxviii – even (Jersey City, N.J.: Ktav, 2006), pp. 1-44, at p. undeniably shaped by Hazal but also form part vidual interpretation. Thus, whilst multiple though the fire goes out on its own, the 36. of the corpus of Torah that demands complete truths present a perennial conceptual quandary person who kindled the fire must never- v For an excellent analysis of the Brisker ap- deference and respect. However, despite these in the halakhic realm, R. theless pay. So the Holy One, blessed be proach, see R. Mosheh Lichtenstein, “‘What’ similarities, it is also clear that Hazal were suggests that no such problem exists when it He, says: ‘I must pay for the fire that I Hath Brisk Wrought: The Brisker Derekh Re- acutely aware of the fundamental differences comes to debates in midrashim.xxv The reason kindled. I lit a fire in Zion, as it says: “He visited,” in ibid., pp. 167-188. that separate the worlds of Halakhah and Ag- for these discrepancies, I would contend, is that kindled a fire in Zion and it consumed the vi Although there exist important differences gadah. The Gemara in Bava Kamma 60b re- Aggadah at its very core is a drastically differ- foundations.”xxix I will, in the future, re- between Aggadah and Midrash, for the pur- lates the following incident which encapsulates ent entity. build it with fire’ [...] The halakhic part is poses of brevity and clarity, this article will this point: The Sifrei offers a crucial perspective as follows: Scripture begins with damages refer to the two synonymously. Given the con- “R. Ammi and R. Assi were sitting before which augments this approach to Aggadah: “If caused by a person’s property and then ceptual similarities between the two realms, I R. Yitshak Nafha. One said to him: ‘Let you want to know (lehakkir) the One Who said concludes with damages caused by the believe that this position is indeed justified. the master teach Halakhah.’ The other and the world came into being, learn Aggadah, person himself. This teaches that one’s vii Maharsha, Introduction to Hiddushei Ag-

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 21 Kol Hamevaser gadot. viii Yitzchak Blau, “Redeeming the Aggadah in On Things, Theseus and Tum’ah: Yeshivah Education,” in Jeffrey Saks and Susan A. Handelman (eds.), Wisdom From All My Teachers: Challenges and Initiatives in Metaphysical Underpinnings in the Talmud Contemporary Torah Education (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2003), pp. 305-322, at p. BY: Dani Lent in which questions of identity impact anything Brandeis University, attempts to answer these 305. other than a philosophical understanding of re- questions through a metaphysical reading of ix Bava Batra 134a. Metaphysics attempts to tell the ultimate ality.vi A passage highly relevant to this topic, this Talmudic passage. At first glance, R. x Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Talmud truth about the World, about everything. which I will quote in full, is the discussion of Yohanan’s explanation of the case of the Torah 1:12. “But what is it we want to know about the panim hadashot, literally “a new entity,” pre- wooden dish seems like a violation of the xi Rashi ad loc., s.v. “lo yakhilna.” World? What are the questions whose answers sented in the Talmud: philosophical axiom “transitivity of identity.” xii For a brief analysis of the sociological rea- would be the ultimate truth about things?”i “We learnt elsewhere: As for all utensils This law, accepted by seemingly all philoso- sons for this trend, see Blau’s aforementioned This formulation of the study of metaphysics belonging to private people, their stan- phers in regards to identity, states that if x=y essay (above, n. 8). would seem to find its answer in the succinct dards are [holes as large] as pomegran- and y=z, then z must necessarily be equal to x. xiii Marc Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis: A declaration that “there is no truth other than the ates. Hizkiyyah asked, What if it [a In relation to the case of the keli, if a small Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Ag- Torah.”ii This implies that, should one want to utensil] acquires a hole [large enough] for change is made to the keli, the original keli is gadah (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, know the ultimate truth about the world, the an olive to fall through, and he [the still the same keli as the changed one. If this 1980), p. 6. most general features of reality, the appropriate owner] closes it, then it receives another keli is then changed a little more, the keli has xiv Ibid., p. 6. reference book would be the Torah and, more hole [large enough] for an olive to fall the same identity as it did after the first change. xv One must always be cautious when extrapo- specifically, the Talmud. Often, however, the through, and he closes it, [and so on] until If this is true, it would seem impossible that a lating beliefs from polemical situations. How- philosophical lessons of the Talmud are lost it is made large enough for a pomegranate series of small changes, each only large enough ever, given the array of legitimate alternatives amidst the halakhic discourse. Most philosoph- to fall through? R. Yohanan said to him, for an olive to fall through, would lead to a loss open to these Geonim and Rishonim, one can ical and metaphysical exposition of the Talmud Rebbe, you have taught us: If one of the of identity once the cumulative (though filled) assume that they were indeed being sincere in focuses solely on the aggadic passages. How- straps of a sandal is broken and he repairs gap is large enough for a pomegranate to fall the statement of their beliefs here. However, a ever, the legal discussions, which far outweigh it, [the sandal] still retains tum’at midras. through. debate on this issue within the Aharonim can be found in the footnotes of Kitvei ha-Ramban “Talmudic discourse is one of the only areas in which questions (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1964), p. 308. xvi Kitvei ha-Ramban, ibid. of identity impact anything other than a philosophical xvii Otsar ha-Geonim, Hagigah 14a. xviii Saperstein, p. 10. understanding of reality.” xix Michael Gross, Yair Barkai, and Yossi , Derakhim be-Parashanut ha-Ag- the aggadic portions of the Talmud, can yield If the second [strap] is broken and he re- R. Yohanan’s appeal to the case of the gadah (Tel Aviv: Mekhon Mofet, 2008), p. 37. just as much philosophical reasoning when pairs it, [the sandal] loses tum’at midras leather sandal can help explain the logically xx Teshuvot ha-Rambam, II, p. 715. read critically. but retains magga tum’at midras.vii Now problematic resolution arrived at in regard to xxi R. Hayyim of Volozhin, Nefesh ha-Hayyim, A central discussion among metaphysi- we asked you, “What is the difference be- the case of the wooden dish. The leather sandal part 4, ch. 6. cians is the question of identity. Defining what tween [a case in which] the first [is bro- discussed in this sugya is one that can function xxii Saperstein, p. 7. an individual thing is and how that one thing ken] and the second is sound and [a case with the loss of one strap but not both. The xxiii R. Mosheh Lichtenstein, Moses: Envoy of has a separate identity from everything else is in which] the second is broken and the straps themselves are not capable of acquiring God, Envoy of His People (Jersey City: Ktav, a necessary topic in any study of metaphysics.iii first is repaired?” And you answered us, tum’ah on their own because they have no util- 2008), p. 236. Two theories that have been proposed in an- “panim hadashot have entered here.” ity when not attached to the keli, the sandal. xxiv This is not to deny the fact that halakhic au- swer to this question are Nihilism and Monism. Here too [in the case of the dish] panim The sandal, on the other hand, is capable of ac- thorities, often out of necessity, issue different Nihilists believe that there are no individual hadashot enter. He [Hizkiyyah] ex- quiring tum’ah, as are the straps when attached opinions to people in extenuating circum- things, whereas Monists subscribe to the the- claimed concerning him [R. Yohanan], to it.xi Tosafot explain that the case here is stances. ory that there is only the One thing and every- “This one is not the son of man!” [or] ac- where the first tum’ah, midras, is acquired xxv R. Michael Rosensweig, “Elu Va-Elu Divre thing else is just a manifestation of it. Each of cording to others, “Such a one is indeed from the outset, when there are two intact Elokim Hayyim: Halakhic Pluralism and The- these views stands in contradiction to the com- the son of man!”viii straps. The second type of tum’ah, magga ories of Controversy,” Tradition 26,3 (1992): mon Western view that there are individual This Gemara discusses the mending of midras, is acquired by the sandal when the first 4-23, at p. 6. things—unique arrangements of particles in utensils, kelim, and the subsequent applications strap is replaced. Tosafot then continues that xxvi Sifrei, Parashat Ekev. space.iv of the laws of purity and impurity, taharah and panim hadashot, the principle of acquiring a xxvii This is not to say that those engaging in ha- This “common view” does not resolve all tum’ah. A repaired wooden dish is only ha- “new identity,” does not apply to tum’ah ac- lakhic debate cannot do so with respect and the metaphysical problems in the identification lakhically considered to be a new dish if the quired at the middle stage, when only one strap reverence. of objects for Western philosophers. Thomas size of the patch is large enough for a pome- is replaced. That is why midras, acquired at the xxviii Shemot 22:6. Hobbes best poses the problem in his treatment granate to fit through.ix This asserts that an ob- initial stage, is lost once both straps are re- xxix Eikhah 4:11. of the metaphysical problem of Theseus’s ship: ject obtains a new identity, and, consequently, placed, while magga midras is retained in the xxx Avot de-Rabbi Natan, ch. 5. if each plank on Theseus’s ship were replaced will no longer be tame, impure, if it is changed final state of the object.xii with an identical plank such that none of the to the extent that the repaired part comprises a Hirsch explains how Tosafot’s formula- original planks remained in the ship, is the re- substantial portion of the keli.x The concept of tion of the case is not a violation of the transi- sultant vessel still Theseus’s ship? If the planks panim hadashot, first discussed in regard to re- tivity of identity. In the initial state, the sandal that were originally on Theseus’s ship were pairing the leather straps of a sandal, is applied (S) exists with both original straps (T1 and T2) collected and formed into another ship in their by R. Yohanan to the gradual breaking and attached and two separate kelim can be derived original arrangement, is that vessel Theseus’s mending of a wooden dish, and the Gemara from the initial keli. Each possible keli results ship?v What is an object and how much must sees this analysis as deserving of great praise. from the presence of just one of the straps and an object be changed for it to become a new What was so groundbreaking about R. can be denoted A1 and A2, corresponding to object? More importantly, why do these ques- Yohanan’s sevara, his logic, in applying a each of the straps, respectively. It is at this tions matter? known principle to a new case? Is this not done point that tum’at midras is acquired. In the The identity of an object is an issue of on nearly every page of the Talmud with no middle stage, after one of the straps has been great import in the Talmud. It can be argued praise accorded to its practitioners? broken and repaired, S still exists along with that Talmudic discourse is one of the only areas Eli Hirsch, a professor of Philosophy at T2 and A2 (the second original strap and its de-

22 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud rived keli). Now, however, there exists T1’ and theory, he draws upon the example of a man Many interpretations of the symbolic the Talmud in his “Metaphysics” class. A1’, which correspond to the new strap and its who, despite the fact that his cells are con- meaning of the case exist. These include issues iv Van Inwagen, p. 24. derived keli and it is at this point that tum’at stantly changing, is the same man at the start of fragmentation versus unification of rabbinic v Thomas Hobbes. “Concerning Body,” In magga midras is acquired. At the final stage, of his life as at the end of it. R. Yohanan’s ap- opinion and ruling,xxiii as well as a debate sur- Mary Whiton Calkins (ed.), The Metaphysical after both straps have been repaired, S no plication of both compositional and functional rounding the persecution of the Jews in System of Thomas Hobbes in Twelve Chapters longer exists according to the principle of changes to panim hadashot pertains to these Jerusalem.xxiv It is possible, however, to read (Chicago: The Open Court Pub. Comp., 1912), panim hadashot. Instead, there are T1’, T2’, cases in that wax changes function but not this case in light of the prior metaphysical dis- p. 85. A1’ and A2’. Tum’at midras is no longer pres- composition when it changes shape, while man cussion. Immanuel Kant was the first to out- vi This argument, as well as many of the Tal- ent because there is nothing from the original changes composition over the course of his life line the differences between reality as it mudic examples and understandings drawn sandal in existence, while tum’at midras but not function. Both retain their former status actually exists, the noumena, and man’s per- upon in this article are credited to the following mag’ah still applies because it was acquired in as the original object, despite these changes. ception of reality, the phenomena.xxv Man, ac- article: Eli Hirsch, “Identity in the Talmud,” the middle stage, when T1’ and A1’ were al- Attaining the status of a new object due to ei- cording to Kant, has specific categories, such Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23,1 1999: 166- ready in existence. According to Hirsch’s in- ther functional or compositional changes as time and space, which he imposes upon re- 180. terpretation of Tosafot, the threat to transitivity seems to be unique to the area of panim ality so that his mind can comprehend it. The vii Midras tum’ah is the impurity a utensil con- of identity does not exist in this case because hadashot. crux of R. Yehoshua’s assertion, that Torah tracts from supporting people who have spe- there is no keli, derived or whole, in existence R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik connected the laws are subject to man’s view of how they cific levels of impurity. Magga midras tum’ah that was already in existence at the initial metaphysical idea of a priori concepts, knowl- should be rather than God’s, seems to corre- is the impurity contracted from coming in con- stage.xiii edge that is obtained prior to experience, to the spond to Kant’s distinction. God, who is Om- tact with a utensil that is impure with midras As mentioned above, R. Yohanan’s great area of Halakhah. In Halakhic Man he writes, niscient, can “experience” the noumena, tum’ah. Explanations obtained from: Yoseph sevara lies in his application of this concept of “The theoretical Halakhah, not the practical de- whereas man is limited to what his mind can Shechter. A Lexicon of the Talmud. (Tel Aviv: panim hadashot to the case of the wooden dish. cision, the ideal creation, not the empirical one, grasp. As such, halakhic principles should be Dvir Publishing House, 1990. The more obvious application of panim represent the longing of the halakhic man.”xviii based upon what the majority of men experi- viii Shabbat 112b. (Soncino English Transla- hadashot regards functional changes in an ob- The concept of panim hadashot represents just ence, not what God experiences. tion.) ject. For example, a goatskin bottle that is con- such an idea. Wittgenstein’s approach to phi- The overt discussion of metaphysics in ix Kelim 17:1. verted into a rug no longer retains its tum’ah,xiv losophy favored a multitude of examples with the story of tannur shel Akhnai surrounds the x If this Mishnah is extrapolated to the case of while a cowbell that is made into a doorbell principles serving as an abstract framework laws of impurity. The laws of impurity, as dis- Theseus’s ship, it would seem that the ship is still retains its tame status.xv In the former case from which to approach reality. The Talmud cussed in this article, represent a constant re- no longer Theseus’s original ship from the the object is changed so that it has an entirely operates in a similar vein: there is no explica- minder of the sanctification of commonplace, point at which enough planks are removed and new function, while in the latter case the basic tion of the principles guiding the halakhic ordinary objects. They represent the meta- then repaired so that the patch represents a sub- function remains the same, so panim hadashot process at the very start. Rather, through the physical bridge between man’s phenomena, the stantial portion of the ship, in the same way does not apply. R. Yohanan reformulated the examination of the sea of examples, involving principles such as panim hadashot he uses to that a hole large enough for a pomegranate principle of panim hadashot to include not just everything from sandals to doorbells to pits determine the law, and God’s noumena, the would represent a substantial portion of a stan- functional changes, but also compositional and oxen, Talmudic philosophical principles overarching concept of tum’ah and taharah dard wooden dish. changes. He appealed to the case of the leather can be extracted. In the specific case of the that has no physical bearing on reality. It is xi This understanding of the status of a keli, that sandal to show that it was not a functional principle of panim hadashot, the sanctification through this bridge that objects gain meaning it must have a function independent of other change (i.e. from a fancy shoe that can be worn of the commonplace, the elevation of the ordi- and metaphysical questions begin to acquire things, is based on the Hazon Ish’s comments to a meeting to a repaired shoe meant for wear- nary is brought to the forefront. Through the significance. to Kelim 31:2. ing around the house) but a compositional examination of what defines a keli, and when Theophrastus, a Greek philosopher, de- xii Tosafot to Shabbat 112b, s.v. aval. change that was the deciding factor. He used it becomes something different than it was be- scribed the Jews as a “nation of xiii Hirsch, p. 175. related this new idea, that a compositional fore, the metaphysical questions of identity ob- philosophers.”xxvi The Rabbis of the Talmud, xiv Kelim 28:5. change to an object could remove its status of tain their meaning and objects obtain their who lived approximately 800 years after xv Shabbat 58a-58b. tum’ah, to explain the case of the patched-up value.xix Theophrastus, continued this tradition not only xvi Hirsch, p. 169. wooden dish. It was this new application of This metaphysical underpinning to the in their didactic stories but covertly in the legal xvii Hobbes, p. 84. panim hadashot that won R. Yohanan wide- Talmud is best exemplified by one of the most system and rulings they established. A compre- xviii Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, spread praise.xvi famous aggadot, that of the tannur shel hensive study of the halakhic system for meta- trans. Lawrence Kaplan (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983), p. 24. “The laws of impurity represent the metaphysical bridge between man’s xix Hirsch, p. 176. phenomena, the principles such as panim hadashot he uses to determine the law, xx Bava Metsi’a 59a-59b. xxi This explanation of the debate is based on and God’s noumena, the overarching concept of tum’ah and taharah that has no Rambam’s commentary to Kelim 5:10. xxii Bava Metsi’a 59b. physical bearing on reality.” xxiii Jason P. Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitterson, Thomas Hobbes, about fifteen hundred Akhnai.xx The oven in the story, instead of hav- physical indications could yield both a better Jr. (eds.), “Not in Heaven: Coherence and years after this discussion in the Talmud took ing been made into one whole, was made from understanding of the reasoning for specific ha- Complexity in Biblical Narrative. ed. by place, addressed the ongoing problems in re- separate tiles with a layer of sand between each lakhic concepts, as well as a Talmudic response (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, gard to how to understand an object’s identity. to connect them. R. Eliezer said that the oven to the metaphysical questions that have 1991), pp. 2-4. He states, “Some place individuality in the cannot acquire tum’ah since each tile on its plagued philosophers since ancient times. xxiv Joseph Elijah Henkin, Kitvei ha-Gaon unity of matter; others in the unity of form.”xvii own was just a portion and not a keli, the layer Rabbi Yosef Eliyyahu Henkin, Zts”l, vol. 2, ed. I view Hobbes’s formulation of the existing of sand between each tile prevents the tiles Dani Lent is a senior at SCW majoring in Avraham Yitshak Zeshoravel (New York: views of identity as a correlation of the two from becoming one united keli. The Sages, Biochemistry and is a Staff Writer for Kol Ezrat Torah, 1989), pp. 211-214. variant applications of panim hadashot that however, held that the outer layer of cement Hamevaser. xxv Immanuel Kant. “Analytic of Principles” Hirsch ascribes to R. Yohanan. The unity of unites all the tiles into one keli, and thus it is Critique of Pure Reason, transl. J. M. D. Meik- matter, the individuality that gives an object its capable of acquiring tum’ah. xxi R. Eliezer then lejohn (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), pp. function, is not complete without the unity of attempts to prove the veracity of his judgment i Peter van Inwagen. Metaphysics (Boulder, 180-187. form, the individuality of an object’s unique through all kinds of miraculous means, even CO: Westview Press, 2009), p. 4. xxvi Quoted in Hyam Maccoby,. The Philosophy composition in material and structure. In sup- calling upon a Heavenly Voice to agree with ii Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah 3:5. of the Talmud. (London: Routledge Curzon, port of the unity of matter theory, Hobbes him. R. Yehoshua rejects even this proof be- iii I thank Dr. David Shatz for first introducing 2002), pp. 10. posits that wax is the same no matter what cause “[the matter] is not in heaven […and] me to this field and for sparking my interest in shape it is in. In support of the unity of form after the majority must one incline.”xxii the specific topic of the role of metaphysics in

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 23 Kol Hamevaser Brisk and Telz BY: Rabbi Micha Berger The Brisker answer: hofer’s response to the question about tea in looking at the differences in answers created “There are two (tzvei) dinim in sweeten- the style of R. : “It is the Hitz- by the differences in learning styles, one must t some point during my time in ing tea: The cheftza (substance), i.e., the tarfus (Fusion) of tea molecules and sugar mol- realize that the types of questions that each Yeshiva University, I chose not to fol- sugar; and the pe’ula (activity), i.e., the ecules that makes the tea sweet.”ii The point derekh considers significant and worth explor- Alow the more popular “track,” leading stirring with the spoon. Everyone knows here is that R. Shimon often goes beyond the ing also differ. I am therefore choosing a ques- to R. ’s and R. J. B. that Lipton is the ‘Brisk’ tea bacause [sic] limits of Halakhah to appeal to the reality or tion actually discussed by R. Shimon Shkop Soloveitchik’s shi’urim. Instead, upon my re- it has a double (tzvei dinim) tea bag.”i experience it generates in his answer to a ques- that is more “Brisker” in tone than some oth- turn from Israel for my junior year, I joined R. This is typical of the Brisker derekh, tion. These first principles, givens that are self- ers.iii ’s shi’ur, where I remained until which seeks distinctions, hakirot. One there- evident before entering the halakhic system, Let us look at how the two darkhei ha- my graduation from Yeshiva. A large part of fore contrasts multiple cases, or multiple opin- my motivation was that my great-grandfather, ions within a single mahaloket (dispute), to see “R. Shimon [Shkop] often goes beyond the limits of R. Shlomo Zalmen Birger, had a kloyz, a small how they differ. The explanations involve ideas beit midrash, in Suvalk, and Rav Dovid, the like heftsa vs. pe’ullah, heftsa vs. gavra (is it Halakhah to appeal to the reality or experience it gen- Suvalker Rav, knew him and remembered my that the object must have something done to it erates in his answer to a question. These first princi- family. However, the primary impetus of that [heftsa], or that a given person has a duty to do decision was my sense that something inherent something [gavra]?), pe’ullah vs. halot (the ples, givens that are self-evident before entering the in the Brisker derekh did not speak to me, time or location of the action [pe’ullah], vs. the halakhic system, allow R. Shimon to discuss the lessons whereas Rav Dovid’s derekh ha-limmud was time or location of the change of halakhic state that of his rebbe, R. Shimon Shkop, a variant [halot]), etc. This allows the Brisker to fit the the Halakhah was intended to impress on the one fol- of the Telzer derekh, which was a methodology specific positions under discussion into over- that did speak to me. I do not claim that I could arching halakhic categories. lowing it.” have articulated this clearly at the time, but I In a sense, the Brisker derekh is a scien- allow R. Shimon to discuss the lessons the Ha- limmud would understand the mechanics of have given a good deal of thought to the matter tific endeavor. In an experiment, one compares lakhah was intended to impress on the one fol- bittul hamets, of nullifying one’s hamets since and hope to explain it now, as well. the experimental set with the control set, trying lowing it. (leaven) before Pesah. In reality, Halakhah First, what is the Brisker derekh? Perhaps to find two cases that only differ in one point I would like to give a real example, but does not recognize real ownership of the a good place to start, not in the least because it so that the scientists can determine which point first, let me apologize for its complexity. By hamets, since ownership means rights to use, is somewhat humorous and therefore memo- is the cause of the phenomenon. Then, the phe- the very nature of the topic of derekh ha-lim- and one may not use hamets on Pesah. The rable, in addition to still being pretty accurate, nomenon is fit into a larger pattern in order to mud, it is difficult to find simple examples that “ownership” one is nullifying is that created by is with R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer’s essay derive or generate a single formula that fits a are illustrative. If the topic were straightfor- a special biblical decree. The Gemara (Pe- comparing how various darkhei ha-limmud wider variety of cases. The goal is to find the ward, the lines of reasoning would be short and sahim 6b) compares this to a pit dug in public would try to answer the question, “What makes hakirah and use it to tie the case into a broader probably not be made explicitly. As a side note, property. You are culpable for any harm that tea sweet – is it the sugar or the spoon stir- principle. side-by-side comparisons of darkhei ha-lim- comes from stumbling on “your” pit, even ring?” In contrast, the following is R. Bech- mud are also difficult to find. Before even though it is in the public domain and your own- ership of the pit is not real. Rabbeinu Nissim (Ran, ad loc.) explains that this “non-owner- ship” is why bittul hamets is effective; since the whole problem is caused by non-owner- ship, simply making a statement of nullifica- tion is enough to eliminate it. However, no one would claim that one could declare that he or she no longer has an attachment to the pit and thereby avoid payment! Why shouldn’t we See!SSeee! draw this conclusion, though, if the Gemara it- self compares these two forms of pseudo-own- ership? This question is more typical of Brisker analysis, using a distinction to find the borders of an idea. A Brisker answer to such a question I totoldlld youyou focuses on the difference between a prohibition related to an object (heftsa) and, in this case, the responsibility for an event that occurred due to someone’s action (pe’ullah). The prohi- advertisingadvertisiing works! wworks! bition is not to eat hamets, an object. However, the financial obligation to make restitution for someone’s injured or lost property that fell into a pit dug in public land is due to the event of that property falling into the hole, an action. ContactContact usus to advertiseadvertise or sponsor anan issue! Therefore, one needs more than a simple dec- laration to eliminate one’s ties to the pit. [email protected]@ggmail.com Rav Shimon (Sha’arei Yosher 5:23) gives a different answer. He says that the validity of bittul hamets rests on the fact that it is the Ha- lakhah that generates the non-reality of the ownership. Had the Torah not prohibited the use of hamets, the person would remain the full KOLKOL HAMEVASERHAMEVVAASER owner. Therefore, he has the authority to re- TheThe JewishJewish ThoughtThought MagazineMagazine ofof thethe YeshivaYeshiva UniversityUniversity StudentStudent BodyBody

24 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud nounce what remains of the ownership (which of the self. Therefore, while Brisk sought the This distinction is also manifest in the two from following Halakhah. The notion of extra- Ran tells us is slight and can therefore be elim- explanation of individual laws in terms of ha- derakhim’s approaches to going beyond the let- halakhic spiritual experience does not fit the inated by a simple formula). In the case of the lakhic principles, Telz looked for a purposive ter of the law. The Brisker view on humra, Halakhic Man’s framework. pit, the “ownership” is itself the verse’s decree explanation. And while Brisk looked at multi- stringency, is one where the person is “hoshesh In short, Brisk asks the scientist’s “Vos?” – the property in question is public property. ple opinions of a single case, or multiple cases, le-shittat peloni almoni,” concerned for the po- (What?), and Telz asks the philosopher’s “Far Since one does not have inherent ownership of Telz focused on the singular. Even when look- sition of so-and-so. It is the notion that while vos?” (Why?). In my own desperate search for the pit, one cannot distance oneself from it. ing at multiple opinions, its purpose was to find the baseline law is lenient, one may want to a more meaningful avodat Hashem, worship of Within Rav Shimon’s worldview, the question what they shared in common, not to find con- “cover all the bases” and satisfy all opinions. God, I found it much more easily in the latter. is whether one’s “ownership” of the object is trast. What do these approaches say about what In Telz, a humra would be chosen based on a inherent or scriptural, and from that point the is essential about the meaning, purpose and person’s plan for shelemut, an awareness of discussion moves on to what this notion of in- role of the mitsvah? what personal flaws he is ready to address, and R. Micha Berger is a graduate of YC and herent (perhaps I should say “pre-halakhic”?) Fundamental to Brisker philosophy is the the identification of opinions that can be re- lives with his wife and ten children in Passaic, ownership means and how it impacts bittul and idea that Halakhah has no first principles. It lated to them. New Jersey. He is the founding president of related matters. can only be understood on its own terms. As R. Soloveitchik famously declared that The AishDas Society, an organization that To Brisk, the problem is collapsed into the R. Soloveitchik describes in Halakhic Man, it “there is no ritual in Judaism;” he saw no rea- “empowers Jews to utilize their observance in object vs. action distinction made in the is only through Halakhah that man finds a bal- son for additional rituals. To quote one exam- a process for building thoughtful and passion- Gemara elsewhere with respect to oaths and ance between his religious need for redemption ple: ate relationships with their Creator, other peo- vows. To Rav Shimon, though, it is an instance and his creative, constructive self. As the book “For instance, a recent booklet on the Sab- ple and themselves.” Professionally, he is a of a basic principle about the philosophy of opens, bath stressed the importance of a white software developer with over twenty years of ownership, a return to first principles. “Halakhic man reflects two opposing tablecloth. A woman recently told me that experience in the financial industry. Telz’s first rosh yeshivah was R. Eliezer selves; two disparate images are embod- the Sabbath is wonderful, and that it en- Gordon, a student of R. Yisrael Salanter. Al- ied within his soul and spirit. On the one hances her spiritual joy when she places though it had a strong Musar (ethical improve- hand he is as far removed from homo re- a snow-white tablecloth on her table. Such ment) program, its approach was far too ligiosus as east is from west and is identi- pamphlets also speak about a sparkling intellectual to qualify as a genuine “Musar cal, in many respects, to prosaic, cognitive candelabra. Is this true Judaism? You can- i Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, “An Analysis yeshivah.” Rather than the emotional Musar man; on the other hand he is a man of not imbue real and basic Judaism by uti- of Darchei HaLimud (Methodologies of Tal- shmues (ethical discourse), the Telzer approach God, possessor of an ontological ap- lizing cheap sentimentalism and stressing mud Study) Centering on a Cup of Tea,” avail- focused on shi’urei da’at, classes on thought proach that is devoted to God and of a empty ceremonies. Whoever attempts able at: http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/derachim. and attitude. One attended a shmues not so world view saturated with the radiance of such an approach underestimates the in- htm. His complete survey is broader than these much to learn information he did not yet know, the Divine Presence.”iv telligence of the American Jew. If you re- two examples, and includes some less humor- but to be moved by the experience of the pres- This notion is a major theme running duce Judaism to religious sentiments and ous discussion as well. entation. In a “shi’ur da’at,” one would reach through the work, if not its primary thesis. ceremonies, then there is no role for rab- ii Ibid. for the same goal of spiritual wholeness as in (Ironically, a true Halakhic Man would bis to discharge. Religious sentiments and iii If you do not wish to slog through the exam- the Musar yeshivot, but via an intellectual path. never explore the questions addressed by Ha- ceremonies are not solely possessed by ple, skip ahead to the paragraph that begins, Without the experiential focus of Musar and its lakhic Man! R. Soloveitchik’s loyalty to Brisk, Orthodox Jewry. All the branches of Ju- “Telz was founded by...” iv Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic “The Musar elements of Telz meant that the notion that Man, trans. Lawrence Kaplan (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1984), p. 1. Halakhah as a whole has a purpose was a given. This was v Lecture, “The Role of the Rabbi,” given to the Yeshiva University Rabbinic Alumni, May further enforced by the claim that the purpose of Halakhah is 18, 1955 (). Translation by Rabbi Aharon Rakeffet, The Rav: The World of Rabbi shelemut ha-adam, completion and perfection of the self. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, vol. 2, (Hoboken, N.J.: Therefore, while Brisk sought the explanation of individual Ktav, 1999), p. 54. laws in terms of halakhic principles, Telz looked for a purposive explanation.” shmuesn (talks), its exercises and unique prac- while true in terms of derekh ha-limmud, style daism have ceremonies and rituals.”v tices, its more emotional approach to internal- of studying Gemara, and the shi’ur he gave in I was once asked by someone if wearing izing texts, Telz still fit within the main Furst Hall, was also compromised on the per- Rabbeinu Tam tefillin necessarily expressed a Lithuanian yeshivah mold. spective level by his interest in philosophy – lack of certainty that Rashi’s opinion about the Rav Dovid Lifshitz was a strong believer as heard in his public discourses.) ordering of texts in the tefillah worn on the in the use of the shmues and emotion. For ex- The Brisker derekh gave the post- head was correct. I would say his question re- ample, shmuesn usually included singing a Haskalah (Enlightenment) observant Jew a flects a Brisker position — “Brisker humrot” song, and the first shi’ur of a semester was mental experience that compared to the thrills are about hashash, uncertainty in ruling. A typ- among the occasions that were always marked of scientific study. The Telzer derekh gave him ical explanation of such a humra would be: with a shmues and a song. Once, we sang the the excitement of philosophical study and con- “We hold like Tosafot, but it pays to be strin- song “Ve-taher libbenu,” a song containing a nected his learning and mitsvah observance to gent to be hoshesh for Rosh’s opinion.” In total of four words, over and over for more his quest to be a better Jew. Telzer thought (and not uniquely Telzer – it is than twenty minutes, asking for Hashem’s aid Loosely along similar lines, Rav Hayyim typical of the Hasidut and Musar movements, to “purify our hearts” for the start of the zeman, Soloveitchik, known as Rav Hayyim Brisker, as well), one might do so because one found a the term. And this was typical. rejected the argument in favor of accepting kavvanah (intent) that better fits the order of Still, the Musar elements of Telz meant Radziner tekhelet (blue dye used in tsitsit) be- parashiyyot in Rabbeinu Tam tefillin, and thus that the notion that Halakhah as a whole has a cause it was a scientific one, not halakhic in wishes to experience that in addition to fulfill- purpose was a given. This was further enforced basis. Accordingly, Halakhah is itself the pri- ing what he knows to be the accepted law. by the claim that the purpose of Halakhah is mary basis – non-halakhic argument is irrele- To R. Soloveitchik, kavvanah and reli- shelemut ha-adam, completion and perfection vant. gious experience can only authentically come

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 25 Kol Hamevaser To Understand and to Comprehend: The Study of Talmud From Joshua to the Present

BY: Ariel Krakowski text, but the highest level is to study God’s memory, as were the Beraitot.viii In this way, it concept from another and comparing con- Word itself rather than an intermediary com- was comparable to the oral traditions of earlier cepts, understanding [the Torah] based on o mitsvah is as essential to Judaism as mentary. The Masorah (Tradition) of Torah days. Although there was now a set text of the the principles of biblical exegesis, until the study of Torah.i There are different she-be-Al Peh, before it was committed to Mishnah, learning was still similar to how it one appreciates the essence of those prin- Nparts to Torah study, as the Gemara writing, passed on the principles of learning had been earlier. Jewish scholars still at- ciples and how the prohibitions and the states: “A person should split up his learning: and some halakhot, but scholars would then tempted to find the sources for the halakhot of other decisions which one received ac- one third Bible, one third Mishnah, one third derive the sources for halakhot from the Pen- the Mishnah as well as derive new halakhot di- cording to the oral tradition can be de- Talmud.”ii Nowadays, most Orthodox students tateuch itself as well as apply known halakhic rectly from the Torah. rived using them. The latter topic is focus on the Talmud, spending many hours principles to new cases. The oral nature al- Similarly, after the Talmud was written called ‘Talmud.’”x each day involved in its study. Yet, many do lowed for different people to learn in their own down, people still learned primarily in an oral Rambam’s description of Talmud study not know the nature of the mitsvah in which styles, since there was no text confining them. manner.ix The Geonim during this period did seems similar to the study of Oral Law before they are involved. This paper will focus on un- This is how R. Sherira Gaon (c. 906-1006) de- not learn from a written text of the Talmud, but the Talmud was written down. He explains the derstanding this “third part” of Torah, Talmud. scribes how Torah was taught before the Mish- recited it orally. They were not as bound to the mitsvah of Talmud as being focused on the pri- In order to reach a deeper understanding of its nature, it will explore the development of Tal- mud study and Oral Law over the course of “The oral nature allowed for different people to learn in history. their own styles, since there was The Nature of the Oral Torah and Talmud Study no text confining them.” To understand Talmud study, one must understand how Jews learned in the centuries nah was written down: “Despite the unanimity specific wording of the text, but recited the mary source, the Torah, and on understanding before the Mishnah was written down. The among the sages in the underlying principles general discussions of the Talmud. Some may and analyzing it based on the oral traditions. only written texts they used were the twenty- and teachings, each sage taught his students never have even used a written Gemara text. It Rambam does not say that the mitsvah of Tal- four books of Tanakh, for there was a prohibi- with whichever order and whichever method seems as if their focus was less on analyzing mud consists of merely analyzing earlier gen- tion against writing down the Oral Torah he preferred. […] Some taught general rules; and comparing the Gemarot themselves and erations’ statements. Furthermore, Rambam contained within the Mishnah and Talmud. As others added details; and others expanded and more on partaking in the Talmudic process. attacks the focus on intermediary sources: the Gemara states: offered many, many examples and analogies.”iv Eventually, the Jews left Babylon and the “Such is the mentality of even the elect of our “R. Yehudah b. Nahmani, the public ora- The actual learning did not consist of reading era of the Geonim ended. The oral nature of times that they do not test the veracity of an tor of R. Shim’on b. Lakish, discoursed as a frozen text, but of creating a lively discussion Talmud could no longer be maintained in the opinion upon the merit of its own content but follows: It is written (Shemot 34:27), of the Torah itself, ensuring a constant connec- far-flung lands in which the Jews found them- upon its agreement with the words of some ‘Write thou these words,’ and it is written, tion with the divine Word. Not every detail of selves. Different schools of learning in Ashke- preceding authority, without troubling to ex- ‘For according to the mouth of these every law could always be remembered, but nazic and Sefaradic lands developed their own amine that preceding source itself.”xi,xii words.’ What are we to make of this? It this methodology allowed people to constantly approaches. We will focus on how Rambam While it is clear that Rambam does not means: The words which are written rediscover the laws in the Written Torah.v The (from Sefarad) and the Ba’alei ha-Tosafot consider the writings of the Geonim to be bind- down you are not at liberty to say by study of Torah was not about the spread of in- (from Ashkenaz) viewed Talmud study in their ing, his views on the authority of the Talmud heart, and the words transmitted orally formation, but about having a personal connec- times. Their views on this subject can be seen are more nuanced. The Talmud itself is not ex- you are not at liberty to recite from writ- tion to Sinai.vi both in their discussions of the mitsvah of tal- actly an intermediary source; in a way, it is ing. A Tanna of the school of R. Yishmael mud Torah and in the way they themselves more like the traditions that earlier generations taught: [It is written] ‘These:’ these you The History of the Study of Talmud learned. had passed down orally.xiii Yet, this does not may write, but you may not write ‘ha- This oral manner was the ideal way to mean that the Talmud’s conclusions are the lakhot.’”iii study Talmud, and this is how Jews learned Talmud According to Rambam final word on every matter. Since Rambam The Gemara states a clear prohibition since the Torah was given. In the words of Even though hundreds of years had views the fundamental mitsvah of learning Tal- against writing down the Oral Law, which was Rambam: “Just as Yehoshua and Pinehas stud- passed since the writing of the Talmud and mud as being focused on understanding the di- followed until the days of R. Yehudah ha-Nasi. ied in matters of analysis and law, so did Rav- hundreds more since the compilation of the vine Word above any intermediary source, he However, how was Oral Law learned before it ina and R. Ashi [the last of the Amoraim].”vii Mishnah, Rambam still described the funda- sometimes even breaks with the apparent con- clusion of the Talmud. He views Talmud study “How was Oral Law learned before it was written down? for us as partaking in the same process the scholars in the Talmud did, granting us much Furthermore, why was it not permitted to write the Oral Law? It authority in the halakhic process. For instance, Rambam uses midrashim and the Talmud would have helped the spread of information if the halakhot were Yerushalmi extensively, sometimes ruling in accordance with a passage in the Yerushalmi written down and not just memorized!” over an apparently conflicting passage in the was written down? Furthermore, why was it Yet, the oral nature of Halakhah could not con- mental mitsvah of Talmud as if there had been Bavli.xiv,xv At times, he even seems to focus not permitted to write the Oral Law? It would tinue unchanged. Due to persecutions and no such change to the original nature of the more on the primary source in a passage than have helped the spread of information if the ha- hardships, the Oral Law came in danger of Oral Law: the explanation of the Talmud Bavli itself lakhot were written down and not just memo- being forgotten and was, therefore, partially “A person is obligated to divide his study (though normally without contradicting the rized! written down. Yet, even after Torah she-be-Al time in three: one third should be devoted Bavli),xvi,xvii or follows a different explanation An important aspect of the study of Tal- Peh was codified, the nature of learning did not to the Written Law, one third to the Oral of the Mishnah than that of the Gemara.xviii mud is that it provides the opportunity for the radically change. People tried to maintain as Law, and one third to understanding and These bold rulings are all in accordance with advanced student to think, innovate and apply much of the oral nature of Torah study as they conceptualizing the ultimate derivation of his view of Talmud. his conclusions to practice. One can study any could. The Mishnah was mostly recited from a concept from its roots, inferring one According to Rambam, it seems that the

26 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud main purpose of talmud Torah is to understand to Talmud: “With our Talmud (Babylonian), Rambam’s understanding of yeridat ha-dorot source that is undisputed is true! One need not the halakhot themselves and know how to we exempt ourselves from what our Sages allows for more independent analysis by later worry that an intermediate explanation is mis- apply them. Even the Talmud Bavli is a means said, ‘A person should split up his learning: one generations, justifying the instances cited taken. This also allows Tosafot to characterize toward understanding the fundamental compo- third Bible, one third Mishnah, and one third above in which he breaks with the understand- both sides of a dispute as containing truth, each nents of Torah she-bi-Ketav and Torah she-be- Talmud.’”xxiv According to Tosafot, the study ing of the Talmud. It also may explain why one built up by the added layers from previous Al Peh, not an end unto itself. And since the of Talmud can possibly replace all of talmud Rambam views the fundamental mitsvah of generations. This also fits with Tosafot’s style halakhot themselves are fundamentally oral in Torah. This is clearly very different from Ram- learning Talmud as being focused on the pri- of citing many views on a matter without em- nature, people should not be bound to specific bam’s focus on interpreting the Written Torah mary sources rather than on intermediary com- phasizing final conclusions. texts to be able to learn them. Thus, Rambam itself. mentaries. Rambam never mentions ellu va-ellu,and wrote two important works, the Perush ha- he considers mahaloket as something that Mishnayyot and the Mishneh Torah, which A Deeper Examination Ellu va-Ellu should be resolved, for the primary focus of provided alternatives to the Talmud as a means It is possible that the difference between It is possible that Rambam and the French one’s learning should be to reach halakhic con- of acquiring halakhic knowledge.xix Rambam and the French rabbis in their views rabbis also understood the concept of ma- clusions, not analyze mahaloket. If one ana- on learning Talmud relates to their different haloket (argument) differently, or more specif- lyzes intermediary sources, he may correctly Talmud According to the French Rabbis conceptions of yeridat ha-dorot (decline of the ically, the Talmudic dictum of “Ellu va-ellu understand them but still be incorrect. There- Other Rishonim understood the nature of generations). divrei E-lohim Hayyim” (“These and these are fore, one must return to the original sources in Talmud differently. Rashi explains the nature order to discover the one Truth. Rambam of Talmud that the Tannaim studied as follows: “The Ba’alei ha-Tosafot moved the focus of specifically omits all rejected opinions from “‘Talmud’xx – this is sevara (reasoning), analysis one step further away from his Perush ha-Mishnayyot and Mishneh Torah, that the later Tannaim would be medayyek and only renders final conclusions.xxx (analyze) the difficult words of the early the original biblical source, from ones to explain them and give reasons, Contemporary Learning just as the Amoraim after the Tannaim ex- working within the Talmudic process to The custom nowadays in most yeshivot is plained the words of the Tannaim before for students to spend most of their learning them and established the Gemara; that analyzing the Talmud from the outside.” time analyzing the words of Rishonim and diyyuk (analysis) in the days of the Tan- The approach of Tosafot is compatible the words of the Living God”). The Talmud de- Aharonim. They often ignore the study of more naim was called ‘Talmud.’”xxi with acceptance of a literal understanding of scribes the disputes between the School of Hil- primary sources, from Tanakh to Mishnah to Perhaps, according to such a definition, yeridat ha-dorot – that each generation, or era, lel and the School of Shammai: even broad knowledge of the text of the Tal- one can say that the fundamental mitsvah of is at a lower level than the previous generation. “R. Abba the son of Shemuel said: The mud itself. This custom clearly does not fit Talmud is to analyze and compare the words According to this understanding, it is clear why House of Shammai and the House of Hil- with the opinion of Rambam, who criticizes of the previous period of scholars. This fits Talmud would consist of analysis of the previ- lel argued for three years; these said the such reliance on secondary sources and em- well with the view of R. Isaac ha-Levi Rabi- ous generations’ statements. It would be pre- Halakhah is like us, and these said the Ha- phasizes reaching final halakhic conclusions. nowitz, in his Dorot ha-Rishonim,xxii that the sumptuous for later generations to lakhah is like us. [Eventually,] a voice He also stresses the obligation to learn Tanakh derashot (hermeneutical conclusions) that the independently interpret the words of signifi- [from Heaven] declared, ‘These and these and Mishnah and does not exempt from it sages seem to derive directly from the Torah cantly earlier sources. Each generation can are the words of the Living God, but the those who study the Talmud.xxxi Perhaps mod- are in fact derived from the analyses of schol- only try to understand the previous genera- Halakhah is like the House of Hillel.’”xxvii ern practice can be justified on the basis of the ars in the previous period.xxiii tion’s explanations of the more primary Ritva wonders how both sides of an argu- views of the French rabbis, who explain the na- The Ba’alei ha-Tosafot continued in the sources. This would possibly explain why the ment can be true: ture of Talmud as analysis of an earlier gener- direction of Rashi and also understood Talmud Ba’alei ha-Tosafot view the Talmud as the ab- “The French rabbis asked, ‘How is it pos- ation’s words and exempt students from as an explanation of the previous generation’s solute final word on a matter, for they lived too sible that both sides are the words of the focusing on Tanakh and Mishnah. words. They developed new ways to study Tal- long after the Talmudic statements were made Living God, when one forbids and the Yet, even Tosafot would probably not ap- mud, comparing various Talmudic passages to in order to retain the right to question them. other permits?’ And they answered, prove of modern-day learning. Although the each other and trying to resolve contradictions However, Rambam may have had a dif- ‘When Moses went up on high to receive Ba’alei ha-Tosafot may have emphasized the and explain differences. They analyzed the Tal- ferent conception of historical decline. In the the Torah, they [the angels] showed him study of Tanakh less, they surely believed in mud in a way similar to how the scholars in the quotation cited above from his Introduction to on every matter 49 views to forbid and 49 studying it in depth,xxxii for they clearly knew Talmud analyzed the Mishnah. Sefer ha-Mitsvot, Rambam seems to imply that views to permit, and he asked God about the primary sources that they studied very This approach to Talmud was novel. The part of the reason for yeridat ha-dorot is pre- this, and He said that it will be handed well! Furthermore, many students only cover Geonim did not compare different passages of cisely that people blindly accept a preceding over to the sages of Israel in each genera- a few folios a year, studying tiny details within the Talmud as extensively as the Ba’alei ha- authority.xxv According to Rambam, there were tion, and the ruling would be like them.’ halakhic works by Aharonim, such as Birkat Tosafot did, since they partook in its own other factors that may have caused the decline, And this is correct according to derash Shemuel or Ketsot ha-Hoshen, while remaining (homiletics), but [kabbalistically] there is ignorant of vast areas of the Torah and Tal- “According to Rambam, it seems that the main purpose of a reason in the matter.”xxviii mud.xxxiii This style of learning, which over- talmud Torah is to understand the halakhot themselves and Ritva, citing the French rabbis, under- looks more primary sources, seems to be a stands “ellu va-ellu” literally: God showed newer phenomenon of the last century and has know how to apply them. Even the Talmud Bavli is a Moses many possibilities within every matter little precedent in any earlier source. Perhaps means toward understanding the fundamental and there is no single, original Truth. Every there should be a greater focus on learning and Torah she-bi-Ketav Torah view can be considered the exact truth of God analyzing the primary sources of the Torah. components of and at Sinai! The starting point for one’s analysis need not she-be-Al Peh, not an end unto itself.” This understanding of ellu va-ellu can be be the text of an Aharon. The Tanakh and the seen in the Ba’alei ha-Tosafot’s approach to works of Hazal are also worthy of one’s focus. analyses. The Ba’alei ha-Tosafot moved the such as persecutions, dispersions of Jewry, and Talmud study and in their own analyses of the Whatever path people ultimately choose focus of analysis one step further away from collapses of central rabbinic authority.xxvi Later Talmud.xxix As mentioned above, Tosafot un- in their learning, a reflection on these issues the original biblical source, from working generations may have forgotten some of the derstood the mitsvah to be focused on interme- should still be helpful. As long as their learning within the Talmudic process to analyzing the Torah that the earlier generations knew. How- diate sources. But what if the intermediate continues in the traditions of the past, perhaps Talmud from the outside. This shift may have ever, Rambam does not appear to believe in a source explained the primary source incor- each derekh can be considered “divrei E-lohim caused them to lessen the importance of study- historical rule of steady decline. While these rectly? One will focus so much on the interme- Hayyim.” ing the primary biblical sources. This is evident reasons explain why we must ultimately accept diate source that he may not even try to in Rabbeinu Tam’s understanding of Kiddushin the authority of the Talmud, and also explain understand the true explanation of the primary Ariel Krakowski is a junior at YC major- 30a (mentioned in Tosafot), which states that why Amoraim accepted the authority of the source! Yet if one understands “ellu va-ellu” ing in Computer Science and is a Webmaster a third of one’s learning time should be dedi- Tannaim, they are not as fundamental as the broadly, this is not a problem, for both sides of for Kol Hamevaser. cated to Bible, a third to Mishnah, and a third Tosafists’ understanding of yeridat ha-dorot. a dispute are true, and surely an intermediate

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 27 Kol Hamevaser i In the words of Rambam, Mishneh Torah, began building sevarot and offering inferences seems forced (dohak) or that requires a textual Krakowski showed me Ephraim Kanarfogel, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:3: “None of the […] saying this is the way of the Torah. And addition or emendation (hassurei mehassera). “Torah Study and Truth in Medieval Ashke- other mitsvot can be equated to the study of after the years passed, people arose and said, The Talmud may recognize that the answer is nazic Rabbinic Literature and Thought,” in Torah. Rather, the study of Torah can be “Study this commentator or all the commenta- weak, but is basing itself off a primary under- Howard Kreisel (ed.), Study and Knowledge in equated to all the mitsvot, because study leads tors in this way and that way.” Eventually, the standing of the Torah and at the same time try- Jewish Thought (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion Uni- to deed. Therefore, study takes precedence Holy, Awesome Torah was forgotten from all ing to avoid outright contradiction with the versity of the Negev Press, 2006), pp. 101-119, over deed in all cases.” people. Mishnah. which provides more examples that demon- ii Kiddushin 30a. xiii See the discussion of yeridat ha-dorot below xviii See many examples of this in Elhanan strate the Ba’alei ha-Tosafot’s stronger inter- iii Gittin 60b. where Rambam’s view of the Talmud’s author- Samet, Yad la-Rambam: Diyyunim be-Piskei pretation of “ellu va-ellu.” It is available online iv Translation from R. Nosson Dovid Rabi- ity is explained. ha-Rambam be-Yad ha-Hazakah (Ma’aleh Ad- at: http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/Knowledge/Ka- nowich, The Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon xiv For more on this, see Herbert Alan David- umim; Jerusalem: Ma’aliyot, 2005/6). See also narfogel.pdf. (Jerusalem: Rabbi Press – Aha- son, Moses Maimonides: The Man and his Joshua Broyde’s article in this edition of Kol xxx This is despite the fact that matters were vath Torah Institute; Moznaim, 1988), p. 15. Works (New York: Oxford University Press, Hamevaser for more on this issue. somewhat different for Rishonim who com- v As it states in Temurah 16a, there was always 2005), p. 119 and n. 130. He mentions how xix As Rambam states in his Introduction to the ment directly on the Talmud. the possibility of rediscovering forgotten ha- there are many examples of cases in which Mishneh Torah, he felt his work could be read xxxi In Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Talmud Torah lakhot: “1,700 kallin va-homarin, gezeirot Rambam seems to rule like the Yerushalmi, but after Tanakh, without any work in between, 1:1, Rambam merely exempts one who has shavot, and dikdukei soferim (types of the Bavli can be interpreted to accord with it. meaning that he believed that studying the “grown in wisdom” and who only needs to re- hermeneutical derivations) were forgotten dur- If this is the case, then it would fit with the idea Mishneh Torah is an alternative to studying view the material periodically so he does not ing the mourning period for Moshe. R. Abbahu that Rambam freely interprets a primary source Mishnah and Talmud. forget it from the first two parts of talmud said: Even so, Otniel b. Kenaz returned them when it does not directly contradict the Talmud xx The standard text says “Gemara,” but the Torah, Tanakh and Mishnah. with his sharp analysis.” Bavli. more correct version is “Talmud.” xxxii For example, the Ba’alei ha-Tosafot wrote vi See Kiddushin 30a, which explains an impor- xv A possible example in which Rambam fol- xxi Rashi in his commentary to Sukkah 28a. multiple perushim on the Torah, such as the pe- tant biblical verse about talmud Torah that lows the Yerushalmi over the Bavli (at least ac- xxii R. Isaac ha-Levi Rabinowitz, Dorot ha-Ris- rush of Rashbam. states the importance of this connection to cording to some commentators, such as honim, part I, vol. 5. xxxiii In some yeshivot, it is now common for Sinai: “R. Yehoshua b. Levi said: Anyone who Remakh) is found in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot xxiii This is not to say that the Rishonim them- talmidim to study only a few folios a year, even teaches his grandson Torah, the Torah consid- Yesodei ha-Torah 5:5, where Rambam dis- selves held as extreme a view as the Dorot ha- during their “beki’ut” seder (set time for sur- ers him as if he received it from Mt. Sinai, as cusses the requirement that a city sacrifice all Rishonim, but it suggests a possible alternative vey-style learning of Talmud)! it says, ‘And you shall teach them to your sons the lives of its inhabitants rather than give over outlook to that of Rambam. xxxiv At least according to Tosafot. Rambam and your grandsons’ (Devarim 4:9), and next one Jew to be killed. Rambam takes his ruling xxiv This is found in Tosafot’s commentary to would probably consider many derakhim to be to this, ‘The day that you stood before God at from a passage in the Yerushalmi, even though Sanhedrin 24a, s.v. belulah be-Mikra u-be- examples of yeridat ha-dorot. Horeb [Sinai]’ (Devarim 4:10).” some explain that the Bavli seems to contradict Mishnah; Tosafot explain similarly at Kid- vii Rambam’s Introduction to the Mishnah. Al- it. dushin 30a, s.v. lo tserikhah le-yomei. though some Rishonim may say there were xvi For example, see Kiddushin 6b (concerning xxv Menachem Kellner, ibid., explains that quo- some developments over time, I think all one who betroths with a loan) and 58b (con- tation in a similar manner. His book is devoted would agree to the basic idea that Jews were cerning the sprinkling of water from a sin-of- to arguing that Rambam did not accept the idea always involved in the same basic study of fering), where Rambam’s explanation seems to of the decline of the generations, but only that Torah she-be-Al Peh. be focused on the primary source and is sim- the authority of previous generations was ac- viii See, for example, Yaakov Elman, “Orality pler even though it does not accord as well cepted. While he may take his claim too far, it and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud,” with the Gemara. I believe that he may have is sensible to argue that Rambam had a differ- Oral Tradition 14,1 (1999): 52-99. felt it was preferable to give the best explana- ent view on the matter than Tosafot did. The ix See Robert Brody, “The Talmud in the tion of the more primary source because that claim in this section that Rambam viewed yeri- Geonic Period,” in Sharon Liberman Mintz reading could be true independent of the Tal- dat ha-dorot differently is partially based on and Gabriel M. Goldstein (eds.), Printing the mud’s explanation. Therefore, even if his read- Kellner’s claim. Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein (New ing does not fit with that of the Gemara, it may xxvi See, for example, Rambam’s Introduction York: Yeshiva University Museum, 2005), pp. still fit with the primary source. In both exam- to the Mishneh Torah: “After the court of R. 29-35, at p. 31. He quotes from R. Aaron Sar- ples, other Rishonim give a simpler explana- Ashi, who wrote the Talmud in the time of his jado Gaon (head of the academy at Pumbedita tion of the Gemara, but their readings do not son and completed it, the people of Israel scat- from 942-960), who says that most of the as easily fit with the more primary sources. For tered throughout all the nations most exceed- Academy “does not know what a book is.” another possible example, see Yad Malakhi, ingly and reached the most remote parts and Brody argues that the Geonic style of learning Kelalei ha-Rambam #38. distant isles, armed struggle became prevalent was different than that of the Academy because See also the case cited in the previous note in the world, and the public ways became of its oral nature. from Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah where Ram- clogged with armies. The study of the Torah x Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:11. bam seems to focus on the primary sources in- declined, and the people of Israel ceased to xi From Rambam’s Introduction to Sefer ha- stead of following the rules of pesak. Rambam gather in places of study in their thousands and Mitsvot; translation from Menachem Kellner, rules like Reish Lakish over R. Yohanan – de- tens of thousands as before.” Maimonides on the “Decline of the Genera- spite the fact that there is a rule in pesak to fol- xxvii Eruvin 13b. tions” and the Nature of Rabbinic Authority low R. Yohanan when the two of them argue – xxviii Ritva, commentary to Eruvin 13b, s.v. ellu (Albany: State University of New York Press, that a city cannot hand over a specified person va-ellu divrei E-lohim Hayyim. 1996), p. 39. who is not liable to the death penalty. The xxix Much of the following discussion of “ellu xi Something may be lost when intermediary Kesef Mishneh explains that Rambam follows va-ellu” is based on Moshe Halbertal, “Three layers of commentary replace the primary Reish Lakish because the implications of the Medieval Theories of Jewish Law: Geonim sources as the new focus of learning. One may Tannaitic and biblical sources are in his favor. (restorative); Rambam (accumulative); Ram- use Rambam’s description of the development See, however, Yad Peshutah, ibid., who argues ban and Tosefot (constitutive),” in Noam Zion, of idolatry in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avodah that Rambam had a different text. Elu v’Elu: Two Schools of Face Off Zarah 1:1 as an analogy. By replacing the ref- xvii This idea of trying to fit with a more pri- On Issues of Human Autonomy, Majority Rule erences to idolatry with the use of intermediary mary source or understanding may be seen and Divine Voice of Authority (Jerusalem: sources, one would emerge with something elsewhere also. For example, the Talmud Bavli Shalom Hartman Institute, 2008), pp. 49-53, along these lines: People began saying, “Since often rules in a certain way based on its under- available at: http://www.hartmaninstitute.com/ the commentators are servants of the Torah, standing of the Pentateuch and rules of derash. uploads/Holidays/Elu-02062008_0957_45. they deserve to be studied and analyzed […] If an objection is raised from the Mishnah, the pdf. and this is the honor of the Torah.” So they Talmud dismisses it with an answer that either After this section was written, Eliyahu

28 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud Who’s in Charge of Understanding the Mishnah?

BY: Joshua E. Broyde Thus, it is clear that the same rule that ap- to be binding, but the opinion has to be ac- honim do not feel that the Gemara’s explana- plies for the text of the Torah also applies to cepted la-halakhah (as halakhah). From this tion of the Mishnah is authoritative, or, for ne of the primary cornerstones of Jew- the text of the Mishnah. However, one example interpretation of Rambam, one sees that one is practical reasons, they would prefer to give an ish law is the principle that the does not form a rule, and I would like to bring free to analyze rejected opinions in the Mish- incorrect but simple explanation of the Mish- OGemara is the authoritative source in a few examples of this concept as applied to nah even against the maskanah of the nah. deciding Halakhah. If the Gemara hands down various Mishnayot.iii Gemara.vi In general, it is not uncommon for However, as noted above, this type of a ruling, later scholars cannot disagree with it. In Shabbat 7:1, the Mishnah begins with Rambam to explain Mishnayyot according to simplification does not happen when Halakhah However, outside of Halakhah, there is consid- the phrase “Kelal gadol ameru be-Shabbat,” the hava amina when he is explaining a re- is involved. To further emphasize this point, I erably more leeway. Thus, we find many Ris- “[The Rabbis] formulated a great rule (kelal jected shittah.vii know of no place where Rambam or Bartenura honim (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, and gadol) regarding the laws of Shabbat.” The It is also possible to argue that Rambam sacrifice accuracy for the sake of simplicity Ramban, to name a few) who do not necessar- Gemara that follows has a lengthy explanation is driven to this explanation for the sake of when they are discussing Halakhah. When ily interpret biblical passages in accordance as to why it is called “kelal gadol,” a great rule, simplicity. According to this understanding, Rambam is discussing an opinion that is ac- with the Gemara’s exegetical understanding. as opposed to most other places in the Mishnah one is bound to the Gemara’s interpretation of cepted la-halakhah, he always includes the rejected opinions, but Rambam simply does okimta’ot, the qualifications or restrictions of “There is a concept, at least according to not bother to give the correct explanation. The the case, found in the respective Gemaras, to Gemara’s explanation of R. Shimon relies on the extent that the reader fully understands the Rambam, R. Ovadiah mi-Bartenura, and a deep analysis of the concept of muktseh (the Mishnah la-halakhah. This is true even when prohibition of moving certain objects on Shab- the Gemara’s okimta’ot are not clear from the Me’iri, that one has the right to interpret bat). Rambam, in his commentary to the Mish- literal meaning of the Mishnah. nah, does not want to delve into these Bava Metsi’a 1:1 also provides an exam- Mishnayyot against the Gemara within complexities. Therefore, since this view is re- ple of where some commentaries ignore the jected anyway, he explains it in the simplest view of the Gemara. The Mishnah there says: certain constraints.” fashion possible. “Two people are holding a garment: one says, Interestingly enough, Rashi also presents ‘I found it,’ and the other says, ‘I found it.’ This This is allowed because the authority of the that state “ha-kelal,” the rule, without using the the rejected explanation found in the one says, ‘It is all mine,’ and this one says, ‘It Talmud, while carrying huge weight, does not word “gadol.” Rambam, however, in his com- Gemara.viii However, since Rashi’s perush is is all mine.’ They both swear that they each fully bind us in terms of how we understand mentary to the Mishnah,iv seems to largely ig- primarily a commentary to the Gemara and not have no less than half and split it.” the text of the Torah. Similarly, we find that nore the discussion in the Gemara and instead the Mishnah, it is possible that he is working The Gemara there says that the phrase some Rishonim think that the Gemara’s ag- simply says that it is called a “great rule” be- with the hava amina with the assumption that “This one says, ‘It is all mine’ and this one gadic portions are not authoritative like the ha- cause the punishment for intentionally violat- the reader will reject it when the Gemara does. says, ‘It is all mine’” is completely separate lakhic sections are. This rule is summarized in ing Shabbat is stoning, and since stoning is the Another example of an interpretation of from the first part of the Mishnah and is dis- Shemuel ha-Nagid’s Introduction to the Tal- harshest punishment that can be meted out,v the the Mishnah that differs from that of the cussing a sale. Me’iri, on the other hand, ex- mud: “One learns from [the aggadic sections] Mishnah calls this rule “gadol.” Note that Gemara can be found in Bava Batra 4:9: “R. plains that the first phrase is a general rule, and only those parts that are logical and does not Rambam’s approach here to Mishnaic interpre- Shimon says: One who gives his field to the that the second phrase (and the third phrase rely [on those aggadic sections] that are illog- tation accords with the rule set out by Tosafot Temple as hekdesh (consecrated property) has that follows in the Mishnah) are all dealing ical.” Yom Tov. Since “gadol” is completely irrele- only given the grafted carob tree and the ma- with different permutations of cases where I would like to explore this concept in a vant to Halakhah and is just a linguistic discus- ture sycamore tree.” Rambam, followed by R. people make different claims of ownership on different arena: the interpretation of the Mish- sion, Rambam does not feel bound by the Ovadiah mi-Bartenura, explains this Mishnah the items that they find.x nah. As I said before, we already know that the Gemara’s explanation. as a presentation of R. Shimon’s opinion. Ac- Note that Me’iri’s view is not against Ha- Tanakh can be interpreted against the Gemara.i Another example of this type of interpre- cording to the Gemara, however, this is a mis- lakhah, as the Mishnah, in his opinion, is sim- On the surface, it would seem strange to say tation of the Mishnah is in Shabbat 3:5. The representation, as the Gemara explains that R. ply talking about finding an object, but is silent that one may interpret the Mishnah against the Mishnah there goes as follows: “R. Shimon Shimon is only saying this opinion in accor- on the halakhot regarding a sale. The Gemara, Gemara. After all, given the fact that the says: One may move any candle on Shabbat dance with the Rabbis, but that it is not really on the other hand, thinks the Mishnah is dis- Gemara is a halakhic work and the Mishnah except a candle that is currently lit.” Rambam, his own opinion. Therefore, how can Rambam cussing both a sale and the finding of an object. deals with Halakhah, it would appear that one in his commentary to the Mishnah, explains and Bartenura contradict the Gemara by pre- It seems that Me’iri would be of the opinion must always defer to the Gemara’s understand- that the reason for R. Shimon’s view is that one senting this as R. Shimon’s opinion? that even though the Gemara’s analysis of a ing of the Mishnah. However, I will try to may accidentally extinguish the candle if it is The Tosafot Yom Tov, in response to this sale regarding a garment is correct, it is simply show that, in fact, the Rishonim sometimes go moved while lit. However, this explanation is problem, says, “Rav Ovadiah mi-Bartenura ex- not explicit in the Mishnah. against the Gemara when interpreting Mish- just a hava amina, an initial assumption, in the plains our Mishnah like its simple and basic These are only a few examples out of nayyot. Gemara, and is eventually rejected in favor of meaning.”ix From reading the Mishnah, it ap- many. Nevertheless, they demonstrate a point: The first Torah scholar to lay out princi- a different explanation. It seems as if Rambam pears as though R. Shimon stands by this po- there is a concept, at least according to Ram- ples guiding how we explain the Mishnah was thought that the hava amina of the Gemara, sition. Since R. Shimon is rejected bam, R. Ovadiah mi-Bartenura, and Me’iri, the author of the Tosafot Yom Tov, R. Yosef even though it is ultimately rejected, fits better la-halakhah, Bartenura does not feel com- that one has the right to interpret Mishnayyot Lipmann Heller. In an attempt to defend Ram- with the Mishnah, and therefore explains it in pelled to say that R. Shimon is speaking ac- against the Gemara within certain constraints. bam’s interpretation of Massekhet 5:5, that fashion. cording to the Rabbis. However, I would It seems that not only the Rishonim, but he writes as follows: However, unlike the previous example, submit that if R. Shimon’s actual opinion (as even the Aharonim agree with this principle. “Even though in the Gemara they did not this is a halakhic discussion with real practical set forth in the Gemara) was accepted la-ha- The Gra, in his commentary to the Mishnah, explain the Mishnah [the same way Ram- differences! Therefore, what right does Ram- lakhah, then R. Ovadiah would have explained does not always agree with the Gemara’s inter- bam did], since for practical purposes bam have to explain this Mishnah in a way that it in accordance with the Gemara and noted pretation. For example, the Mishnah in Be- there is no difference, one may explain the is inconsistent with the maskanah (conclusion) that R. Shimon’s opinion presented in the rakhot 4:1 says: “Tefillat Arvit ein lah keva – Mishnah in any way one wants. Because of the Gemara? The answer seems to be that Mishnah does not really belong to R. Shimon. the Ma’ariv prayer is not set.” The Gemara I do not see a difference between explain- since we do not paskn like R. Shimon, one may To summarize, we now have examples of there explains that the Mishnah means that ing a Mishnah and explaining the pesukim interpret his opinion against the maskanah of interpretations where the Rishonim explain a Ma’ariv is optional. However, the Gra, in his […] as long as one does not explain any the Gemara. Thus, we emerge with an impor- rejected opinion of the Mishnah against the commentary to that Mishnah, explains that the law in a way that contradicts the tant principle: not only does the topic have to opinion of the Gemara. This seems to result Mishnah’s statement means that Ma’ariv has Gemara.”ii be halakhic in order for the Gemara’s opinion from one of two concepts. Either these Ris- no time limit.xi This example is not an aberra-

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 29 Kol Hamevaser tion for the Gra. R. Yehudah Leib Maimon, in “Even though the din (legal ruling) presented his Sefer ha-Gra,xii gives many examples of in the Gemara is correct and true, it is not the places where the Gra disputes the Gemara’s case that the Mishnah is talking about.” This General Jewish Thought understanding of the Mishnah and other Tan- type of analysis also allows the student of the naitic material such as the Tosefta. Talmud to appreciate the bridge between the “It would seem to me that while this type of inter- Rock the Vote: Jews, pretation or explanation does not lead to a halakhic nafeka minnah (practical difference), it does lead to Politics, and Tikkun Olam a tremendous nafeka minnah in terms of how we BY: Chana Cooperi to reach outwards and bring the entire human race along on the journey toward moral perfec- should think about and even learn Gemara.” hen forming political positions and tion. This Jewish duty is found throughout affiliations in modern-day America, Tanakh as God exhorts His people to serve as It would seem to me that this opinion of halakhah of the Gemara and the original text Wit can be incredibly difficult to de- a “light unto the nations” and to bring the the Gra can be connected to another one of his of the Mishnah. termine the proper relationship between one’s world to religious wholesomeness.iv puzzling views. The Pe’at ha-Shulhan, in an personal religious convictions and political For the Jewish nation, reaching spiritual effort to explain the concept of “hassurei Joshua E. Broyde is a junior at YC major- stances. As Orthodox Jews, we ask ourselves: perfection necessarily means completely ob- mehassera ve-hakhi ka-tanei,”xiii notes in the ing in Chemistry. what role should Halakhah play in informing serving the Torah and mitsvot. However, as name of the Vilna Gaon: our political views in secular society? What are non-Jews are not commanded in all of the “There are no words missing in the Mish- our responsibilities, if any, to our non-Jewish mitsvot, attaining spiritual perfection for them nah that Rabbi (R. Yehudah ha-Nasi) American neighbors, and how should these ob- cannot entail fulfillment of all the mistvot, wrote, and it is not Rabbi’s style to omit i See, for example, Rashi to Bereshit 3:8, s.v. ligations impact our political opinions and af- though it would require the fulfillment of the words. Rather, Rabbi holds like a certain va-yishme’u; Rashbam to Bereshit 37:2, s.v. filiations? Noahide laws.v Although some, possibly in- Tanna and wrote the Mishnah like him. elleh toledot. The Gemara itself (e.g. Shabbat When grappling with these issues, two cluding Rambam, believe that Jews are re- The Gemara, on the other hand, holds like 63a) occasionally invokes the principle that the polar opposite views form. The first divorces quired to enforce the Noahide laws through a different Tanna, and, according to that plain interpretation of the verse is not su- religious and political beliefs. Adherents of this coercion, the majority of halakhic authorities other Tanna, gives the answer of hassurei perceded by the Gemara. This could be taken view develop political views based solely on maintain that no such requirement exists.vi Fur- mehassera.”xiv to mean that even when the Gemara gives an universal principles and values rooted in Amer- thermore, most authorities maintain that Jews This approach fits very well with the prin- interpretation of a verse, one is not bound by ican culture and government. With an eye to- have no obligation to prevent a Noahide from ciple above. On a purely analytical level, the it. wards the First Amendment, they believe that violating one of his seven laws and can even Mishnah makes perfect sense on its own and ii Tosafot Yom Tov to Nazir 5:5. to allow personal religious convictions to af- assist him in sinning, if the non-Jew could have can be understood completely independently iii Most of these examples come from fect public, legal, and political views is to be committed the sin without the help of the of the Gemara. However, since the Gemara Massekhet Shabbat. When I learned Massekhet holds by a different opinion than the Mishnah, Shabbat, I specifically was looking for places it must reconcile the plain reading of the Mish- where the mefareshim explain the Mishnah “As Orthodox Jews, we ask ourselves: what role nah with the accepted law.xv The bottom line against the Gemara. The other examples are should Halakhah play in informing our of this approach is that the Mishnah can be cor- ones that I found incidentally while learning. rectly understood according to its basic mean- iv Rambam, Perush ha-Mishnayyot to Shabbat political views in secular society?” ing, just as long as it is not understood 7:1. la-halakhah. The Gra seems to have accepted v Sanhedrin 49b. un-American and not in-line with the spirit of Jew.vii However, there may still remain an ob- this approach in his commentary to the Mish- vi The Tosafot Yom Tov stakes out a similar the constitution, particularly when such views ligation to ensure the general acceptance of nah. view of Rashi in his commentary to Pe’ah 2:2. impose on the rights of the others. Noahide laws among the non- Jewish public.viii It appears that there is a strong tradition vii For another example, see Shabbat 21:1. In contrast, others assume that one’s reli- Despite the absence of an obligation to spread of understanding the Mishnah not in accor- viii Rashi to Shabbat 44a, s.v. huts min ha-ner gious convictions must not be separated from the observance of the Noahide laws, it is cer- dance with the final conclusion of the Gemara. ha-dolek be-Shabbat. political views, and thus they support those tainly still commendable to do so. However, everyone agrees with the final con- ix Tosafot Yom Tov to Bava Batra 4:9. legal positions most in line with their religious In addition to any possible halakhic obli- clusion of the Tosafot Yom Tov mentioned x Me’iri, Beit ha-Behirah, Bava Metsi’a 2a. ones. Without particular concern as to the con- gation to spread the Noahide laws, each Jew above: that the alternative interpretation of the xi Gra to Berakhot 4:1. stitutionality of such an approach, these indi- has an obligation to improve society that stems Mishnah must not disagree with the final ha- xii R. Yehudah Leib Maimon, Sefer ha-Gra viduals argue that Orthodox Jews should press from the inherent ethical value of such a mis- lakhah found in the Gemara. (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1953), p. 47. the American government to enact laws, in sion. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik writes, “We It would seem to me that while this type xiii Literally translated as: “[The text] is missing both social and moral realms, inspired by the have always considered ourselves an insepara- of interpretation or explanation does not lead words and this is what [the text] says.” This is Torah’s vision.ii However, each of these ap- ble part of humanity and we were ever ready to a halakhic nafeka minnah (practical differ- the phrase the Gemara uses to introduce an in- proaches is overly simplistic and fails to take to accept […] the responsibility implicit in ence), it does lead to a tremendous nafeka min- terpretation of the Mishnah that involves in- into account the complexity of the Torah’s per- human existence.”ix Our responsibility to the nah in terms of how we should think about and serting missing words into the text. spective on the relationship between the reli- general world stems from being human, not even learn Gemara. When I learn Gemara and xiv R. Yisrael of Shklov, Pe’at ha-Shulhan, In- gious and political views of a Jew in a just from being Jewish. Additionally, though encounter a halakhah, I never think to myself, troduction. non-Jewish country. Jewish self-interest certainly comes into play, “Josh, do you agree with the halakhah that the xv Since, in general, the Mishnah reflects the In order to fully understand this relation- the drive to improve society must also come Gemara just stated?” The question simply final law, the Gemara would rather create a ship, we must first investigate the nature and from “[s]elf-interest, not as Jews, but as full never enters my mind. If the Gemara states a forced reading of the Mishnah than simply say extent of the Jewish obligation of tikkun olam, members of society.”x The Torah itself alludes halakhah, the halakhah, by definition, must be that the Mishnah is not la-halakhah. of bringing the world to a state of perfection. to such an obligation by warning Am Yisrael true. To assert the opposite would seem to bor- xvi This is, of course, barring cases where there The term “tikkun olam” is found in the Aleinu not to oppress the stranger “ki gerim heyitem der on the heretical.xvi However, based on the is another Talmudic source that impacts the prayer in which the Jew yearns “letakken olam be-Erets Mitsrayim,” “for you were strangers above analysis, it would appear that one may final halakhic decision. be-malkhut Sha-ddai,” “to perfect the world in the Land of Egypt.”xi The rationale for this ask oneself, “Does the okimta of the Gemara under the sovereignty of the Almighty,” so that obligation is not simply because God forbade actually fit with the Mishnah?” If the okimta “kol benei vasar yikre’u vi-shemekha,” “all it but because Jews are expected to understand does fit, then the Gemara’s okimta is to be ac- mankind will invoke Your name.”iii Thus, the the universal experience of oppression and the cepted. However, based on the final example mission of Am Yisrael is not simply to look in- pain it causes. that I gave, one is perfectly allowed to say, wards and develop its own moral character, but Rambam highlights this imperative in

30 www.kolhamevaser.com Volume IV, Issue 4 Derekh ha-Limmud Mishneh Torah where he states that Hazal ob- physical welfare of his non-Jewish neighbors in accordance with the Torah’s perspective, un- ii When the term “moral” is used in this paper, ligate us to visit the non-Jewish ill and bury in the modern world. In regard to spreading like the majority Democratic view. However, it indicates a religiously-inspired morality that their dead.xii In explaining this halakhah, Ram- knowledge of Noahide laws, the parameters the social values of the Democratic Party are relates to one’s relationship with God and does bam quotes the pasuk, “Tov Hashem la-kol, ve- and applications of these laws are often am- often far closer to those of the Torah than are not necessarily have a secular justification. rahamav al kol ma’asav,” “Hashem is good to biguous and difficult to determine, as there is the Republican Party’s. The Democratic Party iii Metsudah Siddur translation. all; His mercies are on all His works.”xiii little source material dealing with these views governmental responsibility for the iv Isaiah 42:6. Though Rambam also includes darkhei issues.xx Thus, it is not always clear what the physical welfare of its citizens as essential and v Although a few halakhic authorities state that shalomxiv as a justification, indicating that Torah thinks a “spiritually perfect” non-Jew advocates for more government involvement the Noahide laws for non-Jews are no longer Hazal are driven by Jewish self-interest as should do in many situations. in social justice issues. In contrast, the Repub- binding, the majority opinion holds that non- well, the citing of this pasuk makes it clear that Additionally, in certain circumstances, lican Party believes that the government ought Jews are still legally bound by these laws. See: we must treat non-Jews with kindness and re- even where the proper, Torah-informed per- to take a more laissez-faire approach and let Michael J. Broyde, “The Obligation of Jews to spect, for that is the right way to behave. spective is clear, self-interest may prevent us each individual fend for himself. Seek Observance of Noahide Laws by Gen- The role of Jews in improving society is tiles: A Theoretical Review,” in David Shatz, not limited to purely spiritual causes. The ob- “For a Jew in today’s world, the need to improve Chaim I. Waxman, and Nathan J. Diament ligation of tikkun olam includes ensuring that (eds), Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in the material needs of members of our society the moral condition of his non-Jewish neighbors Jewish Thought and Law (Northvale, NJ: Jason are met as well. Enjoinders to care for the Aronson, 1999), pp. 103-143. needy and extend a giving hand to the poor must inform his political views and can legitimately vi Broyde, pp. 120-129. Some, including the permeate the Torah and Talmud. R. late Lubavitcher Rebbe, believe that Rambam Soloveitchik states, “We consider ourselves do so in an American legal system.” requires coercion to whatever extent possible, members of the universal community charged while others limit such an obligation to the with the responsibility of promoting progress from encouraging legislation supporting it. Al- This tension in choosing a party affiliation times of absolute Jewish sovereignty. Others in all fields, economic, social, scientific,” in though from the vantage point of Halakhah ho- based on social versus moral values is not a maintain that Rambam has no such require- addition to ethical.xv Furthermore, “we are mosexual relations are prohibited for both Jews new one. Many Orthodox Jews in the late 19th ment at all. In any event, most other authori- human beings, committed to the general wel- and non-Jews, pushing an anti-gay legislative century in Germany often associated them- ties, including Nahmanides, Tosafot, the Tur, fare and progress of mankind […] we are in- agenda may harm Jewish interests, as such leg- selves with Catholic parties, whose religiously- the Shulhan Arukh, and Rema, do not require terested in combating disease, in alleviating islation would open the door for the American informed political stances, they felt, were coercion. human suffering, in protecting man’s rights, in government to discriminate against individuals closer to the Jewish position than were the vii Broyde, p. 131. the helping of the needy, et cetera.”xvi Thus, based on their moral practices. American Jews views of the more liberal parties. However, viii J. David Bleich, “Tikkun Olam: Jewish Ob- for example, the religious Jew discussing na- have long been protected under U.S. law other Orthodox Jews supported the more lib- ligations to a Non-Jewish Society,” in Tikkun tionalized healthcare must consider the im- against discrimination, and pushing an anti-gay eral political causes and felt that “the victory Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought proved physical well-being of those covered policy could jeopardize this protection, which of basic, liberal ideology represented progress and Law, pp. 61-102, at p. 73. under proposed healthcare reform legislation. would be a very negative development for the for Jewish religious liberalism.”xxiv ix Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “Confrontation,” In regard to governmental regulation of Jewish community. It should be noted, how- Thus, in forming and deciding political Tradition 6,2 (1964): 5-29, at p. 20. morality, it is impossible to ignore the fact that ever, that in a case where a law stands in op- views and affiliations, the Torah-dedicated Jew x Marc D. Stern, “Jews and Public Morality,” a society whose government is unconcerned position to the religious beliefs of a certain must accept his responsibility to general soci- in Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jew- with the moral welfare of its citizens will be- group, legal exemptions can be obtained to ety, both in improving its moral ways and in ish Thought and Law, pp. 159-200, at p. 161. come corrupt. With no ruling body to set con- prevent the group from violating its religious caring for its physical needs. I believe that nei- xi Exodus 22:20, ArtScroll translation. sequences for morally inferior behavior, it is strictures.xxi Thus, the fear that enacting certain ther of the two approaches outlined at the be- xii Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim inevitable that immorality will prevail. Living legislation will directly harm the Jewish com- ginning of this article constitutes a suitable 10:12. in a spiritually corrupt country is terrible for munity is mitigated. answer to this challenge; a more middle- xiii Psalms 145:9. the soul, both Jewish and not. It is important to Perhaps the most daunting obstacle to the ground approach is needed. It is clear that our xiv The literal translation is “ways of peace” but note that American law permits religious be- Jew’s mission to spread the Torah’s moral vi- political positions must, and legally can, be in- the interpretation of the phrase is disputed. lief, or any other ideology, to affect public pol- sion is promoting an agenda that runs counter fluenced by our Torah values and our mission xv Soloveitchik, “Confrontation” (addendum), icy, so long as a secular justification for the to the Western principles that stand at the core to be metakken olam. However, I believe that p. 78. policy also exists.xvii Thus, for a Jew in today’s of the American governmental system. For ex- in certain cases political reasoning should take xvi Ibid., pp. 20-21. world, the need to improve the moral condition ample, Torah law (Noahide law for non-Jews, the place of halakhic reasoning, though to as- xvii Marc D. Stern, “Civil Religion is an Obsta- of his non-Jewish neighbors must inform his Halakhah for Jews) sometimes treats Jews and certain which cases is difficult. Furthermore, cle to Serious Yirat Shamayim,” in idem (ed.), political views and can legitimately do so in an non-Jews differently, even when the cases are we must find a balance between pragmatism Yirat Shamayim: The Awe, Reverence, and American legal system. identical. This is true, for instance, of the legal and principle and attempt to spread our values Fear of God (New York: Yeshiva University Although it is clear that, as Orthodox standards of evidence needed in order to pre- while still recognizing and addressing obsta- Press, 2008), pp. 349-376, at p. 350. Jews, Halakhah should inform our general vi- scribe a capital punishment for certain crimes, cles, such as the lack of clarity about the xviii Stern, “Jews and Public Morality,” pp. 176- sion when it comes to politics, this is not nec- which make it easier to execute a non-Jew than Noahide Laws, Jewish self-interest, and con- 178. A detailed analysis of this issue is beyond essarily true when it comes to specific political a Jew.xxii In modern times, the ubiquity of the flict with Western values. I do not know what the scope of this article but can be found in issues. In his article “Jews and Public Moral- legal principle of “all men are created equal” the parameters for weighing each of these con- Stern’s essay. ity,” Marc D. Stern, a renowned expert on re- precludes the possibility of treating Jews and siderations in the decision-making process xix , “A Nation Under God: ligious liberty, claims that since many contend non-Jews differently. From a practical perspec- should be, for to any given political issue there Jews, Christians and the American Public that there exists an ethic separate from Ha- tive, then, it can be more beneficial to support may be multiple legitimate approaches. How- Square,” in Yirat Shamayim: The Awe, Rever- lakhah, political decisions aimed at improving views more in line with Western values in ever, we must be willing to arrive at the con- ence, and Fear of God, pp. 321-347, at pp. society need not necessarily be based on Ha- order to maximize effectiveness. clusions through honest, thorough examination 335-336. lakhah.xviii In fact, in certain situations, using For the tikkun olam-minded observant of all the issues involved. xx Bleich, pp. 80-85. secular, political logic is preferable and will re- Jew, party affiliation presents an incredible xxi Stern, “Jews and Public Morality,” p. 172. sult in a better solution than if one turned to challenge, as the present-day Republican and Chana Cooper is a senior at SCW major- xxii Bleich, p. 87. Halakhah. It must be noted that this principle Democratic Parties both often abide by tikkun ing in Physics and is a Staff Writer for Kol xxiii GOP 2008 Platform, available at: is not universally accepted and others argue olam principles in certain realms but not in oth- Hamevaser. http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008plat- that a religious Jew should only use reli- ers. The Republican Party often emphasizes form.pdf, p. 54. giously-based logic.xix “the right to apply religious values to public xxiv Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tra- Putting aside the question of how we policy” and supports governmental regulation dition: The Social Thrusts of Orthodox Jewry should derive our political views, there remain of morality to a greater extent than does the i I would like to gratefully acknowledge Marc in Imperial Germany (New York: Columbia a number of obstacles in the Jew’s path to ful- Democratic Party.xxiii Thus, the Republican D. Stern for his guidance and support in the University Press, 1992), p. 337. fill his imperative to improve the spiritual and Party’s view on gay marriage, for example, is writing of this article.

Volume IV, Issue 4 www.kolhamevaser.com 31

 

February 6th-27th, 2011

Get Ready.