sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kabbalah, Midrash, Rabbi

The Relationship of Taubes Nach and Rosh , RIETS and YU High School for Boys Rabbi, Congregation Zichron Mordechai, Teaneck , NJ

TORAH, NEVI’IM, AND KESUVIM: HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT, HOW ARE THEY SIMILAR?

he in Shabbos (88a) the Gemara in Kiddushin (49a) and in that it is rooted, separately, in Torah, relates that when praising (101a), which identify one in Nevi’im, and in Kesuvim.6 The Hashem in connection with who has experience with or expertise Gemara in Rosh Ha-Shanah (32a) Tthe giving of the Torah to the Jewish in mikra as someone who studies speaks of citing pesukim individually people on Shavuos, a certain individual Torah, Nevi’im, and Kesuvim.2 As from Torah, from Nevi’im, and from thanked Him for having presented us detailed by the Gemara in Bava Basra Kesuvim as part of the special berachos with a “Torah [consisting] of thirds.” (14b), there are eight books in Nevi’im of Malchuyos, Zichronos, and Shofaros In clarifying this unusual phrase, and eleven books in Kesuvim, for a on Rosh Ha-Shanah. The Gemara there (d”h Oryan Telisa’i) states total of nineteen. When added to the in Megillah (21b) suggests that that the reference is to the fact that five books of the Torah,3 this results in specifically three people are called up there are three sections of the Torah, the Tanach consisting of twenty-four to the Torah on Mondays, Thursdays, namely, Torah, Nevi’im, and Kesuvim, books, the amount identified by the and Shabbos afternoons as a means or what we commonly call “Tanach”;1 Gemara in Ta’anis (8a) and in many of corresponding to Torah, Nevi’im, the Ritva there (d”h Oryan Telisa’i) Midrashic and other sources.4 and Kesuvim. And the Gemara in explains that all three were actually Although these sections of Scripture Bechoros (50a) notes that words can alluded to at . These three are certainly related,5 they are have different meanings depending on sections collectively comprise that nonetheless distinct from one another. whether they are found in Torah, in which generally call “mikra,” or On occasion, for example, Chazal Nevi’im, or in Kesuvim. The question Scripture, as indicated by the seek to emphasize the significance of is what precisely distinguishes these in Rabbah (8:3) as well as by a particular concept by demonstrating three divisions of Scripture from each

26 Rabbi Elchanan Theological Seminary • The and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • 5779 other, or, put differently, what unique the Torah states “eileh ha-mitzvos …” the Kohanim in the Beis Ha-Mikdash characteristic(s) identify each of — these are the mitzvos that Hashem and to their garments, as presented them, and what warrants the inclusion commanded ( 27:34). The in the Gemara in Yoma (71b) and in of a particular book in one section as implication of the word “these,” as Ta’anis (17b), to the placement of opposed to another. noted by the there (No. 120), markers at a gravesite, as discussed in is “these and no others.” TheSifra the Gemara in Moed Kattan (5a), and The Legal Authority of Each there (Parashas Bechukosai 13:7) thus the technical performance of a bris Section states, as does the Gemara in Shabbos milah, as noted by Tosafos in Yevamos (104a), among other places, that (71b, d”h lo nitnah). In addition, The singular nature of Torah is following the closing of the Torah, a there are some laws found in Nevi’im relatively easy to understand. The prophet does not have the authority and Kesuvim that may not have been Gemara in Nedarim (22b) actually to innovate any new law to be binding “on the books” in terms of having suggests that but for the failings of upon future generations with the been previously observed, but which the people, the five books of Torah force of a law from the Torah.9 Of were part of a tradition that existed alone would have sufficed (along course, since the prophets were from the at Mount Sinai with the book of Yehoshua because (generally) among the sages of their indicating that at a certain point in of its significance regarding Eretz respective generations, as implied they would be introduced by a Yisrael), and the works in Nevi’im by the at the beginning of prophet. Ibn , in his commentary and Kesuvim would not, in a certain Pirkei Avos (1:1), and as indicated by to Shemos (12:1, d”h Va-Yomer) cites sense, have been necessary at all; the Rambam in the introduction to the idea of having songs and musical Torah obviously stands apart from his , they had the same instruments as part of the Beis Ha- everything else. Indeed, the Mishnah right to legislate new laws as did other Mikdash service and the prohibition in Sanhedrin (90a) declares that one sages. But these laws, found in Nevi’im to carry outside on Shabbos as who denies the Divine origin of Torah and Kesuvim, do not have quite the examples of this. TheShelah (Torah has no share in Olam Ha-Ba, and the authority of any laws from the Torah, She-B’al Peh, afterOs Tav, d”h Kelal Gemara later there (99a) adds that as explained by Tosafos to Bava Basra Rabbanan) goes so far as to say even this person is classified as a non- (147a, d”h Minayin) and discussed by about Megillah reading on believer and that such is the case even the Ramban, in his commentary to the that Moshe Rabbeinu had been told if he or she denies the Divine origin Rambam’s Sefer Ha-Mitzvos (Shoresh at Mount Sinai that when so-and-so of just one word or just the spelling7 2), among others. will take place, such-and-such should of one word of Torah.8 The Rambam, be done in commemoration.10 These in his Peirush Ha-Mishnah to the tenth Divrei laws, then, though found in Nevi’im chapter of Sanhedrin (called “Cheilek,” and Kesuvim, can have the force of in the introduction to Mishnah 1, d”h The above is not, however, to suggest actual Torah laws. Ve-Ha- Ha-), articulates that every law found in Nevi’im One of the words often used to refer that the entire Torah was dictated to and Kesuvim should be considered to Nevi’im and to Kesuvim is the Moshe Rabbeinu by Hashem Himself, Rabbinic in nature. In some cases, word “kabbalah,” as indicated by and declares that this is a fundamental a law found there is a law that was Rashi in Bava Kamma (2b, d”h Divrei principle of the Jewish faith. In this actually already “on the books” from Kabbalah). The Mishnah inTa’anis sense, that Torah is literally and the time of the giving of the Torah (15a), for example, introduces a entirely the word of Hashem, it is at Mount Sinai, but was initially passuk from Nevi’im by saying that unlike any other portion of Scripture. preserved only as part of the oral it is written in thekabbalah ,11 while For this reason, it is only in Torah, tradition presented there and was the Gemara in Sotah (37a) as well as as opposed to in either Nevi’im or not immediately written down. At in (25a) introduces a passuk Kesuvim, that a law can be introduced some later date, a prophet, for various from Kesuvim by saying that it is with the authority to make it binding reasons, then committed the law to written in thekabbalah . It should for all time. writing. Examples of this include be stressed that the word kabbalah At the very end of the book of Vayikra, certain details relating to the service of in this context has nothing at all

27 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 to do with or esoteric and certainly by the sages, is classified from a passuk in Nechemiah (8:8).18 mystical literature. The word rather as a Rabbinic requirement, and not The Maharatz Chayes elsewhere (to alludes to something that has been as something from the Torah.15 The Yoma 38b, d”h Mena Ha Milsa) notes received. Rashi in Chullin (137a, Ramban, however, in his commentary that it is precisely because many ideas d”h Toras Moshe) says that it hints at there, disagrees and maintains that a in Nevi’im and Kesuvim are actually the that the navi receives law that a navi expressly commanded rooted in Torah that Chazal frequently via Divine inspiration ( Ha- (as opposed to something that is look for hints to these ideas in Torah Kodesh) as necessary for each given implied by a narrative or accepted as itself. circumstance. TheMachzor Vitry (No. a precautionary stringency) can be 16 424, commentary to Pirkei Avos 1:1) considered like a law from the Torah. The Sanctity of the Respective explains that the words of the Nevi’im ThePri Megadim, in the introduction Scrolls reflect a received tradition going back to his commentary on the Shulchan to the days of Yehoshua.12 In either Aruch (Pesichah Kolleles 1:18-19), Nonetheless, even those who case, principles and laws that appear in accepts the broader understanding of maintain that (at least some) laws Nevi’im and Kesuvim are frequently divrei kabbalah. He asserts that many found in Nevi’im and Kesuvim have referred to as “divrei kabbalah” — laws found in Nevi’im and Kesuvim the authority of laws found in Torah, words of the received tradition. This are binding like Torah laws, though acknowledge that there are still can be seen in the Gemara in Rosh Ha- he does acknowledge that there are differences between Torah on the Shanah (7a) regarding the numbering distinctions and that a particular one hand and kabbalah — Nevi’im of the months of the Jewish calendar; law’s individual status may depend and Kesuvim — on the other. The in the Gemara later there (19a), upon exactly how it is presented. Gemara in Bava Kamma (2b) and, regarding Tzom Gedalyah; as well in The Maharatz Chayes discusses this in similar language, in Niddah (23a), the presentation of several , entire matter at great length in a work states explicitly, for example, that including the in Ha-Maor called Toras Ha-Nevi’im, in the unit Torah matters cannot be learned (4a in Rif, ), the Megillah d”h Kasav entitled Ma’amar Divrei Nevi’im Divrei from kaballah matters, thus affirming Mordechai there (Chapter 1 No. Kabbalah. In Chapter 4, he suggests that there are clear distinctions 776), and the Rosh in Ta’anis (2:24), that laws found in Nevi’im and between the two categories. The regarding the holiday of Purim, which Kesuvim that appear to reflect long- aforementioned Pri Megadim points is, of course, introduced in Megillas out that the punishment for violating 13 standing practice definitely have the Esther in Kesuvim. status of Torah laws.17 These include a law from Nevi’im and Kesuvim is The Gemara inRosh Ha-Shanah certain details of mourning derived by not as stringent as that for violating a (19a) states that divrei kabbalah the Gemara in Moed Kattan (15a-b) law from Torah, as the Yerushalmi in are actually treated as divrei Torah; from a passuk in Yechezkel (24:17), Yevamos (2:6) apparently indicates. there is some dispute, however, as and certain details about accepting And although the Pri Megadim there to how literally and how far to take contributions for the Beis Ha-Mikdash disagrees, some Rishonim (such that equation. Concerning Purim, from non- derived by the as the Rashba to Megillah 5b, d”h for example, there is some discussion Mishnah in Shekalim (1:4, 3b) from a Hachi Garsinan, citing the Ramban, among the poskim about whether passuk in Ezra (4:3). In Chapter 2, he and the Ritva there, d”h Gufa, and it should have the status of a Torah notes that Chazal sometimes actually others) hold that in the case of a holiday regarding suspending some refer to a law found in Nevi’im and doubt regarding a law from kabbalah, of the restrictions upon an onen — Kesuvim as a Torah law. Examples we accept the lenient position, while someone who has lost an immediate include a law about signing a legal regarding a law from Torah we must 19 relative but has not yet buried him document, derived by the Gemara take the stringent side. (or her).14 In general, the Rambam, in Gittin (36a) from a passuk in There are also distinctions between as he indicates in his Sefer Ha-Mitzvos Yirmeyahu (32:44), and a law about the two with regard to the sanctity (Shoresh 1), holds that anything teaching a child how to read Scripture of the scrolls upon which they are introduced following the of with the proper cantillation, derived written. The Mishnah inMegillah Moshe Rabbeinu, even if by a navi by the Gemara in Nedarim (37b) (25b-26a) teaches that if people sold

28 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 scrolls of Nevi’im and Kesuvim (as — the holy Writings — as a unit. a prophetic trance or having a vision explained by Rashi to 26a there, d”h Nevi’im and Kesuvim, however, are without one’s ordinary faculties, Lokchin Sefarim), they may use the sometimes, as we have seen, grouped which actual prophecy does require. money to buy a , but if together in a single category; they The books in Kesuvim, the Rambam they sell a Torah scroll they may not are sometimes referred to by the posits, were written with this form use the proceeds to purchase scrolls acronym “Nach.” It would thus appear, of inspiration (as the Gemara in of Nevi’im and Kesuvim. Rashi there as indicated above, that their sanctity Megillah 7a actually demonstrates (d”h Aval Machru) explains that this and general content is similar, if regarding Megillas Esther), while is because of the rule that in sacred not identical. There is also no clear those in Nevi’im resulted from matters, we raise but do not lower chronological distinction between the actual prophecy. As for the fact that the level of sanctity;20 the Shulchan two, as there are books in Kesuvim books in each of the two sections Aruch (Orach Chaim 153:2) rules that precede many of the books in can have the same author, as pointed accordingly. Building on this point, Nevi’im, and others that follow many out above, the Rambam there states the Yerushalmi in Megillah (3:1) and, of them historically.22 Moreover, that sometimes the same person in a slightly varied format, the Bavli there is no clear distinction in terms can experience different forms of there (27a) states (presumably for the of authorship, as the Gemara in Bava prophecy on different occasions; same reason, as noted by Rashi there Basra (14b-15a) teaches that Shmuel the different books thus reflect the d”h Aval Lo Nev’im U’Kesuvim and Ha-Navi wrote the books of Shoftim different types of prophecy that led d”h Eima Seifa), that one may cover a and Shmuel, which are in Nevi’im, to their creation.23 The Radak, in his Torah scroll with a covering used for but also Megillas Rus, which is in introduction to Tehillim, writes that scrolls of Nevi’im and Kesuvim, but Kesuvim, while Yirmeyahu Ha-Navi that book was written with Ruach one may not cover scrolls of Nevi’im wrote the books of Melachim and Ha-Kodesh, and not prophecy, and and Kesuvim with a covering used Yirmeyahu, which are in Nevi’im, hence was included in Kesuvim; he for a Torah scroll. Also, a Torah scroll but also Megillas Eichah, which is in too elaborates on the differences may be placed on top of a scroll of Kesuvim. And yet, as presented above, between actual prophecy and Ruach Nevi’im and Kesuvim, but a scroll Nevi’im and Kesuvim are certainly Ha-Kodesh, stating similarly that the of Nevi’im and Kesuvim may not be separate and distinct sections and are former is more of an “other-worldly” placed on top of a Torah scroll. The related to as such, as the Gemara in experience and that the section of (Yoreh Deah 282:19) Berachos (57b) makes clear regarding Nevi’im includes actual prophecy, rules in accordance with the latter one who comes upon different Biblical while the section of Kesuvim does statement, and the Rama there adds books in a dream. The question, then, not.24 that scrolls of Nevi’im and Kesuvim is what sets Nevi’im and Kesuvim The Meiri, in the introduction to his may, however, be placed on top of one apart from each other and hence, why commentary on Tehillim, concurs, another; the Vilna there (Biur the books in Nevi’im were specifically noting that the sanctity of Nevi’im is Ha-Gra No. 37) states that this is included in Nevi’im while the books 21 greater than that of Kesuvim because because their sanctity is identical. in Kesuvim were specifically included the latter does not contain actual It is clear from the above that in Kesuvim. prophecy but was simply written Torah stands apart from Nevi’im with Ruach Ha-Kodesh; such, he and Kesuvim and as explained, its Levels of Prophecy writes, is the case with Tehillim, as distinction is the result of its unique its author, Dovid HaMelech, was not revelation, as literally the word of The Rambam, in hisMoreh Nevuchim a prophet. In the introduction to his Hashem. Moreover, it is noteworthy (Part 2 Chapter 45), suggests a basic commentary on Mishlei, he elaborates that Torah is never grouped together distinction. He lists twelve different and states that Mishlei is included in with Nevi’im (alone) or with Kesuvim levels of prophecy from lowest to Kesuvim and not Nevi’im because its (alone); it is grouped only with highest; the second is a form of Ruach author, Shlomo Ha-Melech, was not both Nevi’im and Kesuvim when Ha-Kodesh, or Divine inspiration, a prophet,25 because nothing about considering the broader corpus which is below actual prophecy. Ruach the future is revealed therein, and of Tanach or “Kisvei Ha-Kodesh” Ha-Kodesh does not involve being in because the author was not sent out

29 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 to the people to inspire them to do Daniel entitled Ma’ayenei HaYeshuah although their sanctity may be the teshuvah. The Meiri thereby indicates (Ma’ayan 3 Tamar 1). Here he notes, same, the difference between Nevi’im that these three criteria must be met in opposition to the view of the and Kesuvim is that the messages in for a book to be included in Nevi’im Rambam in the aforementioned Nevi’im were given to the prophet to and not Kesuvim: The author must source, that Daniel was indeed a be transmitted orally and only later be a prophet, some revelation about prophet. His book, he explains, is in written down, while those in Kesuvim the future must be included, and the Kesuvim nonetheless because it was were given to be written and then later prophet must be someone sent to not written as part of a prophetic transmitted to the people from the disseminate his message and provide directive, but rather based on the written text.29 religious guidance to the people. inspiration of Ruach Ha-Kodesh, Dovid Avudraham, in his meaning that even if the author The Study of Nach of a book is himself a prophet, his commentary on the Malchuyos section work will appear in Kesuvim and of the Mussaf Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh In conclusion, it should be stressed not Nevi’im if the writing of that Ha-Shanah (p.272), notes that we that despite the aforementioned particular work is not part of the recite the pesukim from Kesuvim there distinctions between Torah, Nevi’im, prior to those from Nevi’im because delivery of a prophetic message, but and Kesuvim, one is certainly required we follow their chronological order was simply written withRuach Ha- to study all three areas as part of . (the pesukim from Kesuvim are all Kodesh the of Torah. The from Tehillim, composed by Dovid In the next section there (Tamar Midrash Tanchuma in Parashas Re’eh Ha-Melech who lived before the 2), the Abarbanel challenges his (No. 1) states that only sinners assert prophets whose words comprise the own position by citing a Gemara in that Nevi’im and Kesuvim are not pesukim from Nevi’im). In actuality, Megillah (3a), which states explicitly considered “Torah” and do not believe however, the pesukim from Nevi’im that Daniel was not a prophet. He in them, but we affirm otherwise. have greater sanctity because they then, however, explains that one can The Gemara inKiddushin (30a) were stated based on prophecy while have the power and the experience makes it clear that one should devote those from Kesuvim were stated based of prophecy, but if he is not sent to a significant amount of time to the on Ruach HaKodesh. He then adds the people to deliver his prophetic study of mikra; the Rambam (Hilchos that whereas the words in Nevi’im message he is not classified as a 1:11) and the Shulchan were authored by people who were prophet.27 The Abarbanel then Aruch (Yoreh Deah 246:4) rule sent as messengers of Hashem to share concludes that the three divisions accordingly, the latter adding that the those words with the nation, those in of Tanach reflect three levels of reference is to the twenty-four books Kesuvim were not uttered as part of prophecy: Torah reflects the level of Scripture. The Maharal of Prague, a Divine message to the nation, but of prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu, in his Tiferes Yisrael (Chapter 56), were rather simply written withRuach who not only delivered prophetic stresses that mikra is to be treated like Ha-Kodesh.26 messages to the people, but gave them the root of a tree which is obviously necessary from the beginning in order The Abarbanel also seems to agree the Torah; Nevi’im reflects the level of prophecy of those who were sent for any subsequent learning to be with the basic distinction proposed viable. TheShelah (Masseches Shavuos, by the Rambam, writing in his to teach, guide, and prophesy to the people; and Kesuvim reflects the level d”h Ha-Yom Ha-Zeh Zeman Matan introduction to Nevi’im (d”h Ha- of prophecy of those who were not Toraseinu) also speaks of mastering Mechkar Ha-Rishon) that Nevi’im sent to deliver any to the Torah, Nevi’im, and Kesuvim, consists of actual prophecy while while the author’s brother, in his Kesuvim consists of words written people but who wrote their works with .28 In a similar commentary to their father’s Yeish with Ruach Ha-Kodesh, and adding Ruach Ha-Kodesh vein, Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik, Nochalin (Azharos Ha-Torah, Note that the authors of Nevi’im were 40), writes that one should not even prophets while the authors of in his Chidushei Ha-Griz to Menachos (30a in the new edition, d”h Ve-Hinei entertain the thought of not studying Kesuvim were not. He clarifies this and achieving expertise in mikra. point, however, in his commentary to Ha-Grach) quotes from his father, Rav , that Rav Yaakov Emden, in his

30 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 (Birchas Givon 2, Seder Ha-Limmud their inherent differences. Certainly, does not, however, appear to be the broadly No. 2), praises those who study mikra they are all important parts of our accepted view; see Matnos Kehunah there in its entirety, referring to it as the key treasured heritage. (d”h Kof-Daled Sefarim) and Rambam, Hilchos 7:15. to the outer chamber that one must have before entering any of the inner 5. The Midrash inVayikra Rabbah (16:4) Endnotes reports that Ben Azzai strove to find parallel chambers, that is, before delving into themes within the verses of these three parts other areas of learning. 1. A similar description of the Torah is found of Scripture showing how they can relate to in the Midrash Tanchuma to Parashas Yisro, and explain each other. TheBach , commenting on the Tur No. 10. That the word “Torah” can encompass (Yoreh Deah 245:5, d”h Hayah the entire Tanach, as opposed to just the five 6. See, for example, the Gemara in Megillah ), criticizes those who books of the , seems clear from its 31a, in Sanhedrin 90b, and in Makkos 10b. don’t take the study of Nevi’im and use in the Mechilta to , Parashas 7. See Rashi there, d”h Dikduk Zeh. Ha-Shirah 1, d”h Es Ha-Shirah Ha-Zos. Kesuvim seriously enough, and (Sometimes it can include the as 8. It must be noted that the Book of Devarim while there are justifications for the well; see Sifrei to Devarim No. 351, d”h Ve- differs from the other four books of Torah practice, as presented by the Shach Sorasecha Le-Yisrael.) See also Shulchan Aruch in terms of the role of Moshe Rabbeinu there (No. 5),30 many agree with that Yoreh Deah 246:4, where it is evident in any in presenting it, as implied by the Gemara in Megillah 31b regarding the Tochachah criticism. TheYosef Ometz (p. 270), case that the Written Torah includes the entire Tanach. in Devarim. This matter is discussed by for example, writes disparagingly that Abarbanel in his introduction to Sefer there are even Rabbanim who have 2.See also the comment of Rashi to Bava Devarim, by Ha-Chaim to Devarim 1:1, never studied mikra properly and Metzia 33a, d”h Mikra, and the Gemara in d”h Eileh, and by many other commentators; Moed Kattan (21a) regarding the prohibition the Pri Megadim (in the firstIggeres see also the marginal notes of Rabbeinu upon a mourner to read from Torah, Nevi’im, Betzalel of Ronsburg to Yevamos 4a, note which introduces his commentary or Kesuvim, as well as the Sifrei to Devarim , citing the Ra’avan. Maran Ha-Rav Yosef to the Shulchan Aruch, d”h U’mah (No. 307) where the word mikra is specifically Dov Soloveitchik developed this point in a She-Amarta) likewise stands strongly applied to a passuk from Nevi’im. It should shiur partly summarized in the journal Beis against those who learn only Gemara be noted, though, that in the Gemara in Yitzchak No. 24, 5752, pp. 61–63; see also Kiddushin 30a, the word mikra refers, and are almost embarrassed to study Ha-Rav Hershel Schachter’s Nefesh Ha-Rav, according to , exclusively to Torah; see, pp. 54–56, with footnote 30. In addition, the Nevi’im and Kesuvim to the point that however, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 245:6, Gemara in Bava Basra 15a records a dispute they have only very limited knowledge with the comments there of the Taz (No. 2), regarding the authorship of the last eight in those areas, and he praises those the Shach (No. 5), and the Biur Ha-Gra (No. pesukim of Torah, which describe Moshe’s who do make those disciplines part 14), and Shulchan Aruch Ha-Rav, Hilchos death; an analysis of these issues is beyond the Talmud Torah Chapter 1, Kuntres Acharon, scope of the present essay. of their studies. Rav Shlomo Kluger end of No. 1, citing the Shelah. See also (Shu”t Ha-Elef Lecha Shlomo, Yoreh the analysis of the Maharatz Chayes in his 9. The Gemara inTemurah (16a) indicates Deah No. 259) likewise affirms that Ma’amar Torah She-b’al Peh, Chapter 4, first that this understanding of the passuk and the it is certainly proper to study Tanach footnote. ruling it generates goes back to the days of the prophets themselves. with the appropriate commentaries, 3.The well-known and widely assumed in order to learn the proper hashkafic assertion that there are five books of the 10. See also the Yerushalmi in Megillah 1:5. outlooks on life. Finally, Rav Moshe Torah is found in the Gemara in Megillah 15a, 11. Rashi there (d”h U-Bekabbalah), citing in Nedarim 22a, and in Sanhedrin 44a, and an anonymous Tosafos, suggests that the Feinstein (Shu”t Igros Moshe, Orach in numerous Midrashim, among many other Chaim Volume 1 No. 157) rules that word kabbalah is used by Chazal only in places. conjunction with a passage in which the navi one who has completed a significant 4. See, for example, Rabbah commands, informs, or exhorts the people, unit of study in Tanach may certainly 14:4 and 18, Shir Ha-Shirim Rabbah 4:11, and not in conjunction with a passage that rejoice by making a siyum and and Koheles Rabbah 12:11. See also Rashi merely relates information. See, however, celebrate with what qualifies as a to Shemos 31:18, d”h Ke-Chaloso, based Shu”t Chavos Yair No. 9, where he asserts that se’udas mitzvah, and can thus count on Shemos Rabbah 41:5. It is noteworthy this suggestion is incorrect and was inserted by a student who was in error; see also as such on erev Pesach and during that in commenting on the Midrash in Bemidbar Rabbah 18:21, Maharzav (d”h Sar Maharatz Chayes on this Rashi in Ta’anis 15a. . What emerges from Chamishim) and Yefeh Toar (d”h Chamishah 12. See Shittah Mekubetzes to Bava Kamma the above, then, is that in some ways Sefarim) propose an alternate reckoning to 2b (d”h Mi-Divrei Kabbalah) for additional Torah, Nevi’im, and Kesuvim are arrive at the number twenty-four, counting explanations in the name of Rabbeinu Peretz considered on an equal , despite the Torah as just one book on the list. This and others.

31 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779 13. The Ran inTa’anis (6b-7a in Rif, d”h She’iltos to Parashas Vayechi, No. 35, with the is used imprecisely (to be consistent with U’le’inyan Halachah) quotes a view that Netziv’s commentary Ha’amek She’eilah there, other figures mentioned in that passage), as Purim should not be treated as divrei No. 2. See also Rambam, Hilchos Nezirus the Midrash in Shir Ha-Shirim Rabbah (1:6) kabbalah since it was not actually ordained 4:9 with commentaries and Turei Evven to states explicitly that Shlomo wrote Mishlei, by a navi, but he challenges that view. See Megillah 5b d”h Chizkiyah. Koheles, and Shir Ha-Shirim after having Orchos Chaim (Hilchos Megillah U’Purim No. been visited with Ruach Ha-Kodesh, and 20. See the Mishnah in Menachos 99b; the 39) who affirms that Purim is considered says nothing about prophecy. See, however, Gemara earlier there, on 99a, cites Biblical divrei Kabbalah; this is the view accepted in to Mishlei 15 (2:953). For a sources for this rule. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 696:7 (although discussion about whether or not Koheles was in 570:3, the other view is cited as normative). 21. TheShulchan Aruch there does not seem indeed written withRuach Ha-Kodesh, see Rav See also Beis Yosef to Orach Chaim 686 and to rule specifically regarding the coverings. Yosef Engel’s Gilyonei Ha- to Megillah 7a, Taz there, 687:2. It should be noted that the Yerushalmi there d”h U’machlokes and the sources cited there. subsequently quotes an opinion that one 14. See the Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch 26. He uses this fact to explain why the may not write Torah on the same scroll with cited in the previous footnote; see also Pischei pesukim in the Shemoneh Esrei from Nevi’im Nevi’im (or Kesuvim) but one may write Teshuvah to Yoreh Deah 341:11. are introduced by identifying their authors Nevi’im and Kesuvim on the same scroll. as servants of Hashem, while no parallel 15. See, for example, his presentation there This opinion, however, is not accepted, and introduction to the authors of the pesukim regarding Megillah reading and regarding one may in fact write Torah, Nevi’im, and from Kesuvim is found; the pesukim appear netilas yadayim and eiruvin, which the Gemara Kesuvim on the same scroll. See also the with just a general introductory statement in Eiruvin 21a says were instituted by Shlomo Gemara in Bava Basra (13b) and Tosafos there that they are found in Scripture. Ha-Melech. See also Hilchos Shabbos 30:1 d”h Rabbi Yehudah. regarding kavod and oneg on Shabbos, which 27. The Meiri, in the second source cited 22. By way of example, Megillas Rus takes are specified by Yeshayah Ha-Navi (58:13) above, writes something very similar. Rashi place, as its first passuk indicates, at the time — the assumption here is that when the on that Gemara (d”h De-Inhu) seems to of the judges, whose stories are found in the Rambam uses the term “mi-divrei ” he agree that Daniel was a prophet, but that he book of Shoftim, the second book in Nevi’im; is referring to a Rabbinic law, though this is was never sent to the people to deliver his Megillas Esther, on the other hand, takes itself a subject which requires further analysis prophetic message, but later, on 14a (d”h place well after most — though not all — of — and Hilchos Avel 1:1, where he notes that Nevuah), he writes that Daniel was not a the stories and prophecies found in Nevi’im. even practices instituted by Moshe Rabbeinu prophet. himself but not included in the Torah, such 23. See Shu”t Radvaz (2:816) who suggests 28. Rav Yonasan Eibeschutz, in his Ahavas as the seven days of mourning and the seven that this may also explain why some Yehonasan on the Haftaros (Haftaras Devarim, days of celebration for a bride and groom, do prophecies are clearer and more direct while d”h Chazon), writes that in the case of a not have the status of Torah law. others, even from the same prophet, are laced prophet who delivers a verbal prophecy, once with imagery, , and symbolism. 16. The Ramban there cites many proofs; in he has spoken, that prophecy must come defending the Rambam, the Megillas Esther 24. It is interesting to note, though, that in his to fruition as declared, whereas such is not and Marganisa Tava there propose that the introduction to Divrei Ha-Yamim, the Radak the case with a prophet who is not required Rambam may not really disagree. See also writes that that book was included in Kesuvim to verbalize his message. For this reason, he the comments of the Raavad to Hilchos because it is primarily narrative information, notes, the exact moment of the end of days Chanukah 3:6, who posits that the mitzvah to without much prophecy, implying that that is was not shared with the regular prophets (so recite is categorized as divrei kabbalah; a distinction between Nevi’im and Kesuvim. that the possibility of it arriving earlier would the Mishneh there asserts that the The problem with this interpretation is that remain intact) but rather with Daniel, who Rambam maintains that it is a Rabbinic the books of Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel, was not sent out to verbalize his message. requirement. Rashi to Ta’anis 28b (d”h and Melachim are also primarily narrative in 29. The very word nevi’im may be rooted in Minhag Avoseihem) appears to agree with the nature. the language of a passuk in Yeshayah (57:19), Raavad. 25. It should be noted that the Sifrei at the which uses a similar word to suggest an oral 17. See there for many other examples. very beginning of Devarim (No. 1, d”h Eileh expression (while the word kesuvim suggests Ha-Devarim) speaks of Shlomo Ha-Melech’s that which is written). See Rashi to Shemos 18. Again, he offers numerous additional wisdom in Koheles and other works as 7:1 d”h Yiheyeh Nevi’echa and Rashbam to examples. prophecies, implying that he was indeed a Bereishis 20:7 d”h Ki Navi Hu. 19. There are others who disagree as well; see prophet. Presumably, however, the term there 30. See the sources cited above in note 2.

Find more shiurim and articles from Rabbi Taubes at https://www.yutorah.org/rabbi-michael-taubes/

32 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Shavuot 5779