diff --git "a/json/Halakhah/Commentary/Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon/English/merged.json" "b/json/Halakhah/Commentary/Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon/English/merged.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Halakhah/Commentary/Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon/English/merged.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,693 @@
+{
+ "title": "Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon",
+ "language": "en",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Haamek_Sheilah_on_Sheiltot_d'Rav_Achai_Gaon",
+ "text": {
+ "Kidmat HaEmek": {
+ "Part I": [
+ [
+ "THE PATH OF TORAH",
+ "ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AS THE INTRODUCTION TO HA’AMEK SHE’ELAH",
+ "BY RAV NAFTALI TZVI YEHUDA BERLIN (THE NETZIV)",
+ "Traditions of the ancients, contained within the books of our ancestors,",
+ "New interpretations of the law soaring high above;",
+ "Analysis of their words expresses His majesty forever.",
+ "They are His concealed Might, every word to be treasured;",
+ "They are His words of caution, protecting one from stumbling.",
+ "More than others was Koheles wise. He also taught the people knowledge. He pondered and sought out, and set in order many proverbs (Koheles 12:9).",
+ "THE FOUR LEVELS OF TORAH
WHEN [GOD GAVE the Torah to the Jewish people,] “He came with some of the sacred myriads; and in His right hand was esh-das, a fire of law, for them [Israel].” This verse describes two categories of Torah law. The first is laws that are obvious to all – laws that clearly define what an individual may and may not do. This class of laws is referred to as das, law, similar to the word das in Esther 1:15: [“Then the King conferred with the experts”… as to what should be done ke-das, legally, [to Queen Vashti…].” The second category described in the verse consists of those laws that remain hidden until one brings them to light through analysis and analogy. This category of laws is referred to as esh (fire). In the same way that many sparks can come from a single flame, [so may an unlimited number of laws be derived from the Torah]. Each spark can create a flame whose size is limited only by the amount of fuel added or by the means used to increase the flame. Such is the way of Torah, as it is written: “Like a hammer that breaks the rock into pieces.”",
+ "From ancient times, beginning with the days of Joshua, there were cases in which the Torah scholars of each generation debated the law that was in doubt. These cases were then decided by majority vote, in accordance with the Torah rule of following the majority. Such a decision is referred to as halacha berurah, a clearly-defined Law. Thus, das was derived from esh.",
+ "The Midrash (Bereshis Rabbah, 1): writes, “‘Then I was to Him as an amon.…’ Amon means a guardian [pedagog]; amon means a teacher of that which is covered; amon means a teacher of that which is hidden, and some say that the word amon refers to the capital [Alexandria of Egypt].” The point of this midrash is that there are three categories of Torah law.",
+ "The first category, the “guardian,” refers to laws that are easy to learn, similar to the ones that school pupils are taught. When the guardian teaches the child, the child can understand the lessons with no need for analysis.",
+ "The second category, “that which is covered,” refers to matters that can only be revealed to those who already possess knowledge and analytical skills. Similarly, the Torah contains laws that require analysis in order to be understood correctly. These kinds of laws are described as “covered” because while their general location is known, they can be retrieved only with effort, as it says, “If you search for her as for silver… [then you shall understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God].”",
+ "The third category, “that which is hidden,” refers to concepts whose whereabouts are unknown, and finding them requires help and support from God. Similarly, there are secrets hidden within the Torah that cannot be revealed through analysis or analogy alone, but require Divine assistance. This portion of the Torah is transmitted only to those who expend great effort to search for it, comparable to the effort expended in searching for lost treasures, as Scripture says, “… if you hunt for her as hidden treasures, [then you shall understand the fear of the Lord, and find] the knowledge of God.”",
+ "Those who add the opinion “[that amon] refers to the capital of a country” refer to a further category of Torah knowledge, one that is impossible for anyone to obtain. As our sages, of blessed memory, said: “Two handbreadths of the Tablets were in the hands of the Holy One, blessed be He.”",
+ "All of the above-noted categories are included in the Holy Torah, which is called fire. (The reason that the Torah is described as a “fire of law,” rather than a “law of fire,” [is that fire is also symbolic of the Divine nature of the Torah, which is then used by man to derive the commandments]. The Midrash (Tanhuma, Vayeshev) notes, that the Torah is a “fire of law” and God is referred to as “a consuming fire.” See also Yoma 21b, [which describes God as a consuming flame]. These Talmudic statements allude to how Nahmanides wrote in the introduction to his commentary on the Torah: “The Torah consists of combinations of God’s Holy Names” – that is, [“fire” alludes to “God’s Holy Names,”] which are the root of the Torah. It is clear to me that this idea [that His Holy Names are the source of the Torah], is expressed by the verse in Shir ha-Shirim, “Your name is oil poured forth,” meaning that the commandments are cast and formed from His Holy Names, and are symbolized by the word oil. See also the Midrash Koheles on the verse, “Your head will never lack oil,” [which compares the commandments to oil], as does the verse, “for the commandment is a lamp.” [Therefore the Torah is called eish-das, a fire of law, because it emanates from God] as esh (fire) and is subsequently processed [by man] into das, law)."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE RABBIS DERIVED LAWS FROM THE TORAH THAT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS DEFINITE TORAH LAWS
Translator’s introduction: In this chapter, the Netziv demonstrates, using various Talmudic sources, that the rabbis derived laws from the Torah that future generations considered to be definite Torah laws. The Written Torah, referred to as Torah she-bi-chesav, is defined by the Oral Torah, Torah she-be’al peh. The latter may refer to the laws received from Moses at Sinai or to laws that were decided definitively by the courts of the previous generations. Much of the Netziv’s basis of proof for the existence of Torah laws that were decided definitively by the rabbis revolves around the definition of the Talmudic terms “gemiri” and “halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.” The manner in which the various commentaries interpret these Talmudic terms is influenced by whether a particular Talmud passage cites a biblical verse as a proof text. All Rishonim accept that the Talmud will never cite a biblical verse in support of a “halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.”
ANOTHER REASON FOR describing the Torah as an eish-das, a “fire of law”: A torch emits sparks which, when fanned or when fuel is added, can result in the creation of another bright torch of comparable size and brightness. [This newly formed torch] can in turn emit other sparks that generate other [torches, each one comparable in size and brightness to the first]. When the first legal dispute occurred in the time of Yehoshua, [the Sanhedrin sitting at that time] voted and resolved the disputed issue beyond doubt. The [previously disputed] issue became halachah berurah, no longer subject to discussion. This law became binding precedent and a foundation that enabled future generations to resolve new, contemporary issues based upon the legal precedent. [Thus, a succession of “torches” was created from the first “torch” that was received at Sinai.]",
+ "This [process] is described by the Rambam in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, s.v. “ve-ka’asher mes Yehoshua.” [According to the Rambam] this is what is meant by the Talmud whenever it uses the terms hilchesa gemiri lah or gemiri [usually translated as “they have a tradition”]. [However], according to Rashi and Tosafos [the terms hilchesa gemiri lah or gemiri] refer to laws that have been received by Moshe from God at Mount Sinai. This can be seen from [their comments on] Yoma 32a [which states]: “[Rav Chisda said]: Gemiri, [During the Yom Kippur service] the high priest performed five immersions [and ten washings from the kiyor].” Rashi there explains that [gemiri means] that this law had been received by Moshe from God at Mount Sinai. Tosafos [is clearly of the same opinion because they] question why a baraisa derives this law from a Torah verse. Tosafos can only be asking this question if he assumes that the law has been received by Moshe from God at Mount Sinai [because there is a rule that with respect to such laws, no biblical verses should be cited for support]. See the beginning of Mo’ed Katan in the sugya of the ten saplings [where this is clearly the view of Tosafos].",
+ "[In contrast to the way I have explained the Rambam’s definition of gemiri,] the Kesef Mishneh (Hilchos Shehitah 10:12) writes that the Rambam is also of the opinion [that gemiri refers to laws received by Moshe from God at Sinai]. On the basis of this [misunderstanding of the Rambam’s definition of gemiri], he has difficulty with the Rambam’s opinion in Hilchos Tumas ha-Meis (2:15, 5:11), where the Rambam writes that the laws of gollel ve-dofek are rabbinic. [The Kesef Mishneh] explains that the Rambam follows the opinion of R. Akiva, who cites the biblical verses only as an asmachta [rabbinic support rather than a derivation from a Torah source]. But according to R. Yishmael, these laws would indeed be Torah laws. However, after careful review, you will find that in his introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam only counts as halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai those laws that the Talmud mentions explicitly as being halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai or with the term be-emes amru, “in truth they said.” The Jerusalem Talmud in Shabbos (chapters 1 and 9) states that the words be-emes [amru] mean that it is a law received from Moshe at Sinai. But [according to the Rambam] whenever the term hilchesa gemiri lah or gemiri is used, it is not referring to a law received from Moshe at Sinai, but rather to a law that has been received from previous generations, back to the generation that established that law. According to the Rambam, the term gemiri is related to the term nimnu ve-gamru [which means that the law had been decided definitively for all time].",
+ "Thus, the Rambam states in Hilchos Nizkei Mammon (2:3) that the law of hatzi nezek tzeroros is “halacha mi-pi kabbalah,” a law that has been received [from previous generations] and not as Rashi interprets it in Bava Kamma 3b (s.v. “hatzi nezek tzeroros”), that it is a law that Moshe received from God at Mount Sinai. In Hilchos Shabbos (12:8) the Rambam writes: “We have learned mi-pi ha-shemuah [on the basis of tradition received from a previous generation] that if one carries an object a total of four cubits in a public domain [he is just as liable as one who carries an object from one domain to another – the penalty is capital punishment if it was done intentionally and a sin offering if it was unintentional].” Here, too, the Talmud uses the expression hilchesa gemiri lah [which the Rambam understands as being a tradition received from a previous court’s ruling, as opposed to being a law received from Moshe at Sinai].",
+ "Further [in Sukkah 5b, the Talmud explicitly mentions that the law of partitions was received from Moshe at Sinai], Sukkah 6b [states] that according to R. Meir “the rule that [the laws of partitions are halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai] includes the legal fictions of extension [lavud], junction [gud], and curved wall [dofen akumah].” [Several lines later] the Talmud discusses the rule which allows [one wall of a sukkah to be] a tefach wide. This law of tefach, the Talmud notes, is hilchesa [although it does not list the law of tefach together with the previously cited laws of partitions that were received by Moshe from God at Sinai]. Rashi [on Sukkah 6b] (s.v. “hilchesa”) explains that when the Talmud previously mentions [in Sukkah 5b] that the law of partitions are halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, it also includes the law of tefach. However, the simple understanding of this gemara [Sukkah 5b and 6b] is that Moshe did not receive the law of tefah from God at Sinai. [Otherwise, why would the law of tefah be listed separately from the laws that are included in the law of partitions, which was stated as having been given by God to Moshe at Sinai?] Rashi [on Sukkah 6b] (s.v. “hilchesa”) explains that when the Talmud previously mentions [in Sukkah 5b] that the law of partitions are halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, it also includes the law of tefach. However, the simple understanding of this gemara [Sukkah 5b and 6b] is that Moshe did not receive the law of tefah from God at Sinai. [Otherwise, why would the law of tefah be listed separately from the laws that are included in the law of partitions, which was stated as having been given by God to Moshe at Sinai?]",
+ "In fact [by reviewing the references to gemiri] in many places [throughout the Talmud], one is compelled to accept that [gemiri] does not refer to a law received from Moshe at Mount Sinai. See Nazir 4b [which proves that the book of Shoftim relates], according to which Shimshon intentionally became impure by having contact with the dead by gemara gemiri lah. [After attempting to find sources from the book of Shoftim, the Talmud concludes (Nazir 4b) that these sources are inconclusive and the only way we know that Shimshon did defile himself with the dead is by tradition. [A tradition received from Moshe at Sinai could not possibly be used to provide an interpretation of a verse in a book of the Prophets which was written so much later than the time of Moshe.] In addition, [the Gemara in] Berachos 28a states, “Gemiri, that we may promote [a person or thing] to a higher grade of sanctity, but we must not downgrade.” Yet we see in Menahos 99a that this same principle [not to downgrade] is derived from a Torah verse [and because a scriptural source is not cited when it is a law received from Sinai, this principle cannot have come from Moshe at Sinai]. Furthermore, in Hullin 9b, the Talmud notes “gemiri” [regarding the law that when there is a doubt if something became defiled in a public area, it is deemed to be pure]. Yet this ruling is derived from the laws of sotah [and if it is a law received from Moshe at Mount Sinai, there would be no need to derive it from the laws of sotah]. See also Kiddushin 37a, noting [that according to the first opinion stated in the Mishnah], the laws of orlah and kela’im are not applicable outside the Land of Israel [and that this law] is hilchesa gemiri lah. Yet Shmuel [in Kiddushin 38a] is of the opinion that these [same laws] are hilchesa medinah [a law that people of the provinces had voluntarily accepted upon themselves, which obviously occurred after the time of Moshe].[It is clear that after analyzing the use of the term hilchesa gemiri lah and variations thereof in various parts of the Talmud, the phrase cannot possibly mean a law received from Moshe at Sinai.] This [observation that hilchesa gemiri lah refers to a tradition from previous generations rather than a law that was received from Moshe at Sinai] has also been noted in the responsa of the Havos Yair (ch. 192) and in the Tosafos Yom Tov on Sotah 2:2.",
+ "[I do not mean to suggest,] Heaven forbid, that these [Talmudic references] were unknown to Rashi and Tosafos. But they did not find them problematic [because, according to Rashi and Tosafos, at times the Talmud will refer to something as having come from God at Sinai, in the sense that the law in question is as definite as a law that God gave at Sinai even though it was not actually given there]. This idea is also found in the Rosh in the first chapter of Hilchos Mikva’os in the name of Rabbenu Tam. The Talmud [Shabbos 11a] states, “Be-emes amru that on Friday night, a teacher may look at a book near a lamp if the students are reading it, but must not read it himself.” [Since this law is a rabbinic decree], it obviously cannot be a law that Moshe received from God at Sinai. Yet the Jerusalem Talmud states, “Be-emes amru” refers to a law that Moshe received from God at Sinai! [The Rosh, quoting Rabbenu Tam, answers that] the proper understanding [of this Talmudic statement in Shabbos is] that this law is as definitive as if Moshe had received it from God at Sinai.",
+ "See also the Rash on the fourth chapter of tractate Yadayim [which states that the law that ma’aser ani be taken during shemittah] in the regions of Ammon and Moav is a halachah le-Moshe mi-Sinai. [The Rash explains that although this is rabbinic, it is as definite as if it had been received at Sinai.] [It can be demonstrated that] Rashi [is of the same opinion as the Rosh and Rash]. See Sukkah 38b [where Rashi explains the term] “be-emes amru” to mean that “there is no disagreement” [in other words, it is as definite as if it had been received from Moshe at Sinai]. See also Rashi, Bava Metzia 60 (s.v. “be-emes amru”), [which says] that this term means “without hesitation.”",
+ "But according to the Rambam, this [term, be-emes amru, signifies that it is a law actually received from Moshe at Sinai and] is to be taken literally. See what I have written on the She’iltos (137:2) for a more detailed explanation. Therefore, one is compelled to [conclude that the Rambam’s understanding of the Talmudic usage] of the terms hilchesa gemiri lah and gemiri is not that they are laws received from Moshe at Sinai [but instead are laws that] have been received [from previous generations] which have been decided definitively, leaving no doubt. It seems that conclusive proof can be found for Rashi’s understanding of [gemiri as being a law received by Moshe from God at Sinai] from Menachos 92b. [In Menachos, we learn that R. Yehuda maintains that the he-goats brought as atonement offerings for the sin of idolatry (when the entire congregation committed idolatry due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin) do not require semichah, the laying of hands on the sacrifice before slaughter. R. Yehuda proceeds to derive this law from a verse.] The Talmud asks why R. Yehuda requires a verse to exclude from semichah the he-goat brought as an atonement offering for idolatry, since Ravina has said that “gemiri” only two communal sacrifices require semichah [namely, the cow offered by the congregation for other sins besides idolatry and the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur]. [The Gemara answers that the verse is cited only as a textual allusion but not a true derivation. Rashi explains that R. Yehuda was citing a scriptural allusion to his ruling, but he does not need to derive it from this verse, since it is gemiri.] Thus, the Gemara appears to be saying that gemiri refers to something revealed to Moshe, for which no verse is needed.",
+ "Translator’s note: In the following two paragraphs, the Netziv addresses a potential difficulty regarding the Rambam’s definition of gemiri from Tractate Menachos.
It seems that conclusive proof can be found for Rashi’s understanding of [gemiri as being a law received by Moshe from God at Sinai] from Menachos 92b. [In Menachos, we learn that R. Yehuda maintains that the he-goats brought as atonement offerings for the sin of idolatry (when the entire congregation committed idolatry due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin) do not require semichah, the laying of hands on the sacrifice before slaughter. R. Yehuda proceeds to derive this law from a verse.] The Talmud asks why R. Yehuda requires a verse to exclude from semichah the he-goat brought as an atonement offering for idolatry, since Ravina has said that “gemiri” only two communal sacrifices require semichah [namely, the cow offered by the congregation for other sins besides idolatry and the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur]. [The Gemara answers that the verse is cited only as a textual allusion but not a true derivation. Rashi explains that R. Yehuda was citing a scriptural allusion to his ruling, but he does not need to derive it from this verse, since it is gemiri.] Thus, the Gemara appears to be saying that gemiri refers to something revealed to Moshe, for which no verse is needed. However, the Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah, explains Menachos 92b to mean that here, too, we have a tradition [gemiri] from previous generations [and not from Sinai] that communal sacrifices require no semichah. The Talmud’s question is based on the assumption that normally no scriptural source is cited for a tradition received from previous generations. The Talmud then answers that [though it is a tradition from previous generations] these verses are cited as a girsa be-alma, a textual allusion.",
+ "In any case, it is absolutely clear that according to the Rambam [whenever the terms gemiri, hilchesa gemiri lah, or hilchesa] are used, they are either referring to a purely rabbinic law [received from previous generations] or to a rabbinic tradition defining the scope and meaning of a Torah law.",
+ "[Returning to the previous discussion of] gollel ve-dofek [the reason for the Rambam’s opinion that this law is of rabbinic origin] is that he holds in accordance with R. Yishmael [who says that the source of this law is hilchesa gemiri lah], and not like R. Akiva [as suggested by the Kesef Mishneh]. For, as the Ra’avad writes, R. Akiva certainly holds that the law of gollel ve-dofek is a Torah law. [The Rambam] has decided in accordance with R. Yishmael, who says that [gollel ve-dofek] is hilchesa gemiri lah [which means] that it has been received [from previous generations] that it transmits impurity rabbinically. The reason the Rambam decided to rule in accordance with R. Yishmael is explained, with Heaven’s help, in my commentary on the Sifrei on parashas Hukas. However, this is not the place [to delve into this matter].
Translator’s summary: In this chapter, the Netziv demonstrated that according to all Talmudists there are definitive laws that were determined by the rabbis that have the same authority as laws received by Moshe from God at Mount Sinai and that serve as a foundation for the additional Torah and rabbinic laws of later generations. The dispute, however, is which Talmudic terminology refers to these laws. According to the Rambam, whenever the Talmud cites hilchesa gemiri lah (or any of its variations), it is referring to these definitive rabbinically-derived laws. According to Rashi and Tosafos, in the majority of instances when hilchesa gemiri lah is cited by the Talmud, it refers to a law received by Moshe from God at Sinai. However, in a minority of cases they believe that the terms hilchesa gemiri lah and be-emes amru refer to rabbinic laws that are as definite as if those laws had been received at Sinai. The Netziv appears to prefer the Rambam’s approach, because the latter’s definition of those terms is more direct and accords better with the simple meaning of the texts of the Talmud."
+ ],
+ [
+ " IT IS GOD’S WILL FOR MAN TO DERIVE TORAH LAWS
[IN THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER, we saw that there are laws received from previous generations that are undisputed and treated as definitive, binding upon future generations]. It appears that Tractate Megillah 19b is referring to such laws when it states: “The Holy One, blessed be He, revealed to Moshe dikdukei sof’rim, meticulous exegesis by the scholars. The Midrash asserts that God revealed to Moshe what distinguished scholars would originate in the future. It is impossible to say that the Midrash intended [to suggest that what was revealed to Moshe] was mere questions and dialectics by future scholars that did not result in a lasting resolution of issues, and which had no practical outcome. Rather, it must be [that what was revealed to Moshe] were [laws] that distinguished scholars would advance so authoritatively that there would be no room for disagreement. See Midrash Rabbah on Koheles (chapter 1), [where the text does not read “le-hadesh,” to originate], but “le-horos,” to teach or rule, which supports what I have written. See also the Jerusalem Talmud, Pe’ah, chapter 2, [which is similar to another statement further] in tractate Megillah, [“God showed Moshe dikdukei soferim”] and all that the Sages are destined le-hadesh, and this refers to the reading of the Scroll of Esther. [We thus see that the term le-hadesh] refers to new laws that leave no room for doubt.",
+ "This helps us to explain [a difficult passage] in Gittin (60b): “I [God] have written for him [Israel] the major parts of My Torah, [but] they have been regarded as foreign.” R. Elazar said: The majority of the Torah are written, and only a minority are oral. R. Yohanan said: The majority are oral, and only a minority are written. […That verse is to be understood as a question: “Should I have written for him the major parts of My Torah? But even (the parts) that I have written have been regarded as foreign!”]",
+ "This debate is difficult to comprehend, for it is obvious that the Written Law is but a very small percentage of Torah Law. However, the proper understanding [of the dispute] is as follows: It is surely impossible to suggest that the Holy One, blessed be He, would record in the Written Torah all the questions and arguments [that might arise in the future]. Nor would it be possible [to argue] that [God] would record all the details of every law that could be subject to doubt or differences of opinion. [The fact that there is room for differing interpretations of the Torah] is clearly stated in Tractate Eduyos, 1:5: “[If the law is decided according to the majority], why are the minority views mentioned? Because a later court may decide to rule in accordance with the minority opinion, and thus it will be able to use that opinion as a support.” Moreover, it is written in Soferim, 16:5 — Rabbi Tanhum ben Hanilai said, “If the Torah had been given [to Israel] consisting solely of clearly decided laws, a halachic authority would lack the necessary flexibility to render appropriate decisions. But now [that the Torah does not give clear-cut interpretations,] if [a judge or rabbi] were to decide to declare something unclean [for good reasons,] [he would have] opinions on which he could rely; or if he should decide to declare something clean, [for good reasons,] he will have opinions upon which he can rely.” See [also] Parah 7:7, that a temporary [emergency] order was issued for rendering valid [the water that was drawn for purification purposes]. The debate [in Gittin] only refers to those laws for which there can be no doubt or disagreement. It is thus very reasonable for there to be a difference of opinion as to whether the majority of laws are written or oral.",
+ "Translator’s note: For the remainder of this chapter, the Netziv will be using a disagreement between Rashi and Tosafos in Tractate Niddah in order to explain the underlying rationale for the disagreement between R. Yohanan and R. Elazar of the number of definite laws. The Mishnah in Niddah 7a–b records a disagreement between R. Elazar and the rabbis as to whether a young woman who menstruates after having missed three consecutive menstrual periods is considered a niddah, ritually impure: only from the time she sees the blood, or twenty-four hours retroactively from the time she saw it. According to R. Elazar, she transfers tum’ah, ritual contamination, only from the time that she sees blood, whereas according to the rabbis she does so twenty-four hours retroactively from the time that she saw blood. In Tractates Eruvin 46a and Niddah 6a–b, it mentions that in one particular case, Rebbi ruled in accordance with the lenient opinion of R. Elazar. After issuing this ruling, he recalled that R. Elazar’s opinion was a lone opinion and that he should have ruled in accordance with the rabbis. After further thought, Rebbi concluded that even though he should have ruled differently, he was not going to reverse his ruling, since we can rely on the opinion of R. Elazar in times of pressing need. The Talmud notes that if the halachah had been decided in accordance with the rabbis (it was not a merely a disagreement between a lone authority and the rabbis), he would indeed have reversed his ruling, even in times of pressing need.It is possible to add [that this disagreement is actually the basis of] the dispute between Rashi and Tosafos in Eruvin 46a and Niddah 7b, found in the Tosafos s.v. “lismoch alav be-she’as hadehak.” Rashi defines “pressing need,” as “a year of famine.” However, Tosafos questions Rashi’s interpretation, because, [in Niddah 9b], the rabbis themselves say “no [halachic] proof can be brought from [how the previous generations decided, as it was] a time of need [famine].” [In other words, the rabbis agree that at a time when food is scarce, we may waive the enactment of contamination]. Therefore, even if the halachah was decided in accordance with the rabbis, it would not affect his ruling.",
+ "We must explain Rashi as follows: [In the previous generation], prior to the disagreement between R. Elazar and the Rabbis, they [as noted in Niddah 9b] judged leniently in times of pressing need; the law was not decided definitively. However, once the disputed opinions had been voted upon and decided, one could no longer rely on the opinion of R. Elazar, even in a time of pressing need.",
+ "Similarly, with respect to the [previously stated] mishnah in Parah, in order to prevent substantial loss, a temporary [ruling] validated [water drawn for purification purposes]. Now that a definite ruling was decided in accordance with those authorities who invalidate drawn water, one may no longer render the water valid in times of pressing need.",
+ "Thus, we see that according to Rashi, once a law has been decided upon, we may no longer apply the rule of following the minority in times of pressing need. Therefore we may ask, regarding [definitive laws that have been voted upon,] why where they not written in the Torah. The definite oral laws are more numerous than actually written. This is the opinion of R. Yohanan, who interprets the verse [in Hosea] as a question: [“Should I have written the majority of My Torah for him when even they regard the minimal parts that I have written as foreign?”]",
+ "However, according to Tosafos, [even after the halachos have been brought to a vote and decided upon,] they are not considered definite, and we may still follow the minority view temporarily or in time of pressing need. The question [of why certain laws were not written by God] is limited to the laws for which there is complete agreement among the rabbis, as only these are considered to be laws that are absolutely definite. According to this opinion these laws are less in number than what is written explicitly in the Torah. This is the opinion of R. Elazar: “The majority of definite laws are written.”",
+ "The halachah in this matter follows R. Yohanan. Such is the opinion of Rambam and the Shulhan Aruch, who never cite any tannaitic disagreements. This is meant to teach us that once the halachah has been decided, there is no longer any practical reason [for citing the minority opinion]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE DIFFERENT ROLES OF THE TRIBES OF YEHUDA AND LEVI IN ADJUDICATION AND LEGISLATION
CONCERNING THE MEMBERS of the tribe of Levi, the Torah writes: “They shall yoru [adjudicate] your law for Jacob, and your Torah for Israel,” whereas when alluding to [the tribe of Yehuda], the Torah states: “Yehuda is my legislator,” and “[The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda], nor mehokek [“the legislator”] from between his feet.” The difference [between adjudicating and legislating, and between the tribes of Yehuda and Levi] are as follows: In Israel, the main adjudicators of practical halachah [and those responsible for its implementation] were from the tribe of Levi, as stated in Tractate Yoma 26a: “One cannot find Talmudic scholars who provide rulings in Israel, other than those from the Tribe of Levi,” etc. Also Tractate Yevamos (86b) notes: “At first, the officers [who enforced the law] were from Levi.” However, [Levi’s] special strength was limited to adjudicating individual cases [as the need arose]. Though a rabbi [or judge] must decide as his eyes see, and with God’s help decides properly, they [the rabbis of Levi] did not establish the law for future generations. They did not support their decisions with such analytical power that would make it impossible to deviate from their rulings. They did not decide definite laws.",
+ "The strengths of [the scholars of] Yehuda were just the opposite, because their reasoning did not permit them to arrive at the truth so readily. However, [this weakness turned out] to be their strength [because they were forced] to render decisions only after thorough analysis and debate, so that they would bring to light such clearly defined laws that it would be impossible not to follow them. That is why Yehuda is referred to as a mehokek [legislator], because a mehokek weighs [the issues] and excavates by the spring of wisdom [and thereby] produces and clarifies the law. Pertaining to the verse, “His teeth are whiter than milk,” the rabbis expounded in Bereshis Rabbah (chapter 98) that the Rabbis [of Yehuda] study in groups of two and systematize the laws, thereby producing results that are as pure as milk, which results in hok lo ya’avor, immutable laws.",
+ "Similar [is the intent] of the verse, “The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda nor the legislator from between his feet.” [This should be translated instead as, “The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda, nor he who legislates from between his feet], as the words ‘between his feet’ pertain to the legislator, [not to Yehuda].” [This indicates that the mehokek, who develops new laws, does so “from between his feet” – that is, with the assistance of his students.] The most effective means of clarifying the law is through analyses by groups of scholars [in study] and their debates by and with the students. In those days, the rabbi or teacher would sit on a bench, and the students would sit before him on the ground, as it is written in Tractate Sanhedrin 17b: “He, [the teacher], would judge cases before them [the students, who were sitting on the ground before him].” In Tractate Bava Metzia 84b, it is written that “Rabban Shimeon, the son of Gamliel, and R. Yehoshua, the son of Korcha, were sitting on benches, while R. Elazar, the son of R. Shimeon, and Rebbi, were sitting before them on the ground, whereupon they [R. Shimeon and Rebbi] raised questions and answered them.” [This illustrates] that the phrase, “he who legislates from between his feet,” [refers to studying with others and debating with students]. Further, it states in Tractate Sanhedrin 5a that “‘he who legislates from between his feet’ refers to the descendants of Hillel, who teach Torah in public, and to students who, through debate, bring the laws to light.”",
+ "This [description] can reconcile [an apparent] contradiction between two Talmudic discussions. In Tractate Yoma 26a [it states that Yehuda cannot decide according to the accepted halachah], whereas in Tractate Bava Kamma 92 [it states that by means of Moshe’s prayer for Yehuda’s soul, Yehuda could decide according to the accepted halachah], as suggested in the verse, “May You [God] help him [Yehuda] against his enemies.” (One could answer that Bava Kamma is discussing Yehuda [himself] and his status in the Heavenly Court, [whereas Yoma discusses the halachic decisions of the tribe of Yehuda]. However, it is clear that also Moshe’s prayer for Yehuda’s soul was to affect the character of his descendants who sit in the earthly courts). But [the real reason that there is no contradiction between Yoma and Bava Kamma] is because [Yoma is concerned with individual decisions rendered by scholars without benefit of debate with their colleagues, whereas Bava Kamma] is stating that the halachah is established in accordance with the [Rabbis of Yehuda], only after deep analysis and debate together with colleagues. Tractate Makkos 11b [validates my interpretation of Bava Kamma] where it says that [Yehuda himself was unable to answer their questions, after which Moshe prayed for him], “May You help him against his enemies.” [This implies that it was specifically when Yehuda was “answering questions,” i.e., involved in debating students, where Moshe’s prayer had an effect in bolstering Yehuda’s ability in decision making]. But without the means of debate and analysis, that is applying on-the-spot decision making as questions arose, Yehuda was incapable of deciding in accordance with the accepted halachah.",
+ "[These two types of decision-making – practical decision making, and legislation that establishes the halacha for generations] – is described in the Torah portion about the rebellious scholar. There it states: “If there is a man [who is ordained and sits on the Great Sanhedrin] who rebels and refuses to listen to the Kohen [priest] who is in charge of serving God your Lord there, or to the shofet [judge]….” This [verse] is cryptic, for why would a Kohen be involved in legislation? If the word “kohen” is referring to the head of the court, let the verse describe him as a shofet.",
+ "The explanation is that [when the word “kohen” is used, it] refers to situations when the court does not have the opportunity to clarify the question through analysis and debate, and the judges merely rule according to what they see as appropriate at that time. [The word “kohen”] denotes that in those situations the courts may rely on Heavenly support from within the Temple and the [Heavenly revelation that unfolds] through the merit of the high priest who is in a constant state of readiness to serve God in holiness. For the Torah gave [the High Priest] the unique privilege of adjudicating, as it is written, “[You, Aharon, will also be able] to render decisions for Israel [in all the laws that God has taught you through Moshe].” However, when the law is resolved through the power of the head of the Sanhedrin, who through his wisdom decides the halachah [for all] generations, [that kind of decision-making process is referred to in the verse] by use of the word shofet.",
+ "Translator’s note: In the remaining paragraphs of this chapter, the Netziv will be addressing the opinion of R. Eliezer ben Yaakov, which can be viewed as a potential objection to his definition of “shofet.”
You should not object [to my interpretation], from what is stated in Tractates Sotah 44b and Sanhedrin 14b, where R. Eliezer ben Yaakov derives that a high priest may also be referred to as a shofet [from the verse] “You must approach the scholarly priests and the shofet who are alive at that time.” Thus, we see that the word shofet also refers to the high priest.",
+ "However, this is not a question at all, for R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says that the verse, “You must approach the scholarly priests and the shofet who are alive at that time” implies appearing before all the members of the court, meaning the Sanhedrin, together with the most distinguished judge among them being referred to as a shofet. Most courts were valid even though they consisted of judges from various tribes. However, ordinarily they consisted mainly of priests and Levites, and therefore it is understandable that [according to R. Eliezer ben Yaakov], the word shofet in that verse refers to the most distinguished member of the priests of the Sanhedrin – i.e., the Kohen Gadol [the High Priest]. [However], the other [previously cited] verse states, “If there is a man who rebels and refuses to listen to the kohen who is in charge of serving the Lord your God there, or to the shofet….” It is the priest who is charged with “serving God,” not [functioning as a] shofet, and therefore the word shofet in that verse must refer to [judges from] other tribes. One can further explain that according to R. Eliezer ben Yaakov, [shofet] is [to be translated as] “most outstanding judge,” which includes the two types of outstanding judges: the High Priest [who renders decisions with special Divine assistance] or a Judge from a tribe other than Levi [who legislates with deep analysis and debate]. [Thus, R. Eliezer ben Yaakov would agree that shofet in Deut. 17:12 is representative of the process of legistlation.]",
+ "One should note, however, that in the Sifrei on the Torah portion of Shofetim, [shofet always refers to judges who are not from the tribe of Levi]. There the Sifrei states that it is a mitzvah to have a court consisting of judges from the priests and Levites. Therefore, one could argue that if a court is lacking priests and Levites, it is an invalid court. However, Scripture in the portion of Shofetim uses the word shofet to teach us that even a court lacking priests and Levites is valid. It is thus clear that my interpretation of the word shofet is [in accordance with the majority of the Tannaim, who disagree with] R. Eliezer ben Yaakov, [because the Sifrei] cites its interpretation of shofet anonymously. [Thus according to most authorities, shofet always refers to the legislation process and excludes the tribe of Levi]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TRIBES OF YEHUDA AND LEVI REFLECTED IN THEIR DIFFERENT ROLES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TABERNACLE AND ITS SERVICE
[THE DIFFERING ROLES of Yehuda and Levi are similarly reflected] in the context of the construction of the Tabernacle. The Midrash Rabbah 34, on the Torah portion of Terumah, explains that those who were involved in making the Ark would merit achieving Torah knowledge. As the Midrash informs us that by stating: “They shall make the Ark,” Scripture teaches us the significance of inviting everyone to work on the Ark: “R. Yehuda the son of Shalom said: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Let all come and participate in the making of the Ark so that they may all merit in achieving Torah [knowledge].’” Betzalel, who descended from Yehuda, merited knowledge of the Torah more [than all the others who participated in the work], and for this reason the [Torah] says, “Betzalel made the Ark” [even though others participated in its construction]. For although [Betzalel] worked with others in order to build the Ark, he rose above the others [because of his special contribution to its construction]. However, once the Ark was completed, [Betzalel of Yehuda] was no longer involved with the service [of the Ark]. It was transferred to the Levites, who were responsible for bearing the Ark containing [the Torah] and setting it in its proper place so that the Torah would fulfill the ultimate purpose for which it was intended.",
+ "Analogously, so it has been for generations – that Yehuda would be the legislators, who were then followed by the Levites, who would utilize [Yehuda’s] decisions by judging individual cases as they would arise, or by issuing decrees as the [needs of] changing times arose. The Levites would instruct [others so] that the ultimate purpose for which the Torah was intended would be realized.",
+ "[On a lesser scale, the other tribes also legislated, such] as Oholiav of the tribe of Dan, who made many special contributions to the Tabernacle. [This suggests] that Dan also contributed to the development of law in particular areas, that is, monetary matters. And this is what Scripture [implies when it] writes: “Dan shall judge his nation, [in a manner similar to] the unique tribe of Israel,” [referring to] Yehuda. Just as Yehuda [legislates] concerning all areas of the Torah, similarly, Dan, when issuing certain legislation, would also delve very deeply into the [Torah to arrive at the proper] halachah concerning monetary cases. [Thus, what Yehuda did for all halachah, Dan did in a specialized area. This trait of Dan] is described in Tractate Pesahim, 4a, stating that there was a man who would always say: “Judge my case in court.” [The Rabbis] said: “Learn from his manner of speech that he comes from the tribe of Dan, whose members were very knowledgeable about money matters.” [Examples of expertise in monetary cases can be found] among those amora’im who are well known to be unique in their ability to decide in accordance with the accepted halachah in that area. For example, we follow Shemuel [in disputes with Rav regarding monetary cases, but not in cases of issurim ], and [we follow] Rav Nahman [in monetary cases]. This is also found among the tannaim such as Ben Nannas and R. Nasan, [who were especially known for their expertise in monetary law]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE LEGISLATION OF OSNIEL BEN KENAZ AND OF KING DAVID PROVIDED PERMANENCE TO THE TORAH AND TO ISRAEL’S MILITARY SUCCESSES
THE TRIBE OF YEHUDA has legislated [in all areas of the Torah] consistently throughout history. [To begin with], in the generation of Joshua, when many laws received by Moshe at Sinai were forgotten, they were restored through the use of pilpul by Osniel the son of Kenaz, [the first of the Judges]. It is asserted in Tractate Temurah 16a that [Osniel the son of Kenaz] arrived at halachic decisions through deep analysis and pilpul. [This suggests that because of the depth and strength of his analysis], one was compelled to accept the decisions as being the laws that were [orally transmitted to Moshe at Sinai].",
+ "Translator’s note: In the next few paragraphs, the Netziv will be proving his explanation of Tractate Temurah by clarifying R. Elazar’s opinion in Tractate Yoma. In Tractate Yoma 80a, it is stated: “R. Elazar said: ‘If one has eaten forbidden fat in these times [when there is no Temple], he must note the quantity, because another rabbinical court may come and increase the measures.” [The Gemara continues that] R. Yohanan had stated that “standard measures and penalties are fixed by laws [communicated] to Moshe at Sinai.” A Baraisa is then quoted: “The minimum required for penalties are fixed by laws [communicated] to Moshe at Sinai. Others say: the Court of Ya’abetz [Osniel] fixed them.” The Gemara then asks: “But Scripture said: ‘These are the commandments,’ i.e., only that which is contained in the Torah, which means that no prophet may introduce any new law from then on.” The Talmud answers, “They were forgotten and then [the court of Osniel] established them anew.”",
+ "Prima facie it appears that R. Elazar and R. Yohanan are not disagreeing as to whether these measures are from Moshe at Sinai. [However, one is compelled to conclude that they do disagree]. Otherwise, how, according to R. Elazar, can another rabbinical court come and increase the measures if [standard measures and penalties] were fixed by laws [communicated] to Moshe at Sinai? [If the measures were given at Sinai, everyone would agree that they cannot be changed by a subsequent court]. Further, it is clear from the Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Pe’ah 1:1 and Tractate Hagigah 1:2 that R. Elazar and R. Yohanan do disagree on this matter. As [these tractates] note, R. Yohanan states that standard measures are fixed by laws [communicated] to Moshe at Sinai, while according to R. Hoshea, it was the sages who set the standard measures. [In Pe’ah and Hagigah], the Gemara states that R. Hoshea follows his opinion [expressed elsewhere], that one who eats forbidden foods must make a note of the quantity, because another rabbinical court may come and increase the measures. Behold, according to the opinion [that the measures] were received from Sinai, it is not possible to say that [another rabbinical court may come and increase the measures communicated to Moshe at Sinai]. It is therefore certain that R. Elazar and R. Yohanan are not in agreement, and that this disagreement reflects a tannaitic dispute as to whether the measures were given at Sinai. [As in the previously cited baraisa quoted in Yoma], the Tanna Kamma [who stated, that the minima which entail penalties are fixed by laws communicated to Moshe on Sinai, agrees] with R. Yohanan. On the other hand, [the opinion] of the “Others,” who stated that the Court of Ya’abetz established them, is expressing what was quoted previously from Tractate Temurah: “that they were restored through the use of pilpul.” Even though the laws regarding [measures] had previously been received from Moshe at Sinai, they were forgotten and it was necessary to reestablish them through argument and deep analysis. Because of this [determination of the court of Ya’abetz], R. Elazar was concerned that a later court might come and conclude through [strong] proofs that the measures given to Moshe at Sinai [differed from those of the court of Ya’abetz]. Nevertheless, as things turned out, the decisions of Ya’abetz are true for all time and have endured as the accepted halachah, [and considered as if they had been told to Moshe at Sinai].",
+ "Similarly, [the Tribe of Yehuda continued to excel in applying deep analysis, as expressed by what occurred] in the time of King Saul and King David. It states in Tractate Eruvin 53a: David revealed a collection of laws, while Saul did not. In reference to David, it is written: ‘Those who revere You shall see me [David] and rejoice.’ That is, those who fear God will delight in the accuracy of David’s halachic decisions. In reference to Saul, who did not reveal a collection of laws, it is written in the Book of Samuel: “Wherever he turned, he would destroy them [his adversaries].” Rashi explains [that the Gemara] is saying that Saul did not render decisions in accordance with the accepted halachah. [However, this interpretation] is difficult, for the verse cited [from the Book of Samuel] has reference to Saul’s military campaigns and victories.",
+ "The proper understanding of this gemara is that concerning Saul, a descendant of Benjamin, it is written [concerning Benjamin], “He rests securely with him,” [meaning that God’s Divine Presence dwells forever with Benjamin because of the Holy Temple]. Because of this, [Benjamin] was assured that he could render decisions as cases arose before him and [decide] as his eyes saw [fit] at that very moment, without deep analysis. [Therefore Saul] did not need to render decisions with powerful proofs such that his conclusions would be applicable for all times. The interpretation of the Gemara, which states that Saul did not reveal a collection of laws, is that he did not reveal his reasoning [for his decisions] to others, and as a result his decisions were not established for all times.",
+ "David, however, [similarly] to how we described [Yehuda] in chapter 4, did not render decisions based on his own [individual] reasoning. Rather, he would toil greatly in applying pilpul in group study with other scholars. [This interpretation is further buttressed by] Rashi’s explanation of Eruvin, based on the statements in Tractate Mo’ed Katan; from the verse, “One who sat in the assembly,” [we learn that David engaged in group study, sitting on the ground before the scholars]. It is also written [about David], “In the House of God we would walk in company,” [i.e., he took counsel with others]. This group interaction ensured that his rulings were established as immutable laws. It therefore follows that [David’s approach to Torah study] also benefited Israel in time of battle, for the sword of Israel is in the merit of applying pilpul to Torah. This is clearly stated in Tractate Makkos 10a, on the verse, “Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem.” “Who caused our feet to remain standing in battle? It was when Israel [at the time of King David], was involved in the study of Torah, symbolized by the gates of Jerusalem.”",
+ "However, concerning Saul who was not involved in the pilpul of Torah, Scripture writes, “Wherever he would turn he would destroy them,” meaning that his successes were only temporary, [for, concerning Saul, the verse] did not state hitzliah, that he was successful.” With God’s help, this has been elaborated on in my book Rinah shel Torah."
+ ],
+ [
+ "KING SOLOMON EXTENDS THE USE OF PILPUL TO ALL AREAS OF LAW
KING SOLOMON extended the applicability of pilpul beyond [what] either Osniel ben Kenaz or King David [did]. [David and Osniel] applied pilpul only in those instances where the halachah had not been clearly defined and decided definitively. They did not revisit those laws that courts had previously considered and conclusively decided, nor did they attempt to understand why those laws were decided as they were. It was not so with King Solomon of blessed memory, for he exerted himself to delve into the rationales of all the laws received from the previous [courts], and he trained others in the methodology [that the previous courts applied] to reach their conclusions.",
+ "Solomon’s methodology is explained in the verse, “More than others was Koheles wise,” which means that [Solomon] was erudite in traditions and laws that had been previously received. “He also taught the people knowledge,” means that he instructed the people regarding the bases of the [existing] decisions. Along these lines did Solomon caution: “The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom, and of all that you acquire, attain understanding.” Rashi explains: The beginning of [achieving] wisdom is learning from others, that is, acquiring for yourself the traditions from the rabbi’s mouth. [Only then will you] ‘with all that you acquire, attain understanding,’ [meaning] you will then know [the Torah, so that] you can independently ascertain the reasons [for the laws by] means of logical derivation.",
+ "To justify this interpretation further, the word “wisdom” [must] connote both knowledge and intellect, [for to receive meaningful instruction], one must also be at the proper level to absorb the precepts. This is the meaning of what is written in Daniel: “He gives wisdom to the intelligent,” i.e., wisdom is imparted [by God] to one who possesses intelligence and not to one lacking this trait and is thus unable to conceptualize his knowledge. Solomon wrote that a prerequisite [for developing] this intelligence is to acquire knowledge and tradition, and afterwards to try to understand [the laws]. For thus did the sages of blessed memory caution, that “A person should first learn and [then attempt] to interpret,” the latter meaning to understand the rationale for the laws that one has learned.",
+ "It is explained in Koheles that three benefits stem from this labor [of discovering the reasons for existing decisions regarding a particular halachah]. These are expressed by the following terms: izzen, hikker and tikken meshalim harbeh [literally, “pondered,” “investigated” and “organized many parables”]. The rabbis (in Eruvin 21b) explain izzen as: “Make handles for the Torah,” [meaning to clarify the Torah to make it accessible to the masses]. The rabbis likened [a law whose rationale appears to be missing] to a large basket that lacks handles for grasping so that it cannot be moved [except by a select few] such as those possessing great strength; however, when handles are provided, [the basket] can be used by all. Further, a basket that lacks handles [is difficult to store], and it can easily fall and break [its contents], whereas if handles are provided, [it can be protected] by being secured on a peg. So it is with tradition that lacks reasoning – it is impossible to grasp unless it has been received directly from another (a rabbi who is such an illustrious teacher that he is like an angel of Ha-Shem’s hosts). In the absence of [knowledge and understanding of the rationale, even if one has an illustrious teacher], the [student] is unable to render decisions or accept these laws. However, when the tradition is accompanied by a rationale, everyone trusts the tradition, since it has been proven by reason and logic. In addition, since the law is now fully comprehensible, it is not easily forgotten. Indeed, toward the end of Tractate Megillah, one is admonished to acquire learning through melody. As Tosafos explains, by properly combining learning with melody, retention is enhanced. One’s retention of the law is enhanced even more when learning is combined with its rationale; this is the meaning of izzen.",
+ "Another reason [for providing the rationale for laws] is explained by the word hikker, meaning “investigation.” This refers to the process of inferring corollaries from the received laws. If one does not know the rationale of a law, one cannot derive its corollaries. As a well-known saying states, “Follow the rationale.”",
+ "A further potential benefit of obtaining this knowledge [of the rationale of a law], is suggested by the phrase, tikken meshalim harbeh, [“Set in order many proverbs”]: i.e., one may originate new legal principles that go even beyond deductions from the laws that have been received. These derivations can only be made through carefully weighed decisions and [use of] pilpul. It is well known that each person possesses different intellectual and analytical abilities. However, when a law’s rationale is known, in addition to the methodology used to arrive at the law, [many people] may develop new formulations of laws. In this sense, pilpul functions like a parable, to enable one to arrive at new legal principles, effectively creating a paved path leading one to the proper decision."
+ ],
+ [
+ " THE END OF THE FIRST TEMPLE PERIOD: KING JOSIAH CREATES A FRAMEWORK THAT FACILITATES THE GREATER USE OF PILPUL
DURING THE FIRST TEMPLE period, after Solomon’s reign, the Kohanim and Levites [did not apply his analytical methods, but] dealt with specific cases as the need arose. In order to adjudicate in accordance with the Torah’s true meaning, they relied on the Divine light of the Ark that resided within the Temple and on the holiness of the High Priest. [This continued until] the period of King Josiah, who foresaw that the Divine light of the Ark would be extinguished from the Holy of Holies, that Israel would be exiled from its soil and “Her king and officers would be exiled among the nations, there without Torah.” This meant that the shining Divine light that powered the process of adjudication through Divine assistance [would be lost]. Should that occur, it was then possible, Heaven forbid, that the methodology of adjudication would be totally lost. As noted in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sotah 7:4), it is because of this concern that Josiah rent his clothing and said, “The responsibility of strengthening (the Torah) rests upon me.” The manner in which Josiah fortified the Torah is recorded in II Chronicles 35:3: “He [Josiah] said to the Levites who taught all Israel, who were holy unto God: ‘Put the Holy Ark in the House which Solomon, the son of David, King of Israel, built; there shall no longer be a burden upon your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel.”",
+ "A well-known interpretation of this verse is given in Tractate Yoma, in the chapter entitled Hotziu lo.There it states that the phrase “put the Holy Ark” means that [Josiah] directed the Levites to hide the Ark. However, it is difficult to understand the intent of the directive, “Now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel,” [for what additional service could be placed on the Levites other than what they already performed?]",
+ "The explanation is that “to serve God” means that Josiah commanded the Levites to increase the application of pilpul to Torah study. [This reinforced the scholars’ ability to ensure the survival of the Torah when they were eventually exiled together with Josiah’s grandson, Jehoiachin]. [These scholars are referred to in II Kings as] “craftsmen, the gate sentries, one thousand, all mighty men, warriors.” As our sages expounded in the Sifrei in Ha’azinu on the verse “infants together with white-headed elders” and in Seder Olam, chapter 25, “What war do people bound in fetters and chains wage? Rather, they were mighty men of Torah who waged the war of Torah [through pilpul].” This approach of applying pilpul continued to be followed by Yehoiachin, Josiah’s grandson, and the Men of the Great Assembly: they exhorted and decreed, “Be deliberate in judgment; develop many disciples; and make a [protective] fence for the Torah.”",
+ "These three decrees strengthened the use of pilpul and analysis in Israel. Being “deliberate in judgment,” means not to adjudicate by logic alone, but also to consider every possible outcome with deep analysis, until one arrived at a clearly convincing decision. In addition, by including many students in the discussions, they raised many questions and these discussions resulted in producing much Torah and wisdom. As expressed in the well known saying of R. Haninah in Ta’anis 7a, “I learned much from my teachers, more from my colleagues, and most of all from my pupils.” The exhortation, “Make a (protective) fence for the Torah” refers to the creation and application of asmachtos and gezeros, rabbinical decrees designed to prevent violation of the Torah. [The use of gezeros and asmachtos] increases knowledge and analysis because their use forces the scholars to investigate the Torah laws thoroughly in order to determine what is rabbinic and what is Biblical. All this was foreseen by the luminary of Israel, King Josiah, who directed [the Levites], “Serve the Lord your God” so that the Torah would not be forgotten, Heaven forbid. He [Josiah] directed, “serve… His nation Israel” [meaning that the Levites should teach Israel how to decide halachah] when they encounter undecided laws [in various areas].",
+ "In our book, Rinnah shel Torah, in which we use much exegesis and ethics, we dealt more extensively with Josiah’s directive to his generation. Josiah and his generation needed to sharpen and brighten the sword of Israel. [Although that which is explained in Rinnah shel Torah] are the words of the ancients [we will not now elaborate on this further], because our goal here is to describe the development of halachah. [The prophet Amos] eulogized Josiah, stating, “It will come to pass in those days, says the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon and I will darken the earth in the yom or – the day of light.” In Tractate Mo’ed Katan 25b, R. Yohanan states that this verse refers to the day of King Josiah’s death. Josiah had begun to brighten the eyes of Israel [with his directives to increase pilpul and communal Torah study]. Had he lived longer, he would have greatly increased the amount of Torah [knowledge] in his day. However, the sins [of the generation] were great and the lamp of Israel was darkened, and all that remained of Josiah was the framework [that he had created].",
+ "Another interpretation of the term “day of light” is a day of rain. As is mentioned in Bereshis Rabbah 26, and in Tractate Ta’anis 7b, whenever the word or, light, is used in the Book of Job, it refers to rain, which is the fountain of light that brings prosperity to man’s life. Though [at times] “a rainy day is as calamitous as a day of judgment” (see Ta’anis 8b), nevertheless, from this rain flows light, [i.e., prosperity]. The [benefit of rain] is even greater when the sun shines after rainfall, as it says in Ta’anis 3b, “Sunshine after rain is as beneficial as two rainfalls.” For behold, when rain is followed by [a significant amount] of sunshine, the benefit of the rain greatly outweighs any calamity that results from it. This is the metaphor indicated in the verse, “I will darken the earth on a day of light,” meaning that the full benefit of the rain will not be realized. This [reference to darkening the earth on a day of light] is also explained through the parable, “It is a time of trouble unto Jacob, but out of it shall he be saved.” The trouble [of Jacob] is the source of [Israel’s] light, because the darkening of the light of Torah that occurred with the exile of the Ark and Israel, caused the creation of the light of pilpul and the magnification of the Torah throughout the Diaspora.",
+ "Pertaining to this concept, one can apply the parable stated in Tractate Yoma 28b, “On a cloudy day the sun is felt all over.” What I mean to say is [that when the sun is obstructed by clouds, its light is reflected through the break in the clouds and permeates the shady locations]. The light of Torah in Jerusalem shone as if it emanated from the sun at its zenith; but when this light was extinguished, it caused the light of the Torah to be felt all over. [The impending diminution of the light of Torah was the catalyst] for applying pilpul and diligence to the study of Torah within every four cubits, even though this light was not as apparent as at Jerusalem’s zenith. Therefore, during the days of King Josiah, when the rain [of Torah] began to fall, even though Josiah’s light contributed greatly [to the enhancement and survival of the Torah, his full potential was not realized]. What was realized is as described in the verse, “I will darken the earth, on a day of light,” meaning that we did not merit to experience the full benefit of the rain [of King Josiah]. [This explanation sheds light on why the Talmud in Mo’ed Katan also eulogizes the death of R. Yohanan with the same verse]. During R. Yochanan’s time, the world had become darker with the loss of the knowledge of the Tanna’im. For the Torah knowledge that existed at the time of the Tanna’im was much greater than that of later generations. As is stated in Tractate Eruvin 53a, “R. Yohanan said: ‘The understanding of the earlier sages was as broad as the ulam [the hall that led into the interior of the Temple], while our understanding is as narrow as the eye of a very fine needle.’” R. Yochanan’s generation was also distressed at losing the spiritual sustenance and its fruit [that had existed in previous generations]. As stated in the Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Pe’ah, chapter 7: “R. Yohanan said, ‘The late-ripening fruits we ate in our youth were tastier than the peaches we eat in our later years,’” for in his time, the koach ha-da’as, intellectual power, had diminished.” [Similar to the time of King Josiah], when the strength of understanding had decreased, it was an impetus for the arrival of R. Yohanan’s light, his explanation of the Mishnah, that is, the creation of the Jerusalem Talmud. However, we did not merit his full light, which is the completion of his task of compiling the Jerusalem Talmud. [This is the meaning of the verse, “I darkened the earth on a day of light.” This should be translated as, “I darkened the earth on a day of rain,” meaning that the full benefits of R. Yohanan’s Torah, symbolized by the rain, were impeded by darkness]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND TEMPLES
WHEN THE JEWS were exiled to Babylonia, they needed to heed even more strongly King Josiah’s exhortation that they should not render halachic decisions unless they applied deep analysis and weighed their decisions carefully. Furthermore, as directed by King Solomon, they had to understand the intricacies of the received laws so that they could apply their conceptual underpinnings to new situations.",
+ "The reason for adhering to these stringencies is that the merit of living in Israel itself [even without the Ark and High Priest] enabled one to arrive at the proper decisions with less analysis, which was not true in Babylonia. It is taught in Avos de-Rabbi Nasan, chapter 28, “R. Nasan said, ‘There is no love like the love of Torah, and no wisdom like the wisdom of the Land of Israel.’” Also, in Vayikra Rabbah, chapter 13, “‘The gold of the land is especially good,’ teaches that there is no Torah like the Torah of the Land of Israel, and there is no wisdom like Israel’s wisdom.” Further in Avos de-Rabbi Nasan it states: “R. Shimeon the son of Elazar says: ‘If a sage who dwells in Israel leaves for the Diaspora, his scholarship becomes tainted, etc.’” In Tractate Sanhedrin 24a it is written, “[To what does the verse], ‘He has placed me in darkness like the eternally dead’ refer? R. Yirmiyahu answered that this alludes to the study of [Torah] in Babylonia.” [R. Yirmiyahu is not saying] that the Babylonian Talmud contains mistakes, Heaven forbid-[he is extolling the power of pilpul in “darkness”]. Since Babylonia was an abyss of darkness, totally lacking the light of Torah, only by creating the great torch of pilpul contained in the Babylonian Talmud could they produce in the darkness the light of halachic decision. [As stated ad loc.], “Rabbi Yohanan said, ‘What is Babylonia? [A place] that blended Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud.’” [To counter this darkness, the Babylonian scholars] needed to apply deep analysis and to study repeatedly all sections of the Torah until they reached sound conclusions. [This way, they] succeeded in magnifying the Torah and creating a magnificent torch-light of Torah.",
+ "This is similar to the parable cited in the Midrash on Koheles. [It compares one who applies deep analysis to a person who enters] a large palace which contains many rooms [and he must strategize to find a way out]. To find his way back to the entrance, he ties one rope to another so that he can retrace his steps. However, someone who has a lamp that illuminates the way to the door does not need to exert that much effort, and can find the door with minimal searching and exertion. However, he will not gain an understanding of the palace. This is not so with the one who has no lamp and must exert much effort to understand the intricacies of the palace; he stumbles and repeatedly gets lost until he finally locates the exit. Such a person obtains a great light – namely, a much greater insight into the design of the building, than the other.",
+ "So it is with the sages who lived in Israel. Since the merit of Israel illuminated their path, there was no need for great toil in order to reach the right decisions. However, the Babylonian scholars [between the first and second Temples] could not discover the light of legislation without great effort. In addition, they stumbled many times until they arrived at the proper conclusions. This is analogous to [the amoraic approach to study] as [demonstrated] in the commonly found statement in the Babylonian Talmud, “The words I said before you were mistaken.” Along these lines, the Talmud in Gittin 43a commented [on the verse discussing the end of the First Temple period] “‘… this stumbling block [the Torah] is under your hand.’ That is, a person does not achieve true understanding of the Torah until he has stumbled and made incorrect decisions.”",
+ "However, [after such stumbling], by virtue of their great understanding the Babylonian sages [following the first Temple] produced great, enlightened legislation. Pertaining to this [period] it is written in Isaiah 29:18, “In that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness.” This means that only out of darkness and obscurity [such as that in Babylonia] can one gain true intellectual enlightenment, more than those who do not inhabit such darkness."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD
FOR THE REASON that was explained above, with the arrival of Ezra from Babylonia into Israel and the building of the [Second] Temple, there was once again no impetus to apply pilpul. For whenever any [scholars in the Land of Israel] were confronted with difficult cases, they forwarded their questions to [the court that sat] in the Holy Temple, where the Divine light of the high priest was sufficient [to determine law]. As a result, the use of pilpul diminished. Hence, when the sins [of Israel] increased during this period [even though the Temple still stood], the merit of the Temple was no longer sufficient for achieving enlightenment in the law. In addition, it is known [that towards the end of the Second Temple period] the high priests were no longer worthy of their position. It is stated in Tractate Sukkah 20a that the Torah was almost forgotten in Israel [until it was saved by] Hillel, who arrived from Babylonia and re-established the [use of] pilpul. In Israel, Hillel used and applied the methodology that was being employed [by the sages] of Babylonia. Hillel is also referred to as a legislator, as it says in Tractate Sanhedrin 5a, “To what does Scripture refer in the verse, [‘The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda], nor he who legislates from between his feet?’ These are the descendants of Hillel who teach Torah to the masses.” That is, by applying deep analysis to the received traditions and decisions, Hillel derived the seven rules for interpreting the Torah, which is set forth in the seventh chapter of the Tosefta of Tractate Sanhedrin. As befitting the greatness of his generation, [Hillel and his court] functioned as a powerful spring of water that overflowed and overcame all doubts. The use of pilpul and analysis was their strength that enabled them, with the help of their Creator, to fortify the yoke of Torah. With righteous humility, through the sword of the pilpul of Torah, they experienced the wonders of the Torah, Israel’s majesty and splendor. This [system] continued during the days of Rebbi, [Yehuda the Prince], the crown and lamp of Israel, until the completion of the Mishnah.",
+ "Even though Hillel came [from Babylonia] to Israel and established the seven rules for interpreting the Torah, it did not change the way the scholars in either country [Israel or Babylonia] engaged in study. From time immemorial in the Land of Israel, the sages would study individually, not together, and their main efforts consisted of rendering halachic decisions for individual cases. Their understanding of the proper interpretation of the Mishnah shone on the scholars of Israel as a torch [that is, they had an established tradition from Yehuda the Prince of the Mishnah’s meaning]. When confronted with a new situation [they would compare that circumstance] with a previously well-established law, and thus needed only minimal application of pilpul. This was never so with the Babylonian sages. Their major efforts consisted of applying pilpul in great depth, and [through group study and debate] they sharpened one another’s minds. Since people have different intellectual approaches, [group study resulted either in] laws flowing from the ‘Rock of Contention’, [that is, dispute], or one of the group would be standing near the basin [of truth], and the righteousness [of those who initially disagreed with that scholar] induced them to agree with [his] true interpretation. Their desired goal was [not personal gain], but to assure long-lasting legislation stamped with their judicial seal. Because of this [unselfish motive] they treated one another with love and respect, as one should treat his master and teacher. As it is stated at the end of the second chapter of Tractate Bava Metzia, “The Babylonian scholars would rise out of respect for one another,” etc. See Ha’amek She’elah 7:5."
+ ],
+ [
+ "A FURTHER ELABORATION OF THE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING BETWEEN THE ISRAELI AND BABYLONIAN SCHOLARS
THE SCHOLARS OF BABYLONIA understood the drawback of depending solely on pilpul for decision-making. For it is well known that one who overemphasizes the use of pilpul destroys the source [the original meaning] of the laws. Such people, [whose main focus is on the creative and imaginative aspects of interpretation], find it difficult to spend a significant amount of time analyzing the Gemara and the received laws to determine their practical applications. They become accustomed to ascribing significance to those laws whose methodology they can readily understand, together with the rationale that the Gemara applied in deriving those laws. Thus, they are likely [to depart from these established rulings] by emending or amending them. [The Sages of Babylonia], were accustomed not to derive any matter, unless impelled to do so because they were confronted with the “darkness” of doubts and thus needed to clarify and purify them. Tractate Yoma 57a states, “R. Yirmiyahu said to Rava, ‘The [foolish Babylonian Torah scholars] dwell in a land of darkness. Therefore, they communicate laws of darkness.’” Rava [from Babylonia] lamented [that R. Yirmiyahu’s statement was true], and retracted his opinion [pertaining to the halachic matter that they were discussing]. As Rava said to R. Papa, “Not only do they consider us [the Babylonian scholars] to be dull, but they refer to us as the dullest of the dull.” [Rava was expressing] the realization of the [Babylonian scholars] that the straightforward arguments confidently presented by the Israeli scholars were in many instances more beneficial [in arriving at the truth] than what resulted from the pilpul of the [Babylonian scholars]. For [pilpul alone] is not as great a determinant of the truth [as received tradition]. This was noted by Nahmanides in the introduction to his work, Milhamos ha-Shem.” Therefore, [Babylonian scholars] respected the decisions of the scholars from the Land of Israel in practical matters. In many instances, when a halachic decision was not clear to them, the Babylonians would forward their questions to the scholars in the Land of Israel and would not deviate from their words.",
+ "The scholars from the Land of Israel also understood that when the law was not straightforward and it was necessary to draw the light of decision out of darkness through debate and analogy, the Babylonian scholars were superior. This is brought out in Bava Kamma 117b, pertaining to the discussion of R. Yohanan [an amora from the Land of Israel] and R. Kahana [who had moved from Babylonia to Israel]. R. Yohanan said to the disciples in Israel, “I [originally] believed that [superior learning] of the Torah was yours; but it is theirs [the Babylonian scholars’].” For there is no Torah matter that cannot be properly resolved when thorough analysis of the law is coupled with the assistance of God, may His Name be blessed. When a scholar from the Land of Israel who was proficient in the Oral Law moved to Babylonia and acquired their skills at applying pilpul, he bore much fruit as the need arose. [The advantage of combining the traditions of Israel with the pilpul methodology of Babylonia] is described in Tractate Menachos 42a: “[When] one of the scholars from the Land of Israel comes to Babylonia, [he] becomes equal to two of the Babylonian scholars.” The obvious reason is that the traditions that such a [scholar from the Land of Israel] possessed assisted him in applying pilpul to arrive at the truth, even in those circumstances where traditions were lacking. This transplanted scholar’s knowledge of traditions] would always lend weight to his arguments. If he stated that the matter was based on tradition, they, [the Babylonian scholars,] would concede, saying, “It is tradition. We accept [your argument].” In a converse situation, [when a Babylonian scholar emigrated to Israel], the Talmud in Kesubos 75a states: “When one of us [a Babylonian scholar] arrives [in Israel], he becomes equal to two scholars from the Land of Israel.” Once he became knowledgeable in the traditions he had acquired in the Land of Israel, he overflowed both in wisdom and in applying the method of pilpul to which he was already accustomed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE GEONIC PERIOD
IN COMPLETING the Babylonian Talmud, they [the Babylonian scholars] produced an expansive and awe-inspiring palace, an orchard filled with every goodness, namely, the Torah. It teaches whatever one’s mouth would request or mind would desire. When one becomes proficient [in the Talmud] through diligent study, he readily acquires the tools to make inferences and to define the laws clearly. Whether he obtained [this knowledge] from the concealed treasures of the sands of pilpul, or whether he was making inferences from the exact wording of the scholars, these methods, when grasped by those possessing sound judgment, [assure a level of understanding] that is limited only by the power of those who can repel attacks at the gates [of the houses of study].",
+ "The Ge’onim, who followed the sages of Babylonia who had authored the Talmud, were knowledgeable of the straightforward paths contained within the palace [Talmud], for [because of the traditions that they had received], they were never in doubt regarding the manner in which the laws were to be applied. As a result, they were not much involved with the application of pilpul. [An additional] contributing factor [to explain the lack of pilpul in this period] was the multitude of restrictions and religious persecutions that existed in Babylonia. This [prevented them] from summoning the strength to develop many disciples so that their lamp of Torah might shine upon them during this time of great distress. Because of these circumstances, the Geonic responsa were expressed tersely and they did not choose to state the sources of their rulings, whether they were derived from tradition or through the analytical genius of the Geonim themselves – Israel’s majesty and the holiest of the valiant ones."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE APPLICATION OF PILPUL AND THE TRANSFER OF THE CENTER OF TORAH LEARNING FROM BABYLONIA TO FRANCE
FOR THE SAKE of [Israel’s] righteousness, God desired to sharpen the glittering sword of Torah and to enlarge the Torah and its splendor. [To ensure] that Israel would be fortified and strengthened by God’s Torah, He exiled the Torah’s honor from Babylonia to the province of France. It was a land [whose inhabitants] had not seen the well-arranged light of tradition, [and they therefore] needed to search for the doorway of the palace through examination and analysis. They toiled and discovered a new path that [shone] as brilliantly as the sun, as they lacked the light [of tradition] seen by the eyes of the Geonim of antiquity who were [Israel’s] teachers and masters. From darkness and obscurity [theTosafists] produced an enlightening flame of God that hastened across the sea of the Talmud from shore to shore and shone upon it a powerful brilliance. They also expounded the holiness of the Talmud, providing for it a garment of splendor and a new visage.",
+ "In Bereshis Rabbah, parashah 25, it is written: R. Hunah and R. Yirmiyah stated in the name of R. Shmuel, ben R. Yitzhak, “The famine [in King David’s time] was meant to have occurred in the days of King Saul. However, since Saul [was compared] to the shoot of a sycamore tree, the Holy One, blessed be He, postponed it and brought it about during the days of David. [This is like the] well-known saying: ‘Shilo sinned and Yohana is punished’” [i.e., later generations pay for the sins of their ancestors]. R. Hiyya Rabba says, “This [timing of the famine] is similar to a glassmaker who was holding a basket filled with glass cups and other precious glassware. When he wanted to hang the basket, he [first] brought a peg and hammered it into the wall. [To test the strength of the peg], he first hung his own weight on it [after which he felt confident that the peg was strong enough], and then he suspended his basket from it. Therefore, the famine did not come during the days of men who were weak, but during the days of the mighty men who could withstand it.",
+ "R. Birchaya used to apply to [the timing of the famine] the verse: ‘He provides strength to the weary.’” The Midrash is comparing the famine to a basket containing precious glassware that will in time bring honor to its owner. Since the owner needs to be careful that it will not break, he is zealous to the extent that he will even demean himself to protect it. [This is referred to in the Midrash] in a passage that says: When a glassmaker needs a strong peg from which to suspend the basket, what does he do? He first [tests its strength] by hanging his own weight on the peg [after which he feels confident enough] to hang his basket from it. He is willing to demean himself, because honor will result in the end. So it was with Israel’s shameful famine, which was a profanation of God’s name, as the people became needy and dependent on [the] other [peoples], which in turn led to their dispersal among the other nations. However, [David’s degradation, the famine], caused the valiant of Israel to wage God’s battle [by attacking the neighboring nations], so that they could be sustained by the spoils of war. As reported in Tractate Berachos 3b, [the sages of Israel approached King David with the request], “Your nation Israel needs provisions,” [after which] King David replied, ‘Go, stretch out your hands as a band of marauders.’” When [Israel] triumphs, God’s name is made great and sanctified, because Divine salvation becomes well-known among the nations. However, this would not be the case if Israel had lived in security, [as there would be no impetus to wage a war that would result in the sanctification of God’s name.]",
+ "[The previously cited Midrash, Bereshis Rabba 25, illustrates why God imposes famine only in certain generations]. One would not risk his physical well-being by using his body to test the strength of the peg unless he could determine with confidence that it could withstand his weight [and that he would be unlikely] to fall and injure himself, as a consequence of which he would miss out on the honor [of preserving the precious glassware]. Similarly, a famine will not occur during a generation of weak people who are incapable of surviving it, as this would not result in the sanctification of God’s name. Therefore, the famine occurred during the time of strong individuals who would be able to withstand it, by providing an impetus for them to wage battle [and sanctify God’s name]. R. Berachiah, however, quotes the verse, “God gives strength to the weary.” [This means] that God gave strength to the armies of David to withstand the famine. For they could not [withstand it on their own without special Divine intervention]. In truth, if the famine had occurred during the time of King Saul, God would also have provided the necessary strength for his [Saul’s] mighty and valorous men, but for [certain reasons God desired] that the famine should take place during [King David’s] time.",
+ "This topic [discussed in the Midrash], is also applicable to the subject of halachah. As demonstrated by the Talmud’s exegesis of a verse [in Amos], the sages compared [periods of Jewish history lacking erudition in halachah] to a shameful famine. It is noted in Tractate Shabbos 138b: In the future, the Torah will become forgotten amongst Israel, as it is stated in [Amos], “A time is coming, says the Lord God, when I will send famine upon the land; not a hunger for bread or a thirst for water, but for hearing the words of God – the halachah.” The verse continues, “People shall wander from sea to sea and from north to east to seek the word of God, but they shall not find it.” … What is the meaning of ‘people shall wander… to seek the word of God’? This [prophesies] that in the future a woman shall take a tithe from her bread and will wander amongst different synagogues and academies to inquire as to whether the tithe is ritually pure or impure, and they [the sages] will be unable to discern its halachic status. This [inability to render a halachic decision] occurred [because that generation, at the end of the First Temple period], lacked proper training in applying pilpul]. This deficiency occurred because [earlier generations] were satiated with the Divine light of the Ark and the holiness of the high priest, and therefore did not need to wage God’s battle with the aid of pilpul. [This continued] until the famine [of Torah] that occurred during the time of Josiah, when the sages became mighty in the application of pilpul [to counter it]. I described this in chapter 8, pertaining to the Sifrei’s interpretation of the verse, “craftsmen, gate sentries, one thousand, all mighty men, warriors.” Thanks to this [impetus to wage battle by means of pilpul], God’s honor, may He be blessed, became great, because the profundities of the Torah became known to the masses. [Alternating cycles of generations applying deep analysis and generations minimizing pilpul but relying on tradition, continued throughout history].",
+ "When [the sages] became satiated with the seven exegetical rules given by Hillel, [they had less need for pilpul]. [In the periods after Hillel, the need for pilpul increased], because the knowledge of tradition decreased during the amoraic period, and they needed to apply pilpul to expound the Mishnah, thereby enhancing the Torah [by means of] the wisdom of the Talmud. [Once again], after the completion of the Talmud, [the need for pilpul diminished] since the Geonim became satiated with the traditions that they had received in regard to the interpretation of many Talmudic subjects. After this, the Talmud, [several generations later], was transmitted to the Tosafists, who [due to their lack of tradition in interpreting the Talmud], needed to apply pilpul, thereby making the Torah greater through their various interpretations and arguments. If [those generations which relied primarily on tradition] had been given the need to apply pilpul, they would have also been able to reach this level of analysis through the Divine assistance of the Guardian of the Covenant."
+ ],
+ [
+ "REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ALTERNATING METHODS OF LEARNING TORAH IN DIFFERENT GENERATIONS
KOHELES WRITES: Do not say, ‘How was it that former times were better than these?’ That is not a question prompted by reason. Wisdom is good with an inheritance, and even more so to those who see the sun. To sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of its possessors.",
+ "The explanation [of this passage] is that [Solomon], the wise one, through Divine Spirit, cautions scoffers [not to mock earlier generations] merely because these later generations were accustomed to the science of pilpul. Previous generations did not employ this [analytical] approach, and even so, they reached a level of competence as authoritative as the written Torah, for their main goal was to learn for the purpose of religious practice. [Solomon therefore warns] that it is wrong to mock them [and think] that if you were as knowledgeable regarding the sources that were available to the previous generations, you would reject the structure of laws developed by that generation [because they did not possess the art of pilpul]. “That is not a question prompted by reason,” since you do not possess a monument or name in the area of adjudication. On the other hand, if you condescendingly believe that if you were given the opportunity to make decisions and that you can do so without the art of pilpul, that is only foolishness and arrogance. Since you lack the traditions of the clearly-defined laws from the great Torah academies, we are compelled to draw from the deep waters with [deep] analysis.",
+ "It is true “that wisdom is good with an inheritance” – in other words, it is surely superior to have wisdom obtained through “inheritance,” meaning tradition, more than wisdom that is obtained through pilpul, [for wisdom transmitted by tradition is not subject to the error] that may result from examination and the weighing of various arguments, which, as I previously noted, was Nahmanides’s view as reflected in his writings.",
+ "[Koheles continues], “And even more so to those who see the sun,” the sun is the source of light [and is thus] symbolic of the light of Torah. (As it is written: “For the Lord God is a sun and a shield, favor and glory does God bestow; He withholds no goodness from those who walk in perfect innocence.” The interpretation of this verse is that even though the sun bestows favor and glory upon every life form, none is [protected] from the sun when it is burning hot, [for at such a time] they all are in need of some form of a shield or cover.",
+ "So it is with the light of Torah: it bestows favor and glory upon those who are diligent in its study. As is said in Tractate Avodah Zarah 3b, “Anyone who studies Torah at night, the Lord strings a thread of grace around him during the day.” It is stated in Shemos Rabba, parshah 38, that the Book of Chronicles does not associate anyone with glory until it discusses Osniel, who is known as Ya’abetz, for he had toiled in the study of Torah. [However, the Torah, like the sun, can at times be harmful]. As explained in Tractate Yoma 72b, if one is not meritorious, i.e., he does not study the Torah diligently so as to understand it properly, the Torah] “smelts him” to death. However, when one walks in pure innocence, he constantly benefits from its light. This explains the verse, “that the Lord God is a sun and a shield,” and also explains, “Favor and glory does God bestow; He withholds no goodness from those who walk in perfect innocence”). [Now that we have established that the sun is symbolic of the source of the Torah, it seems clear that] the verse in Koheles expresses the view that one who understands the sources and traditions of this “inheritance,” that is, the tradition coupled with its rationale, is the superior approach [in determining Halachah]. As I wrote previously, this trait was characteristic of King Solomon’s wisdom.",
+ "The verse then continues, “For to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money.” This means that as money provides shelter [security], everyone comprehends that it is better to gain money through inheritance rather than to have to toil for it and experience frustration. However, there is an advantage to obtaining wealth though one’s personal toil in business: that experience makes a person aware of [business practices], more than if one received his knowledge through inheritance.",
+ "Obviously, one who inherits money is likely to become knowledgeable in business practices; for the possession of money itself accustoms a person to business, [as expressed in the saying:] “Money leads one to doing business.” But those who inherit money do not become as knowledgeable in [business as those who acquire wealth through their own efforts]. However, [gaining expertise in business] is not [totally analogous] to [acquiring] Torah knowledge, for it is a fact that when knowledge is acquired through much analysis, one acquires the ability to make decisions in unclear circumstances, more than one who has acquired knowledge through tradition. Nevertheless, when knowledge is acquired through tradition, one is more likely to decide correctly, [since the accumulation of authentic knowledge] guides one to arrive at the truth in a straight path.",
+ "[This is what Koheles refers to when he states:] “For to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money.” [In the shelter of wisdom one receives honor, and the shelter of money provides one with his practical needs]. For both honor and livelihood are equally important, each one in its own way. [Torah knowledge as represented by honor] sustains the soul with its clear guidance, because you have gained clearly defined laws, whilst [livelihood] sustains the body through material assets. However, [as stated by Koheles], “The advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of its possessors,” meaning that wisdom is more likely to lead one to the end goal [of fully sustaining the soul], than how money will achieve its objective [of fully sustaining one physically].",
+ "Just as it is understood that there is no value in wealthy people questioning why the poor need to apply so much more effort to their business than they, similarly there is no value gained by questioning why in these times we need to be more diligent in our Torah study than the earlier generations. For, as we have already explained, [the earlier generations] were rich in the traditions and the explanations of the laws, as well as their scope. This is not so in these times, where we hunger for God’s word, which is Jewish law.",
+ "An additional reason why later generations need to work harder in order to determine Jewish law is that the [nature of the world has changed from former times]. [This is evident] from the way the taste and the quality of fruits have changed in the later generations. As it is taught towards the end of Tractate Sotah, “R. Shimon the son of Elazar said: ‘When purity was suspended from the [Jewish people], the [special] taste and aroma of fruits was suspended from the world.’” [This means that] whatever happens to the spiritual level of the Jewish people affects the world. Many other examples are cited [in Tractate Sotah] to demonstrate this concept. Since the later generations lack this trait of purity, there is a need [to compensate] by sweetening the lives of mankind through diligent study and analysis. It was the saintliness and sincerity of earlier generations that greatly assisted them to determine the truth without the need of much analysis and toil. As is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Berachos, chapter 5, The pious men of the earlier generations would meditate for an hour before and for one hour after their prayers. If this is so, how did they have enough time to conduct their studies or business? Said R. Yitzchak of the School of R. Eliezer: “Since they were pious, a blessing was bestowed upon their studies and labor, [so that with minimal toil] they were equally successful in both directions in achieving the desired result.”",
+ "[The great Amora, Rava, also understood that due to their holiness and saintliness, earlier generations were more worthy to determine the truth], as stated in Tractate Shabbos 134b: “He (Rava) said to himself, ‘Why did I have to take issue with the interpretations of the elders [that is, R. Yehuda and Ravin bar Avuha]?’” This [demonstrates] that it was clear to Rava that since [R. Yehuda and Ravin bar Avuha] were from the earlier generations, they were more likely to determine the truth. [These earlier generations were superior in their ability to discern the truth because of], their holiness and righteousness. As is recorded in Tractate Berachos 20a [pertaining to the generation of R. Yehuda], “R. Papa asked Abayye why it was that in earlier generations they experienced miracles, while in our generation we do not experience miracles…. It is because earlier generations risked their lives for the sanctification of God’s name, and we do not.” This was a consistent pattern throughout the different generations: that there were alternating styles in learning Torah. One generation consistently applied deep analysis, while another generation relied heavily on tradition. These alternating styles reflected the varying levels of righteousness of the different generations."
+ ],
+ [
+ "SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE APPROACHES OF THE TOSAFISTS, NAHMANIDES AND MAIMONIDES
JUST AS THE SAGES of Babylonia, as described in chapter 11, were respectful of the sages of the Land of Israel due to their knowledge of Torah traditions, so were the Tosafists [respectful] of the Geonim. The Tosafists were aware of the superior knowledge of the Geonim, which they had [gained from] the light of tradition. Many times the Tosafists modestly humbled themselves before the Geonim because of the holiness of their words, acknowledging that they expressed the words of tradition.",
+ "However, since the Tosafists were accustomed to relying on deep analysis, their hearts were not with [the Geonim] consistently and with strong conviction [that is, they did not always follow geonic decisions], nor did the Tosafists place faith in any matter if they themselves did not find the entrance and the light. For behold the great genius, Yaakov – that is, Rabbenu Tam of blessed memory. [In one case, where a woman’s husband was missing], he with his great wisdom allowed her to remarry on the basis of testimony from a witness who had seen [the husband’s corpse] three days after he had expired. [Although the facial features were not clear so long after death], he relied on the witness’s recognition of the entire body. It is clear from what Rabbenu Tam writes in his Sefer ha-Yashar, that he based his opinion on a nuance in the words of the Bahag. However, pertaining to the laws of mourning, the Tosafists held that the first day of mourning is rabbinic. Thus, they rejected the words of the Bahag with a straw of wheat [a weak argument]. As [the Tosafist, the Ri] stated, “R. Yehudai Gaon, the Ba’al Halachos [the Bahag], was a great lamp [for Israel, yet at times his students would use his name to write matters that he did not direct nor intend to write].” [Thus, since the Tosafists could not logically accept the Bahag’s opinion as stated. They felt that they could reject that opinion and concluded that it was written by a student].",
+ "Also, pertaining to our master, the Sheiltos, he is described by Rabbenu Tam in his Sefer ha-Yashar as being the most eminent of the Geonim, yet, pertaining to davar she-eino miskaven, an unintentional activity, the [Tosafists] in Tractate Shabbos 100b, rejected our master’s [the She’iltos’s] words, [viewing him] as if he were a [mere] student at the academy, lacking in knowledge. They [the Tosafists] did not attempt to answer the obvious questions that they raised against the one who was the world’s lamp, the one from whom no Torah matter was hidden. You already know that I wrote in Ha’amek She’elah, chapter 105, Section 4, the true understanding of this Sheiltos and how the opinion of the Aruch pertaining to pesik reshe de-lo niha leh was derived from the Sheiltos, whose words are illuminating and as impervious as sapphire.",
+ "Similarly, the light of our eyes, the Ramban [Nahmanides] of blessed memory, sacrificed his life for the Geonim and toiled with all his strength to answer questions that were raised against them. Even so, because he was knowledgeable in the art of pilpul of the Torah, equal [in stature] to the authoritative and erudite sages of the Tosafists, if the explanation of the [geonic sages’] words was not available to him – that is, if he lacked the oral tradition and possessed only their written words, if the latter were not explicitly expressed, he would slant the words of the Geonim to suit his brilliant opinion and would interpret R. Yitzchak Alfasi and the geonic statements to support his paved paths, [that is, his own well-thought-out approach].",
+ "This was not so with the foremost of the authorities, the Rambam, of blessed memory, the Lamp of the Exile. He learned the geonic traditions and concepts with the exact version of their [Talmudic] texts, as hinted at in the master’s books, [the Sheiltos], and the works of the Bahag, and afterwards, R. Yitzchak Alfasi. [He learned all this] in a well organized and exemplary manner from his father and teacher, R. Maimon, and from the Ri Migash. The Rambam, apart from the fact that the hand of God was upon him, enabling him to produce eternal words [drawn] from that which is hidden, knew through tradition the hints and unexpressed concepts known to the Geonim. In all instances when the Geonim were in disagreement and the truth was being investigated [in order to determine the Halachah], his intellect, being more expansive than the oceans, assisted him in sifting fine flour into flour of the highest quality, and to distinguish with a perceiving eye the wheat that sustains all who eat it.",
+ "It is befitting for those who possess understanding to know that [even though] the baraisos of the Toras Kohanim, the Sifrei and the Mechilta, are an open pathway leading from the Written Torah to the Oral Laws that are taught in our Mishnah, nevertheless, there are many baraisos from which the Talmud would deviate. I explained this clearly, with Heaven’s help, in my commentary on the Sifrei, where I argue that the sages of the Talmud knew through tradition that there were other Sages who disagreed with these baraisos on particular points, and that the Halachah was in accordance with those Sages. See what I wrote in Ha’amek She’elah, 128:1, that even though the books of the She’iltos, Bahag and R. Yitzchak Alfasi provided the Rambam, of blessed memory, with an open passageway from the Talmud to practical Halachah, there are, nevertheless, many halachic decisions that the Rambam rendered that deviated from these authorities. As we stated, the Rambam had a tradition that there were other Geonim who disagreed with [the above mentioned geonic authorities], and he ruled that the Halachah was in accordance with those other geonic opinions."
+ ],
+ [
+ "A CRITICISM OF PILPUL BEREFT OF THE EARLIER GEONIC SOURCES
BEHOLD, OUR TEACHERS, the Aharonim, looked favorably upon Moshe (Maimonides), the Rambam, of blessed memory. Among all things, they [the Aharonim], sought to comprehend the Rambam’s opinions. For in many instances his approach to understanding the Talmud was more appealing than the way people normally understood it as explained by Rashi, Tosafos, and the other commentators. When he returned to the tent, the House of Study, and fastened himself to God’s word, that is, Jewish law, with his wondrous compilation [the Mishneh Torah], the heavenly light shone readily upon him. No subject or part of any matter of the Talmud was concealed from him, for he had drawn from every fountain and spring. Therefore, [the Aharonim] felt obligated to try to impose interpretations of the Rambam that accorded with their own views; [they did so] by analyzing his words carefully, and using [logical] arguments to the extent of the ability of the scholar concerned.",
+ "However, whoever has a brain in his skull and possesses a sound mind [which are a person’s] majesty and splendor would concede that the great geniuses of judgment do not sway from the text because of the force of logic that results from pilpul. For this was not the approach of our rabbis, the Tosafists, because there was nothing before them that was distorted and would impel them to veer from the straight and open paths [of the text of the Talmud or Mishnah]. For paved paths emanated from their hearts, to enable them to find the interpretation and instruction of the truth of the Torah, for they sought the knowledge of God as one seeks hidden treasures. This is not so with the one who is in a hurry to determine the Rambam’s opinion. He does not search earnestly, he does not kneel [humbly] in the prisoner’s place to find his goal by diligent search. [Instead] he dares to ascend the mountain with passion (see Aruch, s.v. Tzafach). As a result, he deviates from the path that is before his eyes, such that he does not see the straight path, as he does not realize that it may be a long and drawn-out [process].",
+ "This is certainly not the correct approach, [one should not try to] vindicate the righteous at the beginning of judgment [that is, jump to conclusions], [for the Rambam’s understanding] of a Talmudic subject was different from the way it was understood [elsewhere, since in many instances the Rambam] had a different text hedged about with roses [thorns].",
+ "It is true that the light of a clearly defined law is sweet, even for those who do not know the reason for the decision or its source. It is indeed pleasant for the eyes to feel the sun, the source of the light, just as it is beneficial for the ears to hear the pleasant sounds of music. Nevertheless, people insist on feasting their eyes by viewing the countenance of that form [the sun, thereby recognizing and understanding the source of the light].",
+ "Behold the commentaries on the Rambam, his armor-bearers, and the others who felt the sun; they did not persist in studying the books of the early Geonim, such as the Bahag and the Sheiltos carefully. In fact, this [deficiency] extended to the philologist, our master, the author of the Kesef Mishneh and Beis Yosef [Rabbi Yosef Caro], [as demonstrated] in his book, the Bedek ha-Bayis, pertaining to the laws of mikveh. [Rabbi Caro stated] that it was [merely] by chance that the book of the Sheiltos came before him and that he found a certain item in it. Similarly with the responsa of the later Geonim of blessed memory: one cannot find them citing analyses of the works of the earlier Geonim, other than a little here and little there [on an ad hoc basis]. I do not [mean to imply], Heaven forbid, that they are to blame [for these omissions], for they were occupied with many tasks in their holy positions, and the light of publication was not as widespread as their need and use required, [and thus they lacked full access to the earlier geonic writings]. Therefore, the later geonic students would follow the approach of the heads [of their academies], seeking to examine the Six Orders of the Talmud in a manner familiar to Rashi and the other commentators. Thus, the new insights [of these later geonic students] depended upon these interpretations of the Talmud. In those instances when they found fresh ideas within the books of the earlier Geonim, it was an experience, as if they had found mandrakes in places where no one had previously trod. Therefore, pertaining to many laws, they did not see the [earlier] sources and roots."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE NETZIV’S PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON HIS WORK
I, THE MEEK ONE, walked innocently in the days of my youth to investigate the [concepts] which the sages of blessed memory expounded and which are disseminated throughout the Talmud. The words of the Talmudic sages may not [seem] to enlighten one as to what one reads in Scripture. Therefore, I have toiled greatly [to understand] the Mechilta, the Toras Kohanim and the Sifrei, the primary fountains that provide a well [giving insight] into the opinions of the Talmudic Sages, the mighty ones. [Through this genuine toil], I discovered the reasoning [behind the Talmudic sages’ opinions], and with the help of the Gracious Dispenser of Wisdom, who provides [the Torah’s wisdom] even to those who are unworthy, I have written my Book on the Sifrei, which in turn expounds the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy, for the [writing styles] of the tannaitic sages are terse. From there I proceeded to produce my commentary on the many baraisos cited in the Mechilta and Toras Kohanim which the commentators had not addressed. [The works I produced] were stored with me until the appropriate time, [as decided] by the Creator of Urim, to publish them and bring them into the gates [of the various academies]. As a result of obtaining an understanding [of the different Talmudic sources], I was also enabled to appreciate the approach of the most eminent teachers [of Israel], to draw the overflowing spring waters of instruction from the pure source, for from them [the Sifre, Mechilta and Toras Kohanim], [the Talmudic] laws were derived. Similarly, to understand the decisions of the Rishonim clearly, [I studied their sources], that is, the tersely worded books of our master [the She’iltos], and also the Bahag and the Rif. I am warm [with gratification from all this study], and I can see [with confidence] the light of subjects that are scattered throughout the Talmud.",
+ "[In order to help me, God allowed me to overpower the mighty ones, [by convincingly] showing [pre-eminent scholars] the enlightening and novel opinions [of the early authorities]. For when I studied the pilpul of the pre-eminent teachers and educators, the sages of the Tosafists and the Ramban [Nahmanides], I was particularly focused on producing a fine work [that would withstand deep scrutiny]. I did this by applying pilpul and [using the analyses of the Tosafists and Ramban], to reveal to [contemporary] masters of the Talmud, the beauty of the earlier versions of the Talmud, for the opinions of the earlier authorities [i.e., the Geonim], were driven by the extant texts possessed by rabbis of an even earlier era.",
+ "I am not bragging [by saying] that all of [the insights] that I have raised are cut [formed] like sapphire, or that whenever I have arrived at a certain understanding [I believe I have] crushed the inferior [interpretations], or that I cannot bear to accept alternative explanations. God forbid that such a strange thought should enter one’s mind, for I know that error exists without limit, and that Moshe our Teacher taught a law that was to be applied throughout the generations so that we should not refrain from denying our mistakes. As stated in Vayikra Rabbah, parshah 13, “Moshe made an announcement throughout the Jewish camp, ‘I have made a mistake with the law; my brother Aaron came and taught me [corrected me] properly.’” Moshe performed this act to demonstrate to others the importance of admitting their errors.",
+ "For if anyone seeks to shatter my opinions into splinters, I have the [merit] of being committed to the Divine and associating with eminent scholars. I also state that the purpose of my work has been so that the words of our master [the She’iltos] should be acknowledged. If someone else comes to explain his words in a different manner, he is to be blessed, for I have lifted the shard that enables him to discover the ornamental pearl that lies underneath it. The benefit of both of our opinions assists in clarifying our master’s rulings, now that they are no longer concealed within hidden places. It will enhance the battle of Torah within the gates [of the houses of study], such that his words are comprehended by the sages and scribes, for the terse words of the early sages are enlightening as shining stars.",
+ "And not only [do I invite the critical review of others], for the lamp, that is, the wisdom of another man, can search out and [discover] all the concealed errors [of others]; [I] the author himself, reviews it daily. [One needs to be concerned about errors], whether in matters of daily life, as cited in the Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Nedarim, in the chapter entitled “Rabbi Eliezer” (chapter 9), “Regret over one’s actions is commonplace,” or errors pertaining to Torah matters: as it states in Tractate Sanhedrin 34a, “The next day the judges may see a different reason,” and as it states in Sanhedrin 35a, “the reasoning for a [judge’s] decision is forgotten” [and he might change his mind].",
+ "Behold, there is no author from old times onwards who did not edit his words, for even our Master [the She’iltos, rather than] being defensive about his previous decisions [out of pride], edited his book many times, resulting in several revisions of his texts. (See what I wrote in Pesah Ha’amek, 1:2). What am I, born as I was with an inferior mind – what I built yesterday, I would like to tear down today, and I will be adding something tomorrow to that which I feel today is complete. I say it is better that a person should bear the yoke of plowing in his youth and focus his efforts on plowing, planting and the toil of raising the fruit, even if not its harvest. What I mean to say is that one should not publish [his ideas] until his later years, when he is seasoned and possesses a clarity of mind, after he has persisted in understanding matters clearly and applied much effort to enhance [the Torah’s] light.",
+ "It is written in Proverbs 20:4, “The sluggard will not plow when it is winter; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.” The wise one [Solomon], who was imbued with the Divine Spirit, did not come to tell us what even small children know. As explained by Rashi’s commentary on that verse, derived from the Midrash Rabbah on the Torah portion Nitzavim, this verse is a parable and analogy, referring to the Torah. For we already know from other [Talmudic sources] that the toil and labor applied to Torah [study] is compared to bread. Tractate Hagigah 14a states, pertaining to the verse, “Come, eat of my bread…,” [that bread] refers to the Talmud. Scripture compares the toil of Torah in one’s youth to “plowing,” while “harvest” is referring to a person later in life, who possesses a clear mind and benefits others with his wisdom. [King Solomon] is stating that if one does not toil by applying analysis in his youth, he will beg for explanations of the Torah and receive nothing. We now need to understand that just as plowing when done by the elderly is not successful, because at a weaker time of life one can not hoe well, so there is no point in man harvesting in his youth, i.e., reaping the fruit [of Torah] too early, so that it cannot be restored or improved by means of great analysis. The fruit of the tree of life is fragile and delicate, and its essential taste and aroma come when it has matured and not when it is unripe.",
+ "I have no misgivings if any arguments or pilpul in my book also may have been advanced previously by my colleagues. At this time there has been an increase of God’s people spreading [false statements]; slander is common among students and colleagues, and these individuals are transgressing the prohibition against suspecting the innocent. Because of my many duties, I was not always able to carry out a search of [various] books except in certain instances. If it happened that I saw [one of my ideas, which was independently derived in another book], I then made a note that my idea could be found in another source. In many instances [even when I did find my idea expressed in another source], I did not have the time [to note that source], and the original document remained unchanged.",
+ "Because of all of these concerns, I had reservations about publishing this book, similar to my [feeling regarding] my commentary on the Sifrei, which remained unpublished [even though] it had been completed much earlier, the result of the toil of the days of my youth. However, previously I had transferred my compilation to my son, our master Rabbi Hayyim Berlin, to edit and enhance because God bestowed upon him wisdom. He then toiled, copying and refining it. He tried to return it to me through one who specializes [a courier], but all his work was lost. I was therefore concerned that the manuscript should not come into the hands of someone who would use it improperly, and therefore I decided on publication without further delay. I constantly offer prayer to the God who fulfills my longing, my longing in matters of truth, and does not withhold it from me. For “You, O God, what You have desired You have done with me regarding the words of my book.” I am impelled to communicate to [other] people the justice of my position. (As our sages of blessed memory said in Tractate Berachos 31b, if one is suspected of violating a certain matter, he must make it known that it is not true. This obligation of clearing one’s name and the seriousness of suspecting the innocent is also discussed in the book of our Master, the She’iltos in chapter 40). Let heaven and earth testify for me, that from my heart, these matters were derived by myself."
+ ],
+ [
+ "ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BY THE NETZIV
IN TRUTH, it is not by my [intellectual] power or merit that I prospered at the beginning of my manhood. When I examined my situation, I realized that I lacked knowledge and was brought low by poverty. My eyes are raised to Heaven, for only because of the merit of my righteous forefathers was I brought to the great Talmudic academy [of Volozhin], the house of my lodging, the source of my happiness that is at the forefront of my thoughts – that is, the four cubits of Halachah that established a foundation for the Torah and [God’s covenant]. This was accomplished by the great genius, the chief of the shepherds, the nation’s well, our master and teacher, my father-in-law’s father, our master, Hayyim of Volozhin, of blessed memory. To strengthen [the academy even more, after his demise] his son arose, my father-in-law, our master and teacher, the genius, the glory of Israel, our teacher and master, R. Yitzhak, of blessed memory [who became the head of the Volozhin Yeshivah]. He was then followed by the one who upheld its [the yeshiva’s] splendor, the master and genius, my brother-in-law, learned and sharp-witted, our master, Eliezer Yitzhak, of blessed memory.",
+ "This is the well [the academy] that was dug by the officers of God and the Torah. It was excavated by the philanthropists of God’s people, those who share in its reward; those who dug the spring of Torah with their rods of deep analysis by bringing the battle of Torah to the gates [of the academy], and those who with their rods of a generous and pure heart [donated money]. I derived much from the multitude of rivers, the colleagues and students who studied the Torah intensely. They closely examined [my Torah thoughts] and their waters brought prosperity by influencing others to study even more intensely, [to carry out] sincere [and straightforward analysis]. Each contributed according to his particular task and was industrious, so as to fortify it [the academy], each according to his praise, [that is], among the illustrious of the scholars, the lion-like colleagues at the academy [of Volozhin]. Many drank from their waters [of Torah], and were satiated according to their ability, each according to his measure. [Drinking their waters of Torah] produced judges who are as life-sustaining as grain [because of their knowledge] of the Talmud and [their application] of logic. I did not refrain from group discussion, whether the intricate insights of my colleagues or the pilpul of my students. There is a constant cycle of various students [with new and different talents] entering and leaving the [academy] to acquire the teachings of the Talmud. It is through the power [of these group discussions] that I acquired [abilities] with which I gained great success in receiving the Torah little by little, until I amassed much. My fine flour was the result of [undertaking] an arduous analytical path, one that I had taken many times, using the books of the earlier Geonim, for they brighten one’s eyes [with understanding]. Also, the merit of our master [the She’iltos] of blessed memory stood by me to strengthen my weak foundations. For, behold, I have published [brought to light] an explanation of his book, [the She’iltos], which God made available to those who study Torah without ceasing.",
+ "In Bereshis Rabbah, chapter 74, on the verse, “Jacob said to his brothers, ‘Gather stones!” the Midrash comments: “How many brothers had he then but one, and would that he buried him! It refers, however, to his sons, whom he calls brethren in the Holy Tongue. R. Hunia said: ‘They were as valiant as he and as righteous as he.’ R. Judan said: ‘When a man dons his father’s raiment, he is like him. Therefore Jacob referred to his sons as brothers because they participated with him….’” I offer thanks to God, for He has granted me sons who are not shy about bringing the battle of Torah to the gates, for they were with me in this service with purity. My son, the rabbi, our master, Hayyim Berlin, from the holy community of Shakalov, took with him some of my manuscripts to edit and to remove errors that resulted from conjecture [without proof]. He is also wise and he added some of his own material, analyzing carefully the words of our master [the She’iltos]. His intent was to make his insights known, and there is more that he wrote than what is published in his name, for much was lost in returning the manuscript [to me]. A small amount is all that remains [from his insights], such as from his letters and the like, those thoughts being recorded [in my book] in his name. It was also [my son] who designated, Ha’amek She’elah, as the title for this book, and thus his name should be equally remembered as its title.",
+ "In addition, my son-in-law, the teacher and master, R. Raphael Shapiro, the son of the genius, our teacher and master, Rabbi Aryeh Leib Shapiro, of blessed memory, the head of the court of the holy community of Kovno, sat with me in group studies and he was [privileged] with strength of the Torah and with an ingenious mind, and he settled [disputes] by expressing and clarifying the profundities of the Halachah. He also added many annotations [to my book] by applying much deep analysis. May God be with them so that the departed of Israel [be revived] as grain through the power of the Torah, blossoming like the vine, for they are God’s blessed seed, men of stature. Their names [will be respected by peoples of the world] as the wine of Lebanon [because of] all their sound wisdom and the pure fear of God. It is by the grace of God that the ones who strengthen the warriors [students] in Torah shall not stumble. May our words be [constantly] uttered in the scholars’ meeting places, and may we merit [to experience] the light emanating from the presence of the Living King, both in the World of Action [this world] and in the eternal life. As a person who stands before the multitudes, so do the scribes of Israel tremble. Behold, I am the one laden with a great task, for my whole salvation and yearning is with her [the Torah]."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "Part II": [
+ [
+ "Koheles sought to find words of delight, and that which was written in a straightforward manner, even words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and like implanted nails are the sayings of the Masters of Collections, coming from one Shepherd. (Koheles 12:10–11)",
+ "WHY GOD GAVE ISRAEL THE TWENTY-FOUR BOOKS
WHEN [GOD GAVE the Torah to the Jewish people:] “He came with some of the sacred myriads; and in His right hand was eish-das, a fire of law, for them [Israel].” [At that time] God desired to give the Jewish people the twenty-four sacred books. Tractate Berachos 5a states: R. Levi ben Hama, stated in the name of R. Shimon ben Lakish, “What is the meaning of the verse, ‘…and I shall give you [Moses] the stone luhos, Torah and the mitzvah that I have written to teach them?’ [The word luhos refers to the Ten Commandments]. Torah refers to Scripture. Mitzvah – this is the Mishnah, and ‘that which I have written’ refers to the Prophets and Hagiographa.’” In Shemos Rabbah, parashah 28, it is written: R. Yitzhak said, “That which the Prophets were to prophesy in the future to subsequent generations was received from Mount Sinai. For Moses said to Israel, ‘[Not with you alone do I seal this covenant…] but with whoever is here, standing with us today before the Lord our God, and with whoever is not here with us today,’…[A similar idea is found in the verse], ‘The burden of the word of God to Israel by Malachi,’ [literally, “in the hand of Malachi”]. It does not say ‘in the days of Malachi,’ but ‘in the hand of Malachi,’ for his prophecy was already in his hand since Sinai, but until then he was not granted the right to prophesy. Similarly Isaiah said, ‘From the time that it was, there am I.’ Isaiah said, I was present at the Revelation on Sinai where I received this prophecy. [However], only ‘now has the Lord God authorized me to prophesy and imbued me with his Divine Spirit,’ for until now no permission was given to him to prophesy.”",
+ "[If God desired to give the Jewish people the twenty-four books at Sinai], one can ask a strong question from Tractate Nedarim 22b: “R. Adda, the son of R. Hanina, said: ‘Had Israel not sinned, they would have received only the Five Books of the Torah and the Book of Joshua,… as it is written, ‘For with much wisdom comes much anger.’” This Talmudic passage implies that as each subsequent generation sinned it received another book of the Prophets or Hagiographa, for the [receipt of] prophecy [contained in the twenty-four books] was contingent on Israel sinning [and arousing God’s anger].",
+ "However, if you consider further this statement [of R. Adda in Nedarim], you are compelled to conclude that he is saying just the opposite. If you understood his words simply to indicate that there was prophecy because of Israel’s sins and the needs of the times, you could ask the following questions: First, [what does R. Adda’s statement add], as it is obvious that there is no need for a reproach [from God] unless the people sinned? Further, many of the books of the Hagiographa and Prophets are not concerned with the sins [of Israel]!",
+ "However, to quote the commentary attributed to Rashi [regarding the statement of R. Adda in Nedarim], “Since they [the Jewish people] rebelled and sinned, they received additional wisdom contained in the other books [of the Prophets and Hagiographa] to burden them more. Similarly, it says in Koheles Rabbah 1, on the verse, “… it is an affliction that God has given to the sons of man with which to be concerned”: “R. Hunia applied this [verse] to the Prophets and the Hagiographa, for had Israel been worthy, they would have received only the Five Books, [however], they were given all of the Scriptures [including] the Prophets and Hagiographa so that they should toil in [learning them] as well as the Torah, and perform precepts and righteous acts so as to receive a good reward.’”",
+ "With this we can explain what is stated in Tractate Betzah 25b, “Why was the Torah given to [the people of] Israel? Because they are impetuous [and the law was given to discipline them].” Rashi comments, “[God] gave them the Torah so that they might study it diligently, for it diminishes the strength [of their evil inclination] and humbles them.” Along these lines, the talmudic and midrashic statements were saying that as [the people of] Israel sinned, they were given additional [sources of] wisdom that entailed [additional] toil to acquire. This explanation answers the difficulty that we had in understanding R. Adda’s statement [in Nedarim], and reconciles it with what is written in Tractate Berachos [that Moses received the Prophets and Hagiographa at Mount Sinai]. When R. Adda said that [because the people of] Israel sinned [they received the twenty-four books], he was not referring to the sins of subsequent generations, but only to the sin of the Golden Calf. For when they sinned with the calf, they showed they were a “stiff-necked people” who needed to study and engage in [additional learning] with which to occupy their time. It was for this reason that [God] transmitted to Moses all that would be prophesied in the future."
+ ],
+ [
+ "BECAUSE OF THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE PROPHETS AND HAGIOGRAPHA, THEY HAD TO BE WRITTEN IN A PARTICULAR STYLE
THE EXPLANATION GIVEN above, however, is still not clear. Can it be that because God burdens [the people of Israel] with the twenty-four Books of the Prophets and the Hagiographa, [this prevents] them from sinning? Further, what kind of burden is this? [The burden of learning the twenty-four books] is unlike the toiling that is described in Tractate Betzah 25b, which we previously discussed [in the last chapter]. It was because of [the stubborn nature of the people of Israel] that they were commanded to toil in the study of Torah day and night, even beyond that which was needed to know how to practice, for this would weaken the strength [of their evil inclination] and soften their heart of stone. The Oral Law is called Tushiyah because the light it contains [causes one] to return to the right [path]. However, by [merely] increasing the quantity of the Written Torah, no additional burden would be imposed [to occupy the Jewish people so as to prevent them from sinning]. Another problem is that the wording of R. Hunia’s statement in Koheles Rabbah does not read well. What connection is there between toiling in the study of the Prophets and Hagiographa and the performance of precepts and righteous acts?",
+ "Another [source] to understand is the Midrash Rabbah [on the Book of Shemos] on Parashas Ki Sisa, wherein it states pertaining to the verse in Ex. 31:18, “He gave unto Moses, ke-chaloso, [that is], when He finished speaking with him.” [This should be read as] “And He gave unto Moses ka-chaloso, [that is], as his bride….” R. Levi said in the name of R. Shimon ben Lakish: “Just as a bride is decked in twenty-four kinds of ornaments, so must a scholar be proficient in the twenty-four books.”",
+ "At first impression, this midrashic statement is difficult to understand because the reference to a Talmud scholar is a digression. Since the verse states, “He gave unto Moses,” should the Midrash not state that Moses [rather than a scholar] was clothed in the twenty-four books? However, what the Midrash says is sound, for there would be no need for the verse to tell us that Moses knew the wisdom contained in the twenty-four books. For all [knowledge of the Torah] was revealed to Moses, even “what distinguished scholars would originate in the future,” and this would certainly include the Prophets and Hagiographa. [R. Levi would not need this verse to teach us that Moses knew the twenty-four Books]. Moreover, the R. Levi quoted in this Midrash is not the R. Levi usually cited as the teacher of R. Shimon ben Lakish. Rather, he is the same R. Levi ben Hama, who stated in the name of R. Shimon ben Lakish, whom we cited above from Tractate Berachos 5a, that from the verse, “And I shall give you the stone Tablets, etc.,” it is known that all [Torah knowledge including the Prophets and Hagiographa] were revealed to Moses. [More than anyone else], R. Levi would not need [the verse in Ki Sissa] to inform us that Moses knew the twenty-four books. Therefore, what the midrash is saying is that [Moses is representative of a Talmudic scholar], and since Moses [certainly possessed knowledge] that would equal any [future] scholar, since he [Moses] needed to be clothed in the twenty-four books, we infer that all Talmudic scholars need to be knowledgeable about these writings.",
+ "However, one can [still] question this interpretation of the midrash, for why [would the midrash limit] the need to learn the twenty-four books to Talmudic scholars and not include all Jews? [Why not include] one who reads Scripture, and [since he] is not illiterate – for he reads the Five Books ─ why not require him also to be knowledgeable regarding the twenty-four books? A further question is: [does the midrash imply], Heaven forbid, that no one was considered a complete scholar until all of Scripture was complete, [i.e., given to the Jewish people, which occurred] hundreds of years after the giving of the Torah?",
+ "[In order to comprehend this midrash], one first needs to understand that the sole purpose of the Prophets and Hagiographa is not [to convey a particular] prophet’s chastisements, due to be given at a certain moment, or to make known [to us] a particular occurrence. It surely is impossible to say so, for [in addition to the prophets recorded in Scripture], many more Prophets lived during the times of Elijah, Elisha, and [until the time of] Jeremiah. This is known, as it is written [in several instances], “I have sent them all of My servants, the prophets….” And all of these [not mentioned by name] prophesied and uttered words of chastisement. [See] also Koheles Rabbah 1, which comments on the verse in Eccl. 1:2, “‘There is no remembrance of them of former times.’… Many prophets arose in Israel whose names have not been specified….” [Obviously many of the various prophets’ statements] were not meant to be recorded. [The reason why the prophecies of many prophets were not recorded in Scripture is conveyed in] Tractate Megillah 14a, in which states, “Prophecy needed for future generations was recorded, but that which was not needed was not recorded.” If anyone had recorded their words, he would have transgressed the prohibition that words that are transmitted orally must never be recorded even if they are uttered with holiness. As it is written, “Do not add to his words”; [i.e., do not record things meant to be transmitted orally], even if one is only adding to the Hagiographa. As it is said in Tractate Megillah 7a, “Is this [recorded in Proverbs] the only wisdom that King Solomon articulated?” [Solomon had expressed much more wisdom than what was revealed in Proverbs, yet no one was allowed to record it].",
+ "[The only prophecy that may be written] is the twenty-four holy books, [even though] much of it consists of narratives. Nevertheless, they were intended to be recorded in holiness through prophecy or Divine inspiration. It is easy to understand [as will be explained shortly], that in addition to that which is revealed, [the narratives in the Prophets and Hagiographa were in many instances intentionally] distorted in order to teach Israel the wisdom and knowledge that is veiled within the words. There is not a single verse [in Scripture] that does not hint of secrets [of the Torah], the mysteries of science, or matters of ethics. If it appears to us that the [Books of the Prophets] lack substance, it only seems that way to us due to our deficient understanding. This is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Peah, 1:1: [When Scripture states]: “For it is not an empty thing for you, [for it is your life],…” this is referring to the Torah. For if it appears empty to you, why is this so? This is because you do not toil in the study of Torah. [When Scripture states], “For it is your life,” [when is it your life]? It is your life when you toil in the study of Torah. [The Torah is not “an empty thing” to you when it becomes “your life”; when you toil in its study].”",
+ "So it is with any [of the prophetic words] that God commanded to be written. As stated in Bereshis Rabbah 85, “The Book of Daniel was not written in chronological order, so that people should not say that it was merely a historical account. [Rather, it is] in order for all to know that he [Daniel] uttered [these words] through Divine inspiration.” The meaning of this midrash is, since [the Book of Daniel] was not written in chronological order – the way in which it would be written if it originated in the human intellect – it is then understood that this book contains concealed matters, and for this reason it needed to be written in this manner. If this was said of the Book of Daniel, which is in the Hagiographa and written in Aramaic, how much more so are the books of the Prophets which are even greater in holiness [written in an ambiguous way, as they conceal hidden matters]. It is because of this [Divine plan] that there are many verses in which because of either extraneous or missing words, the language does not appear to be [written] in a precise manner. All of the thirty-two rules of aggadic exegesis and all the toil of the more straightforward expounders of Biblical text [do not provide] sufficient explanations, or elevate one’s understanding [of the verses], so that one could understand why it was written in an ambiguous manner [and what it intended to teach].",
+ "Similarly, in the Torah there are many verses [that are ambiguously written] as described by the Parchon, s.v. Ulai. Therefore, one is obliged to say that [unusual wording in a verse] does not lack purpose. Rather, the purpose of writing [Scripture in this manner] is to inform us that hidden in the language of the verses are “hidden treasures,” in addition to the revealed and simple meaning of the text. This also applies to the Prophets and Hagiographa, for they are God’s words.",
+ "[WE HAVE ALREADY explained in Harhev Davar, Shofetim [Deut. 18:18], what the Prophet Ezekiel stated in 2:10 [“He spread it before me, and it was written within and without, and there was written therein lamentations, moaning, and woe”]. This view was also expressed by the Ra’avad in his Hassagos [on the Rambam], towards the end of chapter 2, in the Laws of Megillah. There he stated that there is no book in Scripture that does not contain additional information [external] to the book’s main theme. It is thus understood that one should not compete with Scripture or believe that he can compose language that is equal in beauty. [Nonetheless], there are those who believe that their compositions are even more eloquent than Scripture. However, this is mere vanity, for these [compositions] lack the Living Spirit [embedded] within Scripture – that is, Divine inspiration. For throughout Scripture there are many hints regarding many matters – a feat that would be impossible to accomplish without Divine inspiration. This is similar to one who draws a picture of a man or some other living being. There are some whose [drawings] depict the human being as more beautiful than the thing itself. This does not imply that the one who draws a beautiful picture of a man is a greater artist than the Master of Nature. For since [the artist] is only creating a lifeless form [of a man], he can make a human look better [than the way he appears in real life]. This is not so with one who possesses a living spirit, [whose form] is a result of many factors in nature; he is created with defective and unpleasant [characteristics], [but the reason for many of these deficiencies is unknown] to us since they originate from the secrets of nature.",
+ "Similarly, since parables composed by human beings are comparable to lifeless forms, their wording can be refined so that they are more attractive. This is not so with Holy Scripture, since it contains the living spirit of Divine inspiration. Therefore, the hints and secrets [that Scripture desires to convey] constrain and make it impossible for them [the Prophets] to express [their words] in refined language, because they must also convey [the hints and secrets embedded in their words] which are their splendor and majesty.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "CAN INFERENCES UNRELATED TO THE CONTEXT OF THE VERSE OR PARASHAH BE MADE FROM THE PROPHETS AND HAGIOGRAPHA?
SINCE SCRIPTURE is written in a [deliberately] ambiguous manner, it led our rabbis in many instances to make inferences regarding the intent [of Scripture], some related to the context of the parasha and others unrelated to the context. Derivations related to the context are, for example, those of the sages, of blessed memory, found in the Toras Kohanim, Mechilta, Sifrei and Midrashim that add flavor to the contextual exegesis. On the other hand, [the sages also] expounded [verses] in a manner that was not related to the context of that section of Scripture at all. For example, our sages concluded in Tractate Kiddushin 68a, that we derive a major principle that the marriage of a Jew to a Canaanite slave is ineffective, from a verse [in the narrative of the Binding of Isaac], “[And Abraham said to his young men], you stay here with the donkey,” [since, like a donkey, the Canaanite slave is a chattel of his master]. [Another example is the way the sages derived a law pertaining to the halachic definition of bread and matzah from a verse in a passage discussing the punishments God will inflict on the Jewish people if they do not follow His commandments]. The verse states, “Ten women will bake your bread in one oven” [because people will be so destitute]. Pesahim 37b states that R. Yehuda derives from this verse that only dough baked in one oven is considered bread, meaning that [halachically] it is not considered to be bread if it has [first been fried] and then baked. [Since] it is not considered bread, it is exempt from the requirement that hallah must be taken. Many other examples of derivations of laws not related to the context could also be cited.",
+ "One can also find more extensive applications of this method of derivation external to the context of a passage in the Aggadah. There, deductions and exegesis relate to ethics and rules of proper conduct. This approach of inferring [concepts and laws] both related and unrelated to the context of a passage, is equally applicable to the Prophets and Hagiographa, because they were written through prophecy or Divine inspiration. Contextual inferences permit many possible interpretations of a particular verse, and this is the essential value of something being written through holy inspiration. See the Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 14, where it states pertaining to the verse, “‘I will proffer my opinion from afar, etc.’ (Job 36:3) If this verse was said by Elihu of his own accord, he is entitled to praise; if through Divine inspiration, [he is entitled] to supreme praise.” [If the verse originated through Divine inspiration], it [can provide us with many insights] through the various interpretations [pertaining to the context that may be found in this midrash]. Examples of [inferences from the Prophets and Hagiographa] not related to the context of the passage can be found in [the mishnah in Tractate Shabbos] 83b: “From where do we know that a ship is not susceptible [to tumah contamination? From a verse [Proverbs 30:19, 20], ‘Four things I do not know… when a ship in the heart of the sea [has passed].’” [Another example can be found] in Tractate Eruvin 73a, in which R. Yehuda ben Bava allows slaves who live in separate houses in a courtyard shared with their master to be considered as a single household. [His ruling is] based on the verse, “Daniel [a servant in the royal household] was in the gate of the king.” [Further] see Tractate Hagigah 26a, where it states, “During the festival, ammei ha-aretz are trusted regarding even the spiritual purity of Terumah. Whence is this [law] known? R. Yehoshua ben Levi, said, ‘A verse states: All the men of Israel gathered to the city like one man, haverim, comrades.’” [We see from this verse that when Jews gather in one place] during the Festivals, Scripture considers them all haverim.",
+ "We also find this method [of making unrelated inferences from the Prophets and Hagiographa] in the Aggadah. See Tractate Berachos 10b, where it states [pertaining to what the Shunammite woman said to her husband regarding the prophet Elisha’s holiness, “She said to her husband, ‘See now, I know that he is a holy man of God], who passes by us tamid, regularly.’” R Yose ben R. Hanina said in the name of R. Eliezer ben Yaakov: [the word tamid in this verse teaches] that if anyone hosts a Torah scholar in his house and gives him benefit from his belongings, Scripture looks upon him as though he brought tamid offerings to the Altar.” Certainly the Shunammite woman did not intend [to teach this ethical concept], but since the prophet, [under Divine inspiration], articulated her words [in a particular way], they invited homiletical interpretation. All of Scripture is “like a hammer that breaks the rock into pieces,” [having numerous interpretations] that [emanate from the verses], just as sparks shoot forth [from the anvil of the mason]. Some sparks land where he [the mason] stands, while others land in outlying locations that he never anticipated they would reach. Similarly, Scripture hints of many matters and secrets, even those that do not relate in way to the context of the passage.",
+ "[This concept] can be used to interpret Tractate Megillah 7a, where there is a disagreement as to whether the Book of Esther was composed for the purpose of reading [on Purim], or for being written down and included in the Holy Scriptures. [According to the understanding of Tosafos, Shemuel is of the opinion that the Megillah is not to be written down but to be taught verbally and on Purim recited from memory]. Tosafos then questions [this ruling of Shemuel], as [the mishnah in Megillah 17a] rules that the Megillah must be read from a written text, not from memory. [Based on his interpretation of Shemuel], Tosafos is pressed to answer that it was the rabbis who ruled that it should be written [and read on Purim from a text]. However, my understanding is that [both opinions agree that the Book of Esther must be written]. Their disagreement is whether or not it was composed under Divine inspiration for the sole purpose of being read on Purim to publicize the miracle. If it was not written for any other purpose [than Purim] it would not be worthy of being included among the Holy Scriptures, even though it was written under Divine inspiration. It would be similar to the words of the other prophets that were not [allowed] to be written, because they did not contain any other subject matter hinted [at in their words], which were applicable only to a particular time [or circumstance]. Similarly, if the Book of Esther was written only in order to publicize the miracle of Purim for subsequent generations, it should not be considered conducive to interpretations other than those that relate to the particular context. [If however, the Book of Esther] was written [under Divine inspiration] to be included in Holy Scripture, like the Book of Daniel, etc., one therefore might derive from it [concepts and laws] that are unrelated to the context.",
+ "It appears to me that [that this difference between Shemuel and the other rabbis] is echoed in the disagreement regarding how to explain the verse [in the Book of Esther], “They confirmed and took upon themselves….” Shemuel, consistent with his argument [that the Book of Esther was written only to be read in order to publicize the miracle of Purim], concludes that this verse relates solely to Purim. [According to Shemuel] the verse indicates that they confirmed above [in the Heavenly court] that which [the Jews] undertook below [in the earthly court]. According to Rava, the verse is positing that [the Jews] affirmed in the days of Ahashverosh that which [Israel] had already accepted in the days of Moses. It is from this verse that it is derived that “they established in the days of Ahashverosh that which they had already accepted in the days of Moses.” There are strong grounds for believing [that at Mount Sinai] the people were coerced into accepting the Torah, but “[nevertheless they accepted the Torah again willingly in the days of Ahashverosh].” [We therefore see] that Rava proclaimed [a principle] pertaining to the Torah, [based on the Book of Esther], which demonstrates [that the Book] was composed to be included in the Holy Scripture [since concepts and laws] can be derived from it, even though they do not specifically pertain to the context of the [story of Purim]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WHY A SCHOLAR MUST BE PROFICIENT IN THE TWENTY-FOUR BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE
[USING THE ABOVE-MENTIONED] explanations, we can now arrive at the proper interpretation [of the previously cited] Midrash Rabbah on the parshah of Ki Sissa. Let us start by noting that when the Midrash states that a Talmudic scholar must be proficient in the twenty-four books, it clearly cannot mean that he should become versed in Scripture superficially, that is, without examining its meaning. [A superficial understanding] will not benefit his scholarship. This would be analogous to a bride who carries her ornaments crumpled in her hands. In this situation, the ornaments do not make her beautiful in the eyes of others. In fact, the opposite occurs, for she then makes it known to everyone that she lacks intelligence and does not understand the real value of those valuable items and how to use them. Therefore, the meaning of the Midrash is that a Talmudic scholar must be diligent in translating the texts [of the verses properly] and [then] extracting from them the wisdom, ethics, and good character traits that are expected of him at a particular time. The extent to which one understands the Holy Scriptures is proportional to the level of wisdom of the particular scholar. Just as a bride’s ornaments are of varied worth and beauty, so is it certainly true that a scholar who is erudite in Scripture becomes more recognized than Talmud scholars [who lack this Scriptural erudition]. Nevertheless, in general, [the twenty-four books bring some form of honor] to [every] Talmud scholar who becomes accustomed to infer [various] matters from Scripture, as he becomes clothed in righteousness and the fear of God. There is no aspect of ethics or wisdom in the world to which Holy Scripture does not allude, whether by using terms that are unexpected or different from common usage, or by the doubling of words in the verses. Our sages of blessed memory searched throughout the Book of Ben Sira and, except for one phrase, they could not find there a single concept that was not alluded to by Scripture, as described in Tractate Sanhedrin 100b. It is known that the Book of Ben Sirah is filled with many rules of proper conduct and ethics, and it must be that the sages knew all of these [precepts] by studying the Holy Scriptures. The interpretation of the Midrash in Ki Sissa is now very clear. Just as a bride is involved with her dowry and all the other details necessary to enter the marital home, she also strives to find favor in the eyes of her groom and of all those who rejoice with her. Similarly, becoming a Talmud scholar entails, in addition to learning all the essential laws necessary for practicing [Judaism], clothing oneself in the proper character traits, ethics and wisdom that are hinted at in the twenty-four books so as to find favor in the eyes of God and man. Through this [understanding], his path becomes pure and righteous in his daily affairs, so that he is concerned with the love of his fellow men, protecting their honor, and pursuing their interests, desires, betterment and welfare. Through him [the Talmudic scholar], the Name of Heaven becomes sanctified. This is stated in Tractate Berachos, in the chapter entitled Ha-Roeh, pertaining to the verse, “You shall love God,” [so] “that the Name of Heaven shall be beloved through him, so that people will say, ‘Fortunate is his father and the teacher who taught him Torah.’”",
+ "[SINCE ALL THE WORDS of the sages contain hidden meanings], for “honey and milk are under their tongue,” [it is our duty to understand the symbolism of every facet of an example or metaphor found in their parables]. The reason that our sages of blessed memory used a parable of a bride [with twenty-four ornaments] as representing [the twenty-four books], is that a woman who is not a bride does not wear the twenty-four ornaments, for if she does, people may suspect her of being a harlot. Similarly, one who is not a Talmudic scholar should not be “dressed” in the twenty-four books of Holy Scripture. [This means that] he should not write commentaries and publish them; indeed, he should not study them deeply. If someone wishes to interpret [Scripture] according to his own understanding and has not grasped the opinions of our sages of blessed memory, there is concern that he may be a heretic and that he is distorting the verses to suit his own opinion.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "ALL CONCEPTS AND LAWS FOUND IN THE PROPHETS AND HAGIOGRAPHA ARE CONTAINED IN THE TORAH
IT IS WELL-KNOWN how, in Ta’anis 9b, R. Yohanan asked rhetorically: “Is it possible that there is something in the Hagiographa to which Moses did not allude in the Torah?” In the Midrash Rabbah to Naso 10, it also states, “[You will find that in this section Moses intimated that Samson would become a Nazirite]. This is to teach you that there is nothing in the Prophets and Hagiographa that Moses did not refer to in the Torah.” It is because of this understanding that the [sages] toiled and searched, striving to find many hints in the Torah of matters that were explicitly stated in the Holy Scripture [of the Prophets and Hagiographa]. [For example, in Tractate Yoma 38b, the Gemara asks from where it is known that “the mention of a righteous one is for a blessing.” The Gemara first argues that [this is obvious], as it is known from an [explicit] verse [in Proverbs 10:7]. The [Gemara] then [clarifies the issue] and determines that the real question is where this concept is known in the Torah. See also [the eighth] chapter [of Bava Kamma entitled] Ha-hovel, [which demonstrates] that the Sages labored and found many ethical concepts and rules for proper conduct [that are alluded to] in the verses of the Torah.",
+ "Indeed, the [spiritual and mental] strength of the early generations was very great, and, as a result, they [already] saw in the Torah the illuminating insights that were later incorporated in the writings [of the Prophets and Hagiographa]. They accomplished this by applying intricate exegesis to the Torah, perceiving the variations of each and every stroke of the letters. Due to their brilliant intellect, which shone before them, [they made manifest] that which was merely hinted at in [the Torah]. [Although they limited their exegesis to the Torah, they discerned the principles enshrined in the later writings and] could [also] be described as being diligent in the study of the twenty-four books. I mean to say is that [the earlier generations] were able to grasp [solely] from the Torah those insights which the later generations [could] acquire [only] through [studying] the twenty-four books of Holy Scripture.",
+ "We can now understand the Gemara of Nedarim 22b: “Had [the people of] Israel not sinned, they would have received only the Torah and the Book of Joshua.” The Gemara is stating that all [those concepts] which we find today and which were derived from the twenty-four books, the [Jewish nation] had derived [in earlier generations] from the Torah of Moses. However, when the people sinned [beginning with the golden calf], their eyes dimmed and their intellect could no longer understand all that was contained [within the Torah]. Therefore, they were given the Prophets and Hagiographa so they could draw from them what was needed to bring bliss to the Jewish soul. In fact, these are the very same words of the Midrash Rabbah to Koheles that I cited in Chapter 1 [of this section]: “[The people of Israel] were given all of the Scriptures [consisting] of the Prophets and Hagiographa in order to toil in [studying them] as well as the Torah, and perform precepts and righteous acts so as to receive a good reward.” It is clear that the purpose of these Holy Books is [that people should] labor [in their study] so as to gain proper character traits and to do as much good as possible to mankind, and that they receive a just reward [by sanctifying God’s name throughout the world].",
+ "[USING WHAT WE WROTE above, we can answer an objection raised by the Ra’avad [in Mishneh Torah], Laws of Megillah 2:18 against the Rambam’s [literal interpretation of the] Jerusalem Talmud, that in the days of the Messiah, all the books [of the Hagiographa and Prophets] will be annulled, except for the Book of Esther. Ra’avad questions [why the other books of the Prophets and Hagiographa would be nullified], for in addition to the simple understanding of these texts, there are inferences made through exegesis [of these Books] that can be applied to other subject areas of the Torah. However, this is not a question at all, for in the time of the Messiah, we will have the merit to [perceive all the concepts] that are [referred to] in the Prophets and Hagiographa. [This will be accomplished without the Prophets and Hagiographa], as all of [them] are alluded to in the Torah. Then the light of the Five Books of the Torah will be a lamp for our feet, as it would have been had Israel not sinned with the [Golden] Calf.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "ISAIAH’S EXHORTATION TO THE SCHOLARS OF HIS GENERATION TO TOIL IN THE STUDY OF TORAH
WE HAVE LEARNED that one can make inferences from the Written Torah in two different ways. One approach is to make inferences based on the context of the passage, taking heed of every stroke of the letters, so that one [either] arrives at the purpose [of that verse in relation] to the Halachah, or develops a deep understanding of the story or the conversations that are recorded.",
+ "The second method uses meticulous exegesis regarding language that does not fit well with the message [that the verse or parashah] seemingly conveys. [In such a case,] one investigates [the meaning of the verse further], thereby finding much wisdom and knowledge pertaining to halachah and aggadah that is unrelated to the context [of the verse or the passage].",
+ "[These two approaches] are expressed in the verse, “If you search for her [Torah knowledge] as silver, and if you hunt for her as hidden treasures, then you shall understand the fear of the Lord….” This means that in earlier generations, one who merited to acquire Torah knowledge needed to search out the halachah through rigorous analysis of the passage, like one who toils in order to extract silver that is embedded in base metals that are found in its locale [that is, related to the context of the passage], as well as to search for treasures that are not found in its locale [that is, not related to the context of the passage]. After this, [the scholar] was required to arrange the laws [he had derived] in a well-organized manner. This is taught in the Mechilta on the parashah of Mishpatim: “‘[These are the laws] that you shall set before them.’ This teaches us that the laws should be set before [the people of Israel] as a set table.” This is also taught in Tractate Eruvin 54b, where it states, “[How is it known that a teacher should teach his students so] that it is well organized in their mouths? [As the verse states, ‘Place it in their mouths….’”].",
+ "Translator’s note: The Netziv is now going to discuss Isaiah 28:5–13. The verses are set forth here in full to help the reader see the flow of the text, unbroken by the Netziv’s commentary. In order to assist the reader further in distinguishing between the verses and the comments of the Netziv, the verses will be in bold face.
“5. On that day, the Lord of Hosts will be a beautiful crown, a glorious diadem for the remnant of His people. 6. He will be a spirit of justice for those sitting in judgment. and [He will be a spirit] of strength for those who repel attacks at the gate. 7. These too reel from wine and stagger from liquor: Priest and prophet stagger from drink, they reel from wine, and are dazed by liquor. Muddled in vision, they fail in judgment…. 9. To whom does He teach knowledge, and to whom does He impart wisdom? To those just weaned from milk and torn from the breast. 10. Commandment by commandment, commandment by commandment; measuring line by measuring line, measuring line by measuring line, a little here, a little there. 11. Indeed, one speaks to this people as with stammering lips and in a foreign language when he tells them: 12. ‘This is the rest; give rest to the weary; and this is the tranquility;’ But they refused to listen. 13. God’s Word to them will be lesson by lesson, line by line, line by line, a little here, a little there, that they may go and fall backward, and be broken, snared, and captured.” The Prophet Isaiah elaborated on this subject in the Book of Isaiah 28:5–13. Since there is no halachah that is [clearly] explicated in the written Scripture, Isaiah had to demonstrate to the Talmudic scholars of his generation the extent to which one must toil in the study of Torah in order to ascertain the true halacha. In his reproach against the [excessive] indulgences of man [at that time, Isaiah explains how the scholars and judges depend on Divine assistance]: “On that day, the Lord of Hosts will be a beautiful crown, a glorious diadem for the remnant of His people. He will be a spirit of justice for those sitting in judgment.” (For he that sits in the seat of judgment is dependent on Heavenly support, as [Scripture] states, “…in the midst of Judges shall He judge.”) [The Prophet continues], “and [He will be a spirit] of strength for those who repel attacks at the gate.” (It is explained in Tractate Megillah 15b, that this verse has reference to those who thrust and parry [in the battle] of Torah. For the Holy One, Blessed be He, provides a spirit of strength [to enable the scholars to apply] pilpul and to establish the halachah [according to the] true intent of the Torah.) The Prophet then continues [while chastising the scholars for their excessive indulgences]: “These too reel from wine and stagger from liquor,” etc.",
+ "After which the Prophet continues, “To whom is He teaching knowledge?” (this pertains to the judges) “and to whom is he imparting wisdom?” (to whom, meaning those who debate and refute arguments at the gate of the academy). “To those just weaned from milk,” (for there were many Jews in Isaiah’s time who were accustomed to eating dairy foods; as Solomon stated in Proverbs, “There will be enough goats’ milk for your food, for the food of your household, and life [sustenance] for your maidens.” [A further proof that dairy products, rather than meat, were their main staple], can also be seen in Tractate Hullin in the chapter entitled Kissui ha-dam, “‘…will ensnare,’ teaches us that one should not eat meat except after much preparation.” Since the [people at that time] were in excellent health, it was proper for a Talmud scholar to reduce his food intake even of dairy foods. As it is taught in a mishnah in [Avos], “This is the way of Torah: Eat bread with salt, [drink water in small measure],” etc. Isaiah [also] directed this admonition [against excessive indulgences] towards those “weaned” from dairy foods. [For if a Talmud scholar conducts his life in such a manner], he will then have the ability to make rulings and understand legal discussions. One can also add in homiletic fashion [that the phrase, “weaned from milk,” is referring to Talmudic scholars].",
+ "Tractate Berachos 63b says [pertaining to the verse], “‘For the churning of milk produces cream…’: [This teaches], Who produces the cream of Torah? The one who regurgitates the milk that he imbibed from his mother’s breasts” [i.e., those who are “weaned.” “Weaned,” as stated in Isaiah, refers to the Talmudic scholars, for they drink from the Torah’s milk – knowledge – from which they produce “cream” – in other words, laws]. “…and torn from the breast,” (refers to a diminution in the indulgences of life; Scripture compares these indulgences to breasts, as seen in Proverbs 5:19, “Let her breasts satisfy you at all times….” It is known from the Talmudic chapter entitled Kinyan ha-Torah that a [non-indulgent lifestyle] is one of the conditions enabling [a person] to acquire [the knowledge of Torah].",
+ "(The Prophet then elaborates as to why reduced indulgence is necessary preparation for acquiring Torah). “Commandment by commandment, commandment by commandment.” (For there are two categories of commandments – positive and negative – and the Talmudic scholar is required to have a deep understanding and knowledge of the characteristics of both). “… Measuring line by measuring line, measuring line by measuring line….” (Just as there are two different types of commandments, there are two types of middos, guidelines. The first type [consists] of the rules by which the Torah is elucidated. These rules are called middos because [the applicability of] these rules of inference are dependent upon the subject and upon received traditions. In other words, for every interpretive rule, there are conditions and procedures as to how and when these laws are to be inferred, and in which areas they should or should not be derived. [For example], in the area of kodashim, there is the limiting rule that a law derived by exegesis cannot be used to teach another law by exegesis. There are many other similar examples. “Tradition” means that many conclusions were drawn from kal va-homer, the rules of minor to major, that were received from Sinai, as it is stated in Tractate Temurah 15b: “Many instances of kal va-homer were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses.” This means that without the tradition defining when to could apply the kal va-homer, they would not have applied it. (Netziv’s addendum – See [Ha’amek She’elah] 167:2, noting that a kal va-homer can be rejected based on a logical refutation; however, if the law was received [from earlier generations] based on proofs and inference from Scripture, we apply that kal va-homer and do not refute it [since they had traditions as to the applicability of a kal va-homer that are no longer available to us] – End of Netziv’s Addendum).",
+ "The second type of guidelines pertains to ethics and appropriate conduct. These rules of good conduct are not immutable laws, but only applicable to a particular time and circumstance. As it states, “A wise man will know time and manner.” This means that [the scholar] must be flexible, [and keep his unique character traits] and distinctive moral principles for the right moment and circumstances. That is why these rules are described by the word middos, [which can also be translated as “measure” or “calculation”], for one needs to measure [or calculate] when these rules are applicable. In the days of Isaiah, the two types of rules, [that is, the rules of inference and the rules of conduct], were also known as kav [measuring lines] because their applicability is bounded by constraints).",
+ "[The Prophet then continues], “…a little here, a little there?” (All is not explicitly stated in the Torah, as each law and rule is only hinted to or alluded to in scattered [places], and [one only finds] “a little here and a little there.” Therefore, a scholar needs to toil greatly in order to succeed in comprehending [the rules], so he can gather and collect them in such a way that they are readily accessible as a set table).",
+ "“Indeed, one speaks to this people as with stammering lips and in a foreign tongue….” ([This means that] God communicates with Israel as one who stammers. For one does not grasp [what a stammerer wishes to say] until after he hears him stutter a great deal to express one word, and then he listens to more stuttering, after which he perceives another piece [of what the person wishes to express]. [Similarly with Torah study], one infers a law from one story [in Scripture] that may relate to the context of the event and then glean from another story additional information related to the same mitzvah; though the [additional] information is unrelated to the context [of the first story]. [Moreover], even when [a law] has been derived from [a passage] that deals with the context of the derived law, it is similar to hearing information from someone who speaks a foreign language. When one speaks in a foreign tongue, one may be expressing oneself in clear language and in a well-organized way. Nevertheless, the listener, [who does not understand that dialect], does not comprehend what he is saying. He, [the listener], requires an interpreter to translate [the other person’s words properly so as to express] the intent of the speaker. Similarly, even to derive [laws] related to the context [of a passage], it would not be possible to perceive His intent, may He be blessed, without the assistance of the interpreters, that is, the sages of blessed memory [who received the laws and their sources] from the [traditions] given from one generation to another. Therefore [a scholar] must toil with [even] greater diligence to perceive the teachings [of Scripture] that he did not receive by tradition).",
+ "“…when he tells them: “This is menuhah, rest….” (It was known to the people of Israel that the Torah was called “rest” from Jacob’s blessing to Issachar: “He saw that rest was good and that the land was pleasant, yet he bent his shoulder to bear, and he became an indentured laborer.” As it has already been explained in the [Midrash Rabbah], the word “rest” refers to the Torah. The subject of this verse is that it was the custom of the tribes of Israel to set apart a fund [to support] the soldiers and [cover] their expenses. It is known that men of valor [due to their involvement with military affairs] cannot immerse themselves in the study of Torah, nor are they able to settle the Land [of Israel]. Therefore, for this reason, Jacob blessed Issachar, for he [Issachar], saw that the “rest” of the Torah was good, and that the land was pleasant. [Jacob] did not wish to [bless Issachar] with valorous men, for they loved “to rest between the boundaries,” [that is, to sit and toil in the study of Torah day and night].",
+ "This [trait of Issachar] also appears to be [demonstrated] in I Chronicles, chapter 12, which lists the thousands of men of war from the various tribes who came to [enlist under] King David. [From] Issachar [instead of men of war], there came “men who had understanding of the times,” and all of Israel was in agreement, [as it states, “and all of Israel followed their counsel”]. (Though King David later converted the men [of Issachar into soldiers], as it states in I Chronicles, chapter 7, “Of the sons of Issachar… mighty men of valor… their number in the days of David was [twenty two thousand six hundred].”) Since [the tribe of Issachar did not have men who were dedicated to being warriors], “he [Issachar] bent his shoulder,” that is, paid taxes [that covered the expenses of the soldiers] provided by the other tribes. Isaiah, on seeing that Jacob told his sons that with Torah comes rest, he said, “This is rest.”)",
+ "“Give rest to the weary…” (“Rest” does not mean the mere absence of toil, but rather that one should [sit and] labor in the study of Torah, and then the Torah will work for him [so that he can] understand and gain its insights. As it states in Tractate Sanhedrin 99b [pertaining to the verse], “When the soul toils, the soul then toils for him”: “He toils in one place, while the Torah toils for him in another.” Tractate Eruvin 21b, states, “Pertaining to the verse, ‘“[… his locks are wavy], and black as a raven”: [The words “locks are wavy,” teach that we can pile up mounds of expositions on every stroke of the letters of the alphabet. “Black as a raven” [teaches us] in whom one finds [accomplished scholarship] ─ in the one who attends the study hall day and night, [and studies the Torah constantly].",
+ "“This is the tranquility” (If it is true that the Torah makes one toil, why is it called “rest?” Because toil in the study of Torah is unlike any other labor, [for it] brings the soul “tranquility.” As it states in the Midrash on Psalms, pertaining to the verse, “Praiseworthy is the man whom God disciplines and whom You teach from Your Torah”: There is no man who does not suffer [some form of] affliction. Some suffer from a toothache and cannot sleep, others suffer from a stomachache and cannot sleep, and others toil in the study of Torah and cannot sleep. [Physical pain] is a form of affliction, and [the toil of Torah] is [also] a form of affliction. This is the meaning of the verse, “Praiseworthy is the man whom God disciplines, and whom You teach from Your Torah,” for man has been destined [by God] to toil [in the world], and fortunate is the man whose toil is in the study of Torah. This is because [the toil of Torah is unique] in bringing tranquility to the soul, and that is [true] rest.)",
+ "“…But they refused to listen.” (The Prophet is saying that the sages of [Isaiah’s] generation were not heedful of his words to toil in the study of Torah by following an abstemious lifestyle and reducing their involvement in daily affairs [the unrestrained indulgences of life]).",
+ "“God’s word to them will be commandment by commandment, measuring line by measuring line, measuring line by measuring line…” (Because [they do not listen to the words of the Prophet] all the commandments and all the [aforementioned] rules will be perceived by them in haphazard fashion, not [in an orderly way] that would be required for one who merits to [acquire a proper understanding of the Torah].)",
+ "“… That they may go and stumble backward, and be broken, snared, and captured!” (One who wishes to produce rules of thumb and to understand legal discussions must recall what he has already learned and use the knowledge and memories contained at the back of his head and brain, as stated by R. Avraham Ibn Ezra in the Torah portion of Yisro, in his Introduction to the Ten Commandments. After [the scholar has them well organized in his mind], he must apply pilpul to what he has grasped by working out, in an intelligent and straightforward manner, what the various concepts may have in common. However, if his knowledge is not well organized [in his mind], he will have to retract, [i.e., “go backward” into the deep recesses of his brain], so as to recall what he has learned. As a result he will “be broken,” [his knowledge will be fractured and he will be unable] to reach the true solution. The consequence is that, Heaven forbid, he will become “ensnared” in incorrect decisions. This is the meaning of the words “snared and captured,” as it is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud in the first chapter of Tractate Peah, pertaining to the verse, “[For God]… will keep your foot from becoming ensnared.” R. Dosa stated that this refers to [how God protects a person] from [erroneous] halachic decisions."
+ ],
+ [
+ "SOLOMON SEARCHED THE TORAH TO FIND LAWS AND CONCEPTS THAT PERTAIN BOTH TO EARTHLY LIFE AND TO THE HEAVENLY REALM
Translator’s note: The Netziv in this chapter will be explaining the verse, “Koheles sought to find words of hefetz, delight, and that which was written in a straightforward manner, even words of emes, truth.” (Koheles 12:10)
[TO SUMMARIZE WHAT we have explained until this point,] we stated in Part 1, Koheles directed his heart such that, “he taught the people knowledge,” enabling the people to perceive the rationale for the laws his generation had received. The previously cited verse, “Not only was Koheles wise; he also taught the people knowledge,” was interpreted to mean that Solomon taught others the methods [the previous generations] used for deriving [laws] received [by his generation]. [This method] comprised of analyzing hints contained in the Written Torah, as stated in Tractate Eruvin: the verse, “he also taught the people knowledge,” means that [Solomon] “taught them through signposts, [and explained the laws with analogies].” Rashi explains that [Solomon] established traditions and signs that could be applied to the words of the Scripture and the Mishnah, i.e., the Oral Law. [Rashi] means to say that through meticulous analysis of the language of Scripture or the Oral Law, Solomon found proofs for the received [laws and traditions].",
+ "Along these lines, [Solomon] continues, “Koheles sought to find words of hefetz” (delight) – i.e., he sought to discover insights by searching out laws that were not placed [where they seemingly should be]. This is like a person searching for gems, who finds precious stones intermingled with a multitude of rocks and dirt that are worthless [to him]; these types of gems are called “stones of delight.” Similarly, the form of exegesis called “words of delight” applies to the situation that occurs when one is hunting for a given word, idea, or concept at a particular moment, and he finds it alluded to within a multitude of words unrelated to the subject of his present search.",
+ "Solomon sought to find hints of laws from words scattered [throughout the Torah], outside their expected context. The verse describing the process of finding “words of delight” also states, “… that which was written in a straightforward manner….” This means [that Solomon also tried] to understand the passage in a straightforward manner related to the context. Obviously, this does not mean that that he sought a superficial understanding of Scripture, i.e., reading [and understanding] the verses as children are taught in school. Rather, this verse intends to [teach that Solomon sought] to find hints [in Scripture] through rigorous exegesis and analysis of each stroke of the letters. When he exerted himself and toiled in this effort, he attained much wisdom and knowledge.",
+ "Solomon then stated that the written words of Scripture are “words of emes, truth.” Solomon was not, Heaven forbid, arguing that the value of Torah is limited to words of truth and the absence of falsehoods. [This could not be so], as the value of Torah is described in Proverbs, not in Koheles. Furthermore, did not Solomon communicate with the people who believed with all their heart and soul that the Holy One, blessed be He gave us the Torah? If this is so, who could not know that the Torah consists of words of truth?",
+ "Rather, Solomon has a deep-based intention regarding this matter: he explains why God communicates [through Scripture] as if He were speaking with “stuttering lips” or in a “foreign tongue” that requires one to search out “words of delight” and “straightforward words.” The reasoning is that since they are words of truth, it was necessary that they be written in such a manner. [To pursue this argument further] we will begin by examining the blessing [recited over the Torah]: “…Who gave us the Torah of truth and implanted eternal life within us.” This has already been explained by the Shulhan Aruch, [Orah Hayyim], 139:10 in that “Who gave us the Torah of truth,” refers to the Written Torah, while [the phrase], “and implanted eternal life within us,” speaks of the Oral Law. At first glance the [wording of this blessing] is incomprehensible, for if God gave us the Torah, it naturally follows that it is the truth. How can it possibly be the opposite?",
+ "However, [within this blessing] is contained a deep matter that has been revealed to us by the holy man of God, Nahmanides, in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Torah, [where it states], “We have an additional tradition of truth that the entire Torah is composed from the names of the Holy One, blessed be He.” (Netziv’s addendum – See the holy Zohar at the beginning of the Torah portion of Korah. This is also the intent of what the sages wrote in Tractate Berachos 55a: “Betzalel knew how to re-combine the letters from which heaven and earth were created,” – i.e., the letters of the Torah – end of Netziv’s addendum). [Continuing the quotation from Nahmanides]: “The words [of God’s names] can be subdivided [and recombined] into names [or words] pertaining to other subjects. For example, the first verse in Bereshis can be subdivided into other words… This matter has already been discussed by our master Shlomo in his commentary on the Talmud (Netziv’s note – Tractate Sukkah 45a), pertaining to the Great Seventy–two-Letter Name contained in the verses of ‘And he went…’ ‘And he came…’ ‘And he stretched out….’” [For a fuller discussion], see the material in the holy words [of Nahmanides’s Introduction].",
+ "The intent [of Nahmanides’s words] is that it is known that the fifty gates of wisdom were created with His Names, may He be blessed, which are the components of the entire universe, as is discussed by Nahmanides [in his Introduction]. This makes it clear that the world was created with the Torah. This is what is taught in the Mishnah in Avos, Chapter 4, “The Torah is called a beloved vessel, for with it the world was created.”",
+ "Using this tradition of truth, I offer an explanation through the sayings of [our sages] of blessed memory, who stated in Avodah Zarah 3b, “During the first three hours of each day, the Holy One Blessed be He, sits and engages in the study of Torah.” This statement is not susceptible to a simple understanding. In addition, the Gemara asks, “What does God do by night?… There are those who say that God sits and listens to songs uttered by the holy Hayyos [angels]. As it is stated in the verse, ‘By day God commands His kindness, and by night His song is with me.’” [During the day God commands his kindness. Since God is occupied with the study and teaching of Torah during the day, it is obvious that the kindness He directs to His creations during the day is related to the study of Torah]. This is difficult to understand, for what kindness does the One Whose name is to be blessed perform while He is engaged in studying Torah? Rashi’s commentary [in Avodah Zarah] explains that God employs his kindness by means of judging, sustaining and teaching Torah [to the souls of children who died very young]. Rashi’s interpretation of this Gemara is that for most of the day God engages in acts of kindness, but in the first three hours of each day, He engages in the self-study of Torah, so to speak. However, the inferences from the verse [in Psalms] do not seem to be as [explained by Rashi].",
+ "It appears that the explanation of the [Talmudic statement] that the Holy One blessed be He, sits and engages in the study of Torah, is [found in the words] formulated by the Men of the Great Assembly in the blessing [pertaining to] God’s creation of the luminaries. Within that blessing it is stated, “In His goodness, He constantly renews the work of creation every day.” It is clear that [God] renews Creation in the same manner in which He created it originally, i.e., with His holy names, which are the basic laws of the Torah. [God’s] engaging [in the study of Torah] is called kindness, [since it results in creation. As is stated in the blessing pertaining to the creation of the luminaries], “[Give thanks] to Him who makes the great luminaries, for His kindness endures forever.”",
+ "According to what I have written, this clearly explains what we indicate in the text of the blessing, “In His goodness, He constantly renews the work of creation every day.” The term “He renews,” means exactly what it says: for there is no day comparable to another in [the realm] of the Most-High Source. This is written in the book Nefesh ha-Hayyim, Sha’ar 2:13 pertaining to Tikkunei Tefillah. Even though in [the realm] under the sun there is nothing new within the nature of creation, nevertheless [in the realm] above the sun, there is a certain degree of change and renewal. This renewal is achieved through the variations in the combining of His Names, blessed be He, which is the origin of new laws before the Holy One blessed be He. This [concept] is brought by our sages in Bereshis Rabbah 49: “There is not a single day that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not originate a new law in the Heavenly Court, as it states, ‘Hear attentively the fury in His voice, and the sound that emanates from His mouth.’” God does not, Heaven forbid, change any of the Torah laws that He has given us to teach and practice, for decisions about Halachah is “not in [the hands] of Heaven.” [The interpretation of this Midrash] is that before God, may He be blessed, [i.e., in His Heavenly Realm, He] changes the combinations [of His holy names] and the nature of creation in whichever manner.",
+ "What we have [so far] explained is implied in what Scripture states in Proverbs 8:30–31: “Then I was with Him as a nursling, and I was daily sha’ashu’im, ‘all delight’, playing always before Him: playing in His habitable land, and my delights are with the sons of men.” [To understand these verses properly], one needs to understand why there is a duplication of words, and why there is a variation in the words where the Torah is first described as a delight and then as that with which one plays. In addition, why in the first verse is playing mentioned before delight, while in the second verse, delight is placed before playing? [The answer] is that [these verses] describe the two types of forces of the Torah that we have explained. The first type refers to the combination of Divine names used in the creation of the world. This portion of the Torah does not affect the behavior of man; it is in reference to this aspect of the Torah that the verse says, “I was daily all delight.” Similarly, as used in the Talmud, [the word sha’ashu’im, should be translated as something which a person handles, such as by pasting or smoothing it over]. For God daily [directs His attention to His creations] by constantly curling and handling them, like a person who is infatuated with something.",
+ "The second aspect of the Torah consists of that which God has given us to keep and practice before the Holy One, blessed be He, by governing the world with reward and punishment for each particular nuance of Halachah. This is described [in the same verse] as “playing always before Him,” for no moment is separated from the power of God’s attention. All that is under the sun, all of that [realm], is influenced by the section of the Torah which is practiced [by man]. In reference to that which exists only before the Holy One, blessed be He [not before man], it commenced at the beginning of creation, [continues] with the daily renewal [of creation], and is followed by God’s administration [of the Heavenly realm].",
+ "However, with man this [sequence of events] occurs in reverse. [First he concerns himself with the section of the Torah relating to what he should practice, after which he concerns himself with the section that deals with the realm of creation]. First we need to occupy ourselves with the thoughts of Torah so as to know what to practice. Scripture applies to this the words, “Playing in His habitable land.” The verse is careful to specify His land, since only in Israel is it possible to fulfill all the particulars of the Torah. This is not so outside Israel, as [the Diaspora] lacks many of the mitzvos that are tied to the Land of Israel, as well as the sacrifices. It is also for this reason that the Torah is called “The law of the God of the land.” After a person merits to be as complete as possible in his practice of all the precepts that he has derived through meticulous exegesis of the Torah, he is then able and, in fact, obligated to understand the various combinations of God’s names so as to understand the various sources of creation. As is stated in Mishlei Rabbati 10, “[After a person dies] the Heavenly Court asks his soul if he knows how the Heavenly Throne exists,” and continues endlessly questioning the soul [in similar vein]. These concepts are concealed from man’s natural intellectual capabilities. It would be impossible for anyone to comprehend these secrets without the knowledge of the combinations of God’s names contained in the Torah. This is the meaning of the verse, “My delights are with the sons of men,” that wherever they may reside, if one is worthy of that knowledge [God provides it to the deserving].",
+ "After all this, the deep intent of the words [contained in the blessing over the Torah], “A Torah of truth,” is now clear. [When we recite this blessing] we are not attempting to verify the truth of the utterances of the Holy One, blessed be He, or the [truth of the] Torah or [of the] commandments given by His mouth, may He be blessed, which He gave us to practice. [Instead, we are testifying] that though we see in the Torah many human conversations and narratives that seem to lack substance – that is, although historically accurate, they nevertheless [contain great wisdom even though they do not appear] to contain any enduring or eternal matter that would merit the title of truth; (all of this is in the Holy Zohar in the parashah of Be-ha’alosecha 149b). Because of this we declare in this blessing that the entire Torah is truth. The [combination of God’s names] in the verse, “Timna was a concubine,” are equal to those found in the verse, “Hear, O Israel.” Both verses [consist of the Divine names] that are included in the essence of creation; both verses are the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is [absolute] truth.",
+ "For this reason the entire Torah is referred to as the “Truth of the Torah.” This is stated in Tractate Megillah 16b. The Megillah requires engraved lines, since it is like the “Truth of the Torah.” For a king possesses a well-known seal, and though it be small, it is like an abbreviated proclamation, for his seal represents the banners of his army, as if it were a banner proclaiming to others all that is hinted at in that abbreviated seal. Thus the word emes (truth) functions as an abbreviated seal of the names of God, may He be blessed. For emes is an abbreviation of His names, may He be blessed, [as it comprises] the first, last and middle letters of the [remaining] twenty-four letters of the Torah, and the “Truth of the Torah” is the great seal with which all the various combinations of His names, may He be blessed, are proclaimed. All this is included in the word emes (truth).",
+ "For this reason it was appropriate for Koheles to state [that the words of the Torah “are words of truth”], for [this understanding] propelled Koheles to find “words of delight” that were not found in their expected place, and to find those concepts that are related to the context, that is, written in “straightforward words.” Both are words of truth, and there is not a single letter in the Torah that does not contain a sublime purpose. It is for this reason that the letters could not be written in any manner other than in the particular order [and form] in which they are found. Hence, we rely on the Oral Law to inform us how to comprehend the Written Torah’s hints and clues pertaining both to those related and unrelated to the context."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE WISE AND THE “MASTERS OF COLLECTIONS”
AFTER KING SOLOMON searched and found that which was concealed within the Written Torah, he began to praise the power of the words of the sages: “The words of the wise are like goads, and like implanted nails are the sayings of the masters of collections….” According to the simple meaning, [Solomon] is discussing the strengths of the two categories of Torah giants that exist in every generation. Some are referred to as “wise” because they delve deeply into the Torah in order to produce [novel] laws from Scripture and return the lost laws [to us]. There are also “masters of collections” who gather the laws that are scattered throughout the Written Torah and organize them in a proper order. We wrote about this in Chapter 6 regarding the prophet Isaiah’s exhortation to [the scholars of his generation that their learning should not consist of], “a little here, a little there.” Indeed, the Torah [itself] exhorts [us] regarding this as well. As stated in Tractate Eruvin 54b, “From whence is it known that [the Jewish people must toil in the study of the Torah] until it is well organized within their mouths? [From the verse], ‘You shall place it [the Torah] within their mouths.’”",
+ "Osniel ben Kenaz and his colleagues had already organized laws, as they gathered, categorized and produced a collection of the oral laws of one mishnah [i.e., those relating to a particular subject], from the precepts that were scattered throughout the Torah. It is for this reason that [Osniel and his yeshiva] are referred to as “families of soferim.” This is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Shekalim 5:1 , [pertaining to I Chronicles 2:55, “The families of sof’rim who dwelled with Ya’abetz”]: Why [are the colleagues of Osniel] referred to as soferim, literally ‘enumerators’? Because they [grouped all the laws relating to specific topics, which] they then enumerated [according to category]: “Five types of people should not separate terumah”; “[There are] five types of [baked goods from which one is] required to separate hallah”; “Fifteen categories of women cause their co-wives to be exempt from yibbum”; “Thirty-six transgressions mentioned in the Torah are punishable by kares”; “Thirteen rules [pertain to ritual impurity] regarding the carcass of a fowl”; “There are four principal categories of damages’; ‘Thirty-nine major forms of work are forbidden on the Sabbath.” All the details [of the examples cited, which were derived by the yeshiva of Ya’abetz], were not taken from the context of one [Scriptural] location. These [categorizations] were produced by collecting the laws from various, scattered sources. [For example], the mishnah in Terumos, “Five types of people should not separate terumah: a deaf person, an insane person, a minor, one who separates [terumah] from produce that does not belong to him, and a non-Jew.” The exclusion of the deaf person, the insane person and the minor are derived from the passage pertaining to tithes given for the Tabernacle, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud at the beginning of Tractate Terumos, whereas the exclusion of the one who is not the owner of the grain comes from the verse in the section of Korah, “So shall you, too, set aside a terumah for God.”",
+ "[HOWEVER, [IT IS understood that my example does not] accord with the Midrash Tanchuma on the Torah portion of Terumah. This law is also derived from the passage about [the tithes given for the Tabernacle]: “‘From every man whose heart motivates him you shall take.’ [This teaches us] that you can only set aside for Terumah] that which is your own.”]",
+ "This same [approach] is applied to all halachic details. This method of collecting and classifying the laws is [a reflection of] the wisdom of the “Masters of Collections.” When Solomon states that “the words of the wise are like goads,” [he is referring] to the method of deriving [novel] laws from Scripture and understanding tradition properly. He compares [this method] of deriving law from Scripture, to using a goad to train an ox to walk in a proper path so that it may provide life to the world. The words of the “Masters of Collections” are like “implanted nails,” as they are nailed in a well-organized fashion, [like] saplings [that are planted in rows] so that they are readily counted, thus enabling one to keep track of the number of plants. We would not be able to count the number of nails if they were not arranged in an organized manner.",
+ "The reason Solomon added that the nails are planted rather than well-organized (a question already addressed extensively in Koheles Rabbah) may be explained according to what we have just explained. The benefit derived from the enumerations of the laws by the “masters of collections” is much greater than the advantage of having nails arranged in a well-organized fashion. Organized nails only enable us to count what is visible, whereas enumerating the Torah laws not only assists us in remembering the Torah rules themselves, such as that there are five types of people who should not remove Terumah (which does not assist one in deciding the Halachah), but also [helps us to] take care to remember the particulars of this rule. For [by understanding why these five are listed and no other,] if one of the five [Terumah] laws should be forgotten, [a scholar] will be able to toil and analyze [the particulars of the four laws he remembers] deeply in order to derive [that forgotten law and thus list the proper number] that corresponds to that enumeration. If one did not know this enumeration, it would not be possible to determine [the scope of the Terumah rule] and reinstate the proper number. For this reason, Solomon compared the benefit of [well-organized laws] to planted nails [resembling] saplings. Just as a sapling’s stem causes the roots to spread in the ground below and the branches above, so is the main purpose of a rule to cause one to remember its particulars by toiling and exerting oneself in the study of Torah. This is the plain meaning of this verse [in Koheles].",
+ "Just as there were two types of Torah giants in the time of Koheles, the “wise” and the “masters of collections,” so too do these two types of Torah giants exist throughout the generations. [For instance], Rabbi Akiva is described as being “an overflowing storehouse.” [Further,] in Avos de-Rabbi Nasan 11, it is taught: “He was like a worker who carried a basket when he went to [market to purchase grain]. When he found wheat, he put it [in the basket], when he found barley, he put it [in that basket], when he found spelt he put it in the basket…. When he returned home, he separated the wheat, the barley, etc. R. Akiva did the same [with Jewish law], as he made the entire Torah into a number of various rings [groups].”",
+ "The explanation of this [passage] is that R. Akiva possessed these two qualities of [Talmudic scholarship] in the most complete manner. When he was involved with teaching in the academy, he applied pilpul with wisdom to the various [subjects] that were discussed there. When he studied by himself, he created signs for the Torah by organizing the details of the various areas of [Jewish law] into separate collections organized [according to topic]. Afterwards he transmitted these collections to his students, [being careful] to transmit to his [best] students [specific] areas [that matched] their talents. He transmitted the Toras Kohanim to R. Yehuda and the Sifrei to R. Shimon. These [works] consist of [R. Akiva’s] inferences organized according to the order of Scripture, to which he devoted much wisdom and exegesis. [Since these works follow the sequence of Scripture], not all the laws are organized according to topic. He transmitted the Orders of the Mishnah to R. Meir, who then gathered and collected the details of various laws organized according to topic [that had] been scattered [throughout the Torah]. For instance, in the first chapter of Tractate Berachos pertaining to the [reading of the shema: the sources of the laws of reading the shema are from the Torah portions of Va-es’hannan and Ekev; the law to remember the Exodus from Egypt is derived from Re’eh, and, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, the laws of the blessings of the shema are alluded to in the verse [from Psalms], “Seven times a day I have praised you.” R. Meir collected the laws as stalks of grain and gathered them into a bundle [organized them in the first chapter of Berachos], as these laws relate to reading the shema.",
+ "These [two approaches] were also applied during the time of the building of the Talmud. Among the writings of the Talmud were works that emanated from the “words of the wise,” who derived them by meticulous analysis of the words and by delving deeply into the deep meaning of the Mishnah. In addition, there were the “masters of collections” who compiled the smaller Tractates such as Tractate Soferim. In fact, in the Gemara itself, we find [“rings”] groupings from many Amoraic statements. Indeed, [the sages] in Tractate Shabbos 104a cautioned, “Make signs for the Torah and acquire it.” Rashi explains that this refers to organizing the laws scattered throughout the six Orders of the Talmud; this constitutes “signs” for the legal traditions of a tanna or amora [that are reflected] in the wording [of the accumulated laws] so they should not be forgotten.",
+ "Similarly, after the completion of the Talmud, our masters, the She’iltos, the Bahag and Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi, functioned as the “masters of collections,” as they gathered waters from the various sections of the Talmud into a single location. This continued after them with Rambam and the like, while the master Tosafists were the “wise” who delved deeply into the understanding of the Talmud, and they made accessible the plethora of knowledge contained therein. These two types of Torah giants continued from one generation to the next, each according to his approach in wisdom, each according to his method in organization. All that has been stated in this chapter is the understanding of this verse: [“The words of the wise are like goads, and the sayings of the masters of collections, are like implanted nails…”]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "MORE ON GOADS AND NAILS
HOWEVER, the above-mentioned verse, [“The words of the wise are like goads, and like implanted nails are the sayings of the masters of collections…”], requires further investigation. First, why is “goads” written in the plural? Could Koheles not have used this word in the singular? How can we better explain and determine the ideas hinted at in this verse?",
+ "Second, why does Koheles compare [well-organized laws] to nails? They should have been compared to plants in a vineyard that are [well-arranged] in rows of two, which would better express the main intent of the verse. Certainly, there must be a deep meaning [intended by] the word “nails.”",
+ "Third, [if it is true], as described above, that “goads” relates only to the “wise,” [who make inferences,] while “nails” relates to the “masters of collections,” it would have been better for Scripture to state, “The words of the wise are as goads; the masters of collections are as implanted nails.”",
+ "One must therefore translate this verse as [follows]: “The words of the wise are like goads and implanted nails; like goads and implanted nails are the masters of collections.” [This manner of translation is similar] to how our sages applied exegesis in Tractate Bava Metzia 61a, to explain [two terms denoting interest], neshech and tarbis. [That there is such a grammatical rule is evident] by its application in numerous locations, such as explained there by the Tosafos, s.v. Kari Beih. Therefore, [based on my translation of the verse in Koheles], there are two advantages to both the “wise” and the “masters of collections” [conveyed by the words “goads” and “implanted nails”] that need to be addressed.",
+ "We will begin by expounding the [two advantages] of the “Wise,” in connection with what is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin 34a: R. Assi asked R. Yohanan, “If two [different judges] based their decisions on the same reasoning [but cited] a different verse [as the source of their reasoning], what is the law?” [R. Yohanan answered], “We consider the decisions of these two judges as being only one vote, [since a single law cannot be inferred from two different verses].” What is the source of the [rule stated by R. Yochanan]? Abbaye said, “This is learned from the verse, ‘One thing has God spoken, these two have I heard, that strength belongs to God.’ [This verse teaches us] that one verse can produce many laws, while one law could not be derived from more than one verse.” The Academy of R. Yishmael taught, “[pertaining to the verse] ‘as a hammer that breaks the rock into pieces,’ just as a hammer can produce many sparks, so can one verse [be interpreted] to produce many laws.”",
+ "[We must analyze this gemara] in order to understand it properly, for the rule itself [that one verse can be interpreted in various ways to derive many laws], is, in turn, derived from two different verses. [However], it is impossible to understand the gemara in this manner, for it states immediately above that a single rule or law cannot be derived from more than one verse. Therefore, the [two different verses] actually reflect two different aspects of this rule. There is one situation in which there is no disagreement among those who interpret the verse in numerous ways. For [although] they may derive various interpretations from the same verse, each agrees [that the other scholar’s] interpretation is valid. For example, regarding the verse, “You shall not eat [the sacrifices] with the blood,” the Toras Kohanim [on that verse] and Tractate Sanhedrin 63a derive numerous prohibitions. All these [inferences] are derivations of the true law; none contests [the validity] of the other. In addition, it is possible that the same sage can derive many laws from one verse. [Tractate Sanhedrin] 103b states that “Menashe taught fifty-five different approaches to understanding Toras Kohanim [Leviticus], while Ahav derived eighty-five different approaches, and Yerovam derived one hundred and three different interpretations.”",
+ "In this manner we can explain the verse, “One thing has God spoken, these two have I heard….” For we have heard [received], two laws that [tell us] what to practice. In truth, there is not a single verse from which one cannot derive many different interpretations. This is stated in Tractate Eruvin 21b in which R. Hisda says in the name of Mar Ukva, “Pertaining to the verse, ‘His locks are wavy,’ one may derive numerous mounds of laws from each stroke of the letters.” This [responsibility to derive numerous laws from a single verse] was given to the sages, and they must determine whether any other possible derivations can be made from a verse. Because of this, Koheles compared the sayings of the “wise” to goads, for each and every facet [of the sages’ inferences] is a goad of its own. Every interpretation [of the “wise”] indicates a path [that man should take], which [in turn] brings life to the world, as it teaches man how he should behave. [This interpretation] explains well [why] the word “goads” [is plural]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "IMPLANTED NAILS SHOW THAT EVEN REJECTED OPINIONS MUST BE STUDIED BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE INSIGHTS IN UNDERSTANDING THE TORAH
THERE IS, HOWEVER, a second method by which the sages derived several laws [from the same verse], one that was used when there was disagreement. One sage holds that a certain law is derived [from certain words in a verse], while the other sage advances an opposing opinion, arguing that a different law is to be derived [from them]. Behold, one opinion is of importance and brings life to the world [instructs us what to practice], while the second is of lesser significance and is not the accepted halachah. Perhaps, Heaven forbid, you might believe that the [rejected] opinion is null and void and is not included within the category of the light of Torah. For this reason [Jeremiah] compared [the opposing derivations by sages] to an “anvil striking a rock.” It is similar to one who strikes a rock to produce sparks so that he can light a lamp that enables one to walk in the proper path. Although when one strikes a rock he produces many sparks, he is only concerned about the [single] spark that he will use to light the lamp. Yet although the other sparks cease to exist and do not fulfill that purpose, they are unequal in how distant they are from achieving that goal. Some sparks do not travel very far, for as soon as they leave the rock, their brightness subsides and they decay until they no longer possess any light. Other sparks will last for a [longer] time and will be able to brighten the area towards where they are traveling. But some flying sparks become caught in certain things [that are flammable], and they create a large bonfire, which was not the intent of the one who struck the rock. Thus it is when the words of the sages are in disagreement.",
+ "One opinion decides the law in accordance [with accepted] practice, which is the main purpose [of Torah study, i.e., to ascertain the true halachah], while the other opinions serve no purpose [in relation] to the decided halachah. Nevertheless, these other opinions, [though they did not] fulfill the main purpose of [leading one to] the true halachah, are unequal [in their effect].",
+ "Some opinions [seem to] have [an insignificant impact], for as soon as they issue from the rock of contention, their brightness is diminished and degenerates to the extent that they no longer contain the light of Torah. For example, the sages in ancient times disputed [whether the verse], “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite may enter into God’s community,” also included a prohibition of marrying an Ammonite or Moabite woman. [Some included such women in the prohibition, while others disagreed]. At the time of the disagreement [the former view] was considered within the] category of words of Torah. [However, once] Boaz came forward, as stated in Tractate Kesubos 7b, and established the halachah for future generations [that the prohibition applies only to Ammonite or Moabite men], the Torah spark [of the rejected opinion] was totally extinguished. Therefore, one studying the opinion of Do’eg [as quoted in Tractate Yevamos], that Ammonite or Moabite women are included in the prohibition, discovers something that is dissimilar to the rest of the words of Torah. It is unlike a person studying the opinion of R. Shimon in the Mishnah in Tractate Yevamos 76b, according to which Egyptian and Edomite women are not included in the prohibition [in Deut. 23:9]. [R. Shimon’s light of Torah lasted longer and indeed was not extinguished until the Amoraic era]. So it was regarding the decision of Do’eg and Ahisophel, that they ruled it was permissible [for Absalom to marry] king David’s wife, since [in their view, King David] was subject to capital punishment and was therefore considered [legally] dead (see the beginning of Bereshis Rabbah on the Torah portion of Noah). Clearly, this opinion receded, and has no light of Torah.",
+ "In a similar manner, during the Second Temple period, there was a dispute as to whether the Hagigah sacrifice overrides the Sabbath. Tractate Pesahim 70b states that according to Yehuda ben Dortai and his son, the Hagigah sacrifice overrides the Sabbath, just as the paschal lamb does. Rav asks, “What is the reasoning of Ben Dortai?” [Rav analyzes Ben Dortai’s opinion], after which R. Ashi replies, “Must we come and explain the reasoning of those who separate themselves?” Thus we see that according to [R. Ashi], this spark had vanished and should no longer be discussed. Also see Tractate Avodah Zarah 7b, which gives [several opinions of Nahum the Mede]. After each opinion, the Gemara says: “Let this matter be forgotten and left unspoken.” According to Rashi’s second explanation, this statement is to be translated as, “Let this matter not be discussed beyond our debate,” which implies that this opinion is no longer included within the definition of Torah. Who knows how many [other] disagreements of earlier generations came to naught because their brightness was extinguished?",
+ "However, there are many disagreements in which each opinion is itself a lamp that glows with the wisdom of the Torah, even though one of the opinions is not in accordance with the decided halachah. This is obvious according to [the previously discussed] opinion of Tosafos in Part 1, chapter 3, that [individual opinions] retain their significance; for [according to Tosafos], in emergency situations we can rely on a solitary opinion that is lenient. Moreover, [this is true] even though the opinions of Rashi and the Rambam, [discussed in the above mentioned section], hold that it is impossible ever to rule in accordance with the lone opinion. For even in those places where the Gemara decides unequivocally against a certain opinion, such as when the School of Shammai argues against the School of Hillel, Halachah is not in accordance with the Academy of Shammai. Nevertheless, [Shammaite] opinions contain concepts that shed light upon other areas unrelated to the topic being debated, or have certain aspects that may be useful in determining the halachic matter under discussion.",
+ "Translator’s note: Next, the Netziv cites an example to illustrate the significance of opinions that are not in accordance with the accepted halachah. This example is complicated and contains four ways to describe the disagreement between Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis. The Netziv has also included two addenda that have been moved to appendices. If one is not comfortable with reading the Netziv’s analysis of the gemara in Tractate Berachos, one may proceed to the end of the chapter to see the way the Netziv explains how Koheles describes the significance of various differing opinions and how they pertain to the interpretation of Torah.
Take, for example, the first disagreement that occurs in the six Orders of the Talmud. The discussion relates to when one recites the shema in the evening. [There are three opinions cited in the Mishnah]. According to R. Eliezer, the shema may be recited at nightfall, beginning from the time that the kohanim, who had been tamei – ritually impure – returned home to eat their terumah, and ends at the completion of the first ashmurah [watch]. The sages say that it may be recited until midnight, while according to Rabban Gamliel it may be recited until the break of dawn. According to our [the Babylonian] Talmud, the halachah is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, whereas according to the Jerusalem Talmud, the halachah is in accordance with the sages. The opinion of R. Eliezer has certainly been halachically rejected. Perhaps you will say, Heaven forbid, that the words of R. Eliezer contain no light of Torah. However, this is not true, for his opinion provides a spark that enlightens another area [of the Torah]. We learn from his words that the night has three watches, which is in itself deep wisdom and sheds a sublime light.",
+ "In addition, by [properly understanding] the opinion of R. Eliezer, one achieves a correct understanding of the opinion of the sages. [Because of R. Eliezer’s opinion], the sons of Rabban Gamliel questioned the scope of their father’s opinion and that of the sages. As it states in Berachos 9a, [Rabban Gamliel’s sons came home from a banquet after midnight and asked their father], “Do the sages who say that one may read the shema until midnight disagree with you [regarding the Torah definition as to when the shema may be read, and therefore hold that the shema cannot be read under any circumstances after midnight], and that when there is a disagreement between the majority and minority, we follow the opinion of the majority? Or perhaps the sages agree with you on the definition of the Torah law [and concur that according to the Torah, the shema may be read until dawn], and that when they said [one may only recite the evening shema until midnight], it was only in order to distance a person from sin? Rashi explains this discussion as the following: [Do the sages disagree with your understanding of how late the Torah allows one to read the shema]? That is, do the sages agree with R. Eliezer that be-shochbecha refers only to when people are preparing to go to sleep, and their disagreement with R. Eliezer is only regarding the time period in which people prepare to go to sleep? Or do the sages perhaps agree with you [that the Torah allows one to read the shema the entire night, and be-shochbecha means when people are sleeping]?",
+ "[ONE SHOULD NOT question [why Rabban Gamliel’s sons’ questioned regarding the scope of the sages’ opinion based on what the Gemara states about the opinion of the Sages] in Berachos 4a. There the Gemara asks, “The Sages [who hold that the shema may be read only until midnight], with whom do they agree? If they hold like R. Eliezer, let them state like R. Eliezer [that the shema must be read prior to the end of the first watch]?” Rashi explains that if the sages agree with R. Eliezer, who explains be-shochbecha as ‘when people are preparing to go to sleep,’ they should not allow anyone to read the shema after the first watch, since by then, anyone who was planning to go to sleep for the night has already done so? Therefore, how could Rabban Gamliel’s sons question [the Sages’ interpretation of be-shochbecha if it is the same as defined by R. Eliezer, for then the Sages should have required the shema to be read prior to the end of the first watch?]",
+ "Although the commentaries have already discussed this issue, I would like to offer the following solution. Concerning the morning shema, there is a disagreement between the Tanna Kamma and R. Yehoshua as to when it may be read, the resolution of which depends on the definition of the Scriptural term, u-vekumecha, “and when you rise up.” According to the Tanna Kamma, the morning shema may be read only until sunrise, as that is when most people get up. However, according to R. Yehoshua, the morning shema may be read until the end of [the first] three hours [of the day], as that is when royalty arise – i.e., we take into account the period when the minority arise. Since the Talmud decides in accordance with R. Yehoshua, we consider the practices of the minority for determining the time for reading the shema, [at least in the morning], one could argue [with respect to the evening shema], that the Sages who disagree with R. Eliezer hold in accordance with R. Yehoshua that we consider the practices of the minority of people, such as Talmudic scholars and the like, who go to bed around midnight. Therefore, there is room for doubt, as expressed by the sons of Rabban Gamliel [whether the Sages accepted be-shochbecha as defined by R. Eliezer, and considered the sleeping habits of the minority as R. Yehoshua believes.",
+ "However, the Gemara [4a] questions [how anyone could suggest that the sages defined be-shochbecha as R. Eliezer did, i.e., when people are preparing to go to sleep, and considered the minority of people's sleeping habits like R. Yehoshua]. It is clear from the wording of the Mishnah that the sages do not agree with R. Eliezer regarding the evening shema, and they [also] disagree with R. Yehoshua pertaining to the morning shema. [Therefore, since the sages do not hold that we consider the sleeping habits of the minority, they must interpret be-shochbecha differently from R. Eliezer, since the sages state that one can read the shema up to midnight]. Nor does it appear that R. Yehoshua disagrees with R. Eliezer [in which case the Gemara could not argue that perhaps the sages held like R. Yehoshua who would consider the minority of people who go to sleep at midnight]. The sons of Rabban Gamliel, [however], who lived prior to the redaction of the Mishnah, knew only that the Sages disagreed with Rabban Gamliel, and believed that the sages could follow R. Eliezer’s definition of be-shochbecha in relation to the time for reading the evening shema, and also agree with R. Yehoshua [who considers the minority’s sleeping habits for purposes of the morning shema and that his explanation could be applied] to the evening shema.]",
+ "Behold, it is due to R. Eliezer’s opinion that we must analyze the opinion of the rabbis even more deeply. It also appears from the Jerusalem Talmud that there truly are two different views of the sages’ opinion. The Jerusalem Talmud questions how Rabban Gamliel could issue a ruling for others to practice in accordance with his minority opinion, since it is known that when other tannaitic sages disagreed with the majority opinion, they did not act in accordance with their lone opinion. [The Jerusalem Talmud provides two different answers.] One view is that Rabban Gamliel told his sons that in reality, halachah agrees with the sages, [and one can no longer fulfill the mitzvah of reading the shema after midnight]; however, they should still read the shema in order to receive the reward for Torah study. The second view is that Rabban Gamliel answered his sons that since the time for reading the shema as defined by the Sages had passed, they should read the shema in accordance with his opinion. Prima facie, [the second answer] is difficult to understand, for Rabban Gamliel is still ruling against the sages, for according to their opinion, there is never any reading of the shema after midnight. Therefore, one must argue that these two different answers imply two different interpretations of the Sages’ opinion. The first view is that the sages agree with R. Eliezer that [the time limit is defined by when people are preparing to go to sleep]. Therefore, once midnight has passed, one may no longer read the evening shema under any circumstances, for it is as if the sun had already risen. Those who offer the second opinion, however, hold that the Sages agree [with Rabban Gamliel] that the time period for reading the shema, as defined by the Torah with the word, be-shochbecha, is when people are asleep. [This would invite the conclusion that], according to the Torah, one can read the shema up til dawn, but the Sages stated that one should read the shema before midnight to prevent one from sinning. It is then understandable why Rabban Gamliel instructed his sons to read the shema, be-di’avad, after the fact, i.e., once midnight has passed, for the sages would agree that [even after midnight] one should still read the shema in accordance with Rabban Gamliel’s opinion. Behold, we see that according to the first view, the sages concur with R. Eliezer’s interpretation of be-shochbecha.",
+ "However, after further analysis of this discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud, one sees that it is not possible to offer the interpretation we described above. It is clear from the Jerusalem Talmud that [the rabbis of the Land of Israel were of the opinion that] according to Rabban Gamliel one may deliberately delay the reading of the shema past midnight. The Jerusalem Talmud states in that section in which R. Yassa [to stress that the halachah is not in accordance with Rabban Gamliel] exhorted Talmud sages who entered the academy to study at night to recite the shema, thus ensuring that they would read it before midnight. We infer from this, that according to the Jerusalem Talmud, the halachah follows the sages, and it is taken for granted that according to Rabban Gamliel one is allowed at the outset to delay the reading of the shema past midnight. Therefore, one must conclude that [according to the Jerusalem Talmud], when the Mishnah rules that one must read the shema prior to midnight [not because the Torah prohibits any postponement, but in order] to prevent one from sinning. This is indeed the proper interpretation of the Sages, as they disagree with R. Eliezer’s [definition of be-shochbecha that one can read the shema the entire time that people are preparing to go to sleep].",
+ "Thus, we must say that these two answers [explaining how Rabban Gamliel could permit his sons to read the shema after midnight], are only disagreeing as to how the Sages implemented the precautionary rule to distance oneself from sin. In the first opinion, according to the rabbis, even after the fact one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of reading the shema. This, in fact, is [similar to] Rashi’s opinion in Berachos 9b, s.v. O Dilmah: “Nevertheless, if he was unable to read the shema before midnight, there is still time to read the shema.” Rashi means that the sages disagree, [holding that] even after the fact, [if one deliberately] delayed reading the shema, one cannot read it after midnight. One can only recite the shema after midnight if one was unable to do so before midnight. The Jerusalem Talmud, [however], does not differentiate [between a deliberate and an inadvertent delay, and opines that according to the sages one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of reading the shema after midnight regardless of the circumstances]. This is why Rabban Gamliel told his sons that they could read the shema, for they would not be going against the sages, [even though the sages ruled that one could no longer fulfill the mitzvah of saying the shema at that time, they would nevertheless agree that one could read the shema] because they would receive reward for Torah study by doing so. The second answer is given by those who hold that according to the Rabbis [their ruling was only a precaution, so that where there was a delay], and a person did not recite the shema before midnight, he could still fulfill his obligation by reciting the shema after midnight.",
+ "[FROM WHAT HAS been discussed regarding the way in which the Jerusalem Talmud differs from the Babylonian Talmud in their interpretations of the opinions of Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis], it is clearly possible to suggest that the rabbis instituted their rule as a precautionary measure to the extent that if one was delayed, he could not read the evening shema after midnight. This interpretation of the sage’s view addresses the objection raised against this opinion as expressed by the great genius, the Sha’agas Aryeh. It would then follow logically that Rabban Gamliel also agrees that from the outset one may not delay the reading of the shema past midnight, which [indeed] is the opinion of the Rif. The Rif proves from what the Talmud states in [Berachos] 4b: [that according to all opinions, one may not intentionally delay the reading of the shema past midnight]. The Gemara there states, “The sages made a fence for their words, for a person should not come from the field in the evening and say, I will first go to my house and eat a little…. A deep sleep will come over him, and the result will be that he will sleep all night [and not read the shema].” Therefore, since [this precautionary measure instituted by the rabbis that a person should not] eat or sleep prior to the reading of the shema is in accordance with all opinions, even including Rabban Gamliel, so all the opinions agree that from the outset one may not delay the reading of the shema past midnight intentionally regardless of whether he eats or drinks. The disagreement between Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis thus pertains to one who [intentionally] delayed the reading of the shema past midnight. According to the rabbis, one thereby forfeited his right to read the shema, while according to Rabban Gamliel, he may continue to read the shema until dawn]. This is also the opinion of the Rambam of blessed memory, whose view is contrary to the opinion of the Jerusalem Talmud. For according to the Rambam, the Babylonian Talmud disagrees with the Jerusalem Talmud, and we follow the Babylonian Talmud.",
+ "The genius Sha’agas Aryeh argued that such a decree [disallowing] the reading of the shema [past midnight] could not possibly be imposed by the rabbis. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, the rabbis decreed that one could no longer fulfill the mitzvah past midnight [only if a delay could result in severe consequences] such as the punishment of kares, excision, [which would not apply to delaying the reading of the shema]. We see that for the same reason, the rabbis applied this decree [that one could not fulfill the mitzvah past midnight] regarding the eating of the kodashim, holy sacrifices. However, this is not a question at all, for the Jerusalem Talmud stated this law only in reference to [their view of] Rabban Gamliel that one may, from the outset, postpone the reading of the shema past midnight, [i.e., in relation to kodashim, even Rabban Gamliel agreed with the Rabbis that one could not intentionally delay the offering past midnight, since, unlike the shema, kodashim involve the punishment of kares, excision. But according to the rabbis, the punishment of kares was irrelevant]. It goes without saying that this interpretation [regarding the effect of kares] fits well with the Rambam. For according to the Rambam, kodashim may never be eaten, even be-di’avad, past midnight, as he writes in the laws of Korban Pesah. Yet [in the Babylonian Talmud] everyone agrees that according to Rabban Gamliel, one may read the shema be-di’avad after midnight. [One has to conclude that Rabban Gamliel treats kodashim differently], since they involve the punishment of kares.",
+ "Returning to our topic of discussion, [it has been demonstrated] that the words of R. Eliezer stand on their own as words of Torah, since they may be used to teach us other things [e.g., that there are three watches], and we also see that his words are interwoven with the words of the Rabbis [upon which they shed light]. This is also true of every lone opinion stated in the Mishnah or Gemara, for every such opinion contains a light for a particular purpose, and it is for this reason that it is proper, and indeed required, to study and consider them carefully. Koheles compared this method [of deriving Torah from conflicting opinions] to [the concept of] implanted nails. A fruit tree has many branches that do not produce fruit, and they are therefore unequal in fulfilling their purpose.",
+ "Some branches are stripped bare and the twigs have whitened, so they can no longer accomplish any purpose. However, some branches, even though they do not bear fruit, nevertheless have leaves which serve a medicinal purpose, as is often found with leaves that grow on fruit trees. In addition, the barren branches can be grafted onto a superior tree, and thereby enhance the fruit of the grafted branch so that it produces fruit equal in quality to this [superior] tree. They are then literally like implanted nails, since the branch does not provide any fruit in its current state, and does so only when implanted in another location. King Solomon used the above parable [of goads and implanted nails] to extol the virtues of the words of the “wise,” as they provide new insights in the interpretation of Scripture, whether they are the accepted or rejected halachah. They are like goads and implanted nails. So are the words of the wise ones in every generation, whether they are the sages of the Talmud who attained insights into the words of the Mishnah, or the later Sages who attained insights into the words of the Gemara.
Translator’s summary: The Netziv stresses the importance of studying all the opinions stated in the Talmud, even those that are not halachically accepted. He offers two different reasons for this proposition: First, although several halachic concepts may be contained within their words, and one of them may be refuted in that part of the Talmud, the other concepts are of importance to other areas that may not be the main subject under discussion at that particular point. Second, even if these opinions do not contain any light of Torah, i.e., they do not express any concepts that relate to the accepted halachah, nevertheless, when one studies the rejected dissentient views, one obtains a better understanding of the scope of the views that are halachically accepted. The Netziv uses the disagreement between R. Eliezer, Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis to illustrate this point. When we understand the extent to which the rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer, we gain an understanding as to when one is allowed to read the shema. That is, do the Rabbis agree with R. Eliezer that the time for reading the shema is dictated by defining be-shochbecha as the time people are preparing to go to sleep? However, unlike R. Eliezer who defines the time that people prepare to go to sleep with the first watch, do the Rabbis believe that people prepare to go to slep at midnight? Or, perhaps, the Rabbis hold like Rabban Gamliel, who defines be-shochbecha as the time people are sleeping? Thus, Rabban Gamliel and the Rabbis only disagree as to how the rabbinical decree was formulated to discourage people from reading the shema past midnight. Furthermore, since there is a level of ambiguity in understanding how the Talmud perceives the extent to which the sages agree with R. Eliezer, the Sha’agas Aryeh and the Netziv contrast the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with that of the rabbis, and the Netziv discusses four different possibilities, listed in the table below. According to the Sha’agas Aryeh, both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds believe that the opinions of the rabbis and of Rabban Gamliel are as in Number 1 above. He therefore disagrees with the decision recorded by the Rambam, that one may not from the outset delay the reading of the shema past midnight, since the halachah is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel. While the Rambam agrees with one view in the Jerusalem Talmud, namely the opinions of Rabban Gamliel and the sages as depicted in Number 2, this was explicitly rejected by the Jerusalem Talmud and the Sha’agas Aryeh assumes that it was also rejected by the Babylonian Talmud. According to the Netziv, the Rambam and the Rif believe that the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds disagree regarding the opinions of Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis. The Jerusalem Talmud presents the first and fourth possibilities, while the Babylonian Talmud puts forth the third option. The Netziv argues that this interpretation (3) is the rationale for the opinion of the Rambam and the Rif, for we follow the Babylonian Talmud when it disagrees with the Jerusalem Talmud."
+ ],
+ [
+ "INFERRING LAWS BY ANALYZING HOW THE “MASTERS OF COLLECTIONS” CATEGORIZED SCATTERED TORAH AND TALMUDIC STATEMENTS
Translator’s note: In this chapter the Netziv analyzes the way in which categorizations and enumerations in Talmudic and post-Talmudic texts provide valuable insights into the law. To illustrate this technique, the Netziv gives an in-depth analysis of the Mishnah in Yevamos that lists fifteen types of women who exempt their co-wives, and the co-wives of the co-wives, from yibbum and halitzah. The laws of yibbum are complex, and in order to appreciate the Netziv’s analysis regarding the fifteen women, it is necessary to understand at least the following scenario: Man 1, Man 2 and Man 3 are brothers, and Woman A is the daughter of Man 2. Man 1 marries Woman A, together with one or more women whom we designate as co-wives. If Man 1 dies without issue, Man 2 may not marry Woman A or her co-wives, which renders him exempt from yibbum and halitzah regarding all these women. However, if Man 3 marries one of Man 1’s former co-wives together with one or two others, the latter are known as co-wives of the co-wives. Since Man 1’s co-wives are forbidden to Man 2, he may not marry them or any woman who was a co-wife of a co-wife to Man 3 (See the accompanying chart). The rule pertaining to co-wives is based on an inference from Scripture, whereas the source of the rule pertaining to the co-wives of the co-wives is a matter of debate and is discussed by the Netziv in the addendum to this chapter. According to all opinions, if Man 1 divorces Woman A, the co-wives of Man 1 are no longer forbidden to Man 2.
In order to comprehend the Netziv’s analysis fully, it is important to understand the following scenario:
Levi divorces Rivkah and gives her a get (bill of divorce) that stipulates that she may remarry any man except his brother, Shimon. According to the sages, this divorce is invalid, but according to R. Eliezer, it is valid. According to R. Eliezer, with respect to Shimon, Rivkah retains the status of being married to his brother. If Aharon, Shimon’s brother, should then marry Rivkah, there is room to argue that if Aharon dies, Shimon may not marry Rivkah or any of her co-wives.
It is also important to bear the following rules of yibbum in mind:
If a woman is an ervah to a brother, i.e., a forbidden relationship, then that brother is exempt from yibbum.
If a man divorces a woman who is an ervah to a brother, the co-wives are no longer forbidden to that brother.
[NOW THAT WE HAVE addressed the two advantages of the “Words of the Sages” as denoted by the words, “goads” and “implanted nails”], we explain the way these [same words] can be used to inform us of the two benefits [that may result from studying the] “masters of collections.” At first glance, it may seem that the words of [the “masters of collections”] do not convey any new halachic interpretation, and their only apparent benefit is to enhance one’s recollection of the law. However, [this view is not accurate], for novel laws may indeed be derived from the words [of the “masters of collections”] in two different ways:",
+ "The first way is by elimination. When the “masters of collections” enumerate laws, they are informing us that only these laws apply in that category, and that no other [possibilities exist]; what they are saying is that only this is the law. For example, [the very first mishnah in Yevamos] states: “Fifteen women exempt their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from the requirement of halitzah and the law of yibbum.” This rule in the Mishnah teaches us that there are only fifteen types of women [who can exempt their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives] and that no others [can do so]. If that is so, one can ask why a sixteenth type, that is, the co-wife of a married woman [who was forbidden to the brother of the deceased by a divorce with a limiting clause], should not be included. For example, [suppose] a man divorced his wife [with a limiting clause], saying to her, “Behold, this is your get, your bill of divorce, [with the limitation that you can marry anyone], except for [my brother].” Regarding that brother she is considered a married woman, and she and her co-wives are forbidden to him for purposes of yibbum. [Why is this woman not included in the fifteen types of women listed in the Mishnah who can exempt their co-wives and the co-wives of the co-wives from yibbum and halitzah]? Therefore, [since only fifteen types of such women are described in the Mishnah], one is forced to conclude that a woman [who receives a get with such a stipulation] does not fall into this category [for one of two reasons]. One is that the Mishnah is in accordance with the Sages, and they disagree with R. Eliezer, and hold that this type of divorce is not valid. Alternatively, the Mishnah may be in accordance with R. Eliezer, whose opinion is cited at the beginning of Ha-megaresh, [concluding that such a get is valid]. [If the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Eliezer that this get is valid, the original question stands and we must ask why such a case is not included in the fifteen types of women listed in the Mishnah]. Tosafos’s answer is given in Tractate Yevamos 9a, and is based on the Jerusalem Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud states that even though [the woman with the conditional get] is considered an ervah [to the man prohibited by the divorce stipulation], her status is based on a factor that her former husband has the power to rescind. [This latent power, for example], differentiates the case of the sister of the wife of the deceased [who remains forbidden to the surviving brother according to the Torah, and is thus included as one of the fifteen cases in the Mishnah]. We see therefore that by [analyzing] the enumerations of the “masters of collections,” we can derive laws. For if the Sages in this Mishnah had not provided such an enumeration, and had instead cited a general rule that a forbidden relationship, ervah, that is punishable by kares [excision], exempts her co-wives from yibbum and halitzah, one might be able to argue that the wife of the deceased [who remains forbidden to marry her husband’s brother by a limiting divorce, a condition] that R. Eliezer considers valid, also exempts her co-wives from yibbum and halitzah.",
+ "[The Netziv’s Addendum to Chapter 11]
AS WE WILL EXPLAIN, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds disagree as to what the tanna in Toras Kohanim intended [to include in the fifteen categories of women]. As the Toras Kohanim only states, “… there are fifteen categories of women who exempt their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives [from halitzah and yibbum], ad infinitem,” and unlike the [the Mishnah in] Yevamos, the tanna in Toras Kohanim does not list the fifteen types of women. It will be explained, that the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds disagree regarding how the tanna of the Toras Kohanim [analyzes the facts of the fifteen types of women], so as to assure that the enumeration of the fifteen types of women is complete.",
+ "For the Toras Kohanim says that when the Torah states [Lev. 15:21], “A man who takes his brother’s wife, she is [like] a niddah,” [the words, “she is [like] a niddah”] exclude the wife of a man’s maternal half-brother from the prohibition of marrying the wife of one’s brother [thus, he, the maternal half-brother, must perform yibbum or halitzah], as cited by Tosafos in the beginning of Yevamos. This [Toras Kohanim] is also cited in Tractate Shabbos in the Jerusalem Talmud, in the chapter entitled Kelal Gadol. However, the Babylonian Talmud, in Tractate Yevamos 54b, derives an opposite [conclusion] from this verse. For it infers from the words, “she is [like] a niddah,” that there is even the liability [of kares] with the wife of the husband’s paternal half-brother, therefore exempting her from yibbum. It explicitly assumes it to be obvious that the wife of a maternal half-brother is forbidden, [thereby exempting the maternal half-brother from yibbum and halitzah].",
+ "At first glance, one may wonder how the [Babylonian] Talmud can disagree with the Toras Kohanim, [as an amora cannot disagree with the rabbis of the Mishnah or with a baraisa]. However, as it will be explained [this is not a question, as the Babylonian Talmud sides with our Mishnah which they interpret to disagree with the Toras Kohanim]. Our Talmud is of the opinion that the Toras Kohanim does not include the wife of the maternal half-brother in the fifteen types of women, and [completes the list of the fifteen types of women] by inserting in place [of the wife of the maternal half-brother] the married woman [with the divorce limitation], in accordance with R. Eliezer. Therefore [it is seen that according to the Babylonian Talmud], our Mishnah, which includes the wife of the maternal half-brother, disagrees with the tanna in Toras Kohanim. However, according to the Jerusalem Talmud, the Toras Kohanim includes the wife of a man’s maternal half-brother, and does not disagree with the tanna of our Mishnah of Yevamos.",
+ "The difference between the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds [regarding the interpretation of the Toras Kohanim], is related to there being two different versions of the text. According to the extant version of the Babylonian Talmud, the baraisa states: From where is it derived that the co-wife [of the widow] is also excluded [from yibbum and halitzah]? From the word litzror [in the Torah]. I have learned that [only] the co-wife is excluded; from where is it derived that the co-wives of the co-wives are also excluded? The Torah therefore states litzror, not latzor.",
+ "Tosafos has already raised a question in Yevamos 2a, based on what Rav Ashi states in Yevamos 13a, that the co-wives’ co-wives are excluded by logic: “Why is the co-wife forbidden? Because the wife’s co-wife takes the place of the ervah [forbidden relative], and therefore the co-wife’s co-wives are also forbidden, since they also take the place of the ervah.” [Why would Toras Kohanim quoted in Yevamos 2b say that the source is the word litzror, when Rav Ashi states that this law is derived from logic?] Tosafos is therefore pressed to provide an answer; see what he says [in Yevamos 2b]. However, Nahmanides, in [his book] Hiddushei [ha-Ramban], writes that in reality our Talmud does not include within its text [the Toras Kohanim regarding the derivation from litzror to eliminate the co-wife of a co-wife], as evidenced by the Laws of the Rif also quoting this version of the Toras Kohanim [excluding the derivation from litzror], in the text of the Babylonian Talmud. (Note from the Netziv – The extant text found in [our version of] the Rif [that includes the derivation of litzror, has erroneously been] inserted by certain editors [to make the text of the Rif match that of the [erroneous text of the] Babylonian Talmud] – end of the Netziv’s note). However, the Jerusalem Talmud does include the text [of the Toras Kohanim] regarding the derivation from the word litzror. This is what Nahmanides, of blessed memory, states.",
+ "Therefore, you must say that according to the Jerusalem Talmud, we cannot use Rav Ashi’s logical derivation, since they held that we can differentiate between a co-wife and the co-wife of a co-wife. For one can apply the previously cited argument from the Jerusalem Talmud distinguishing between a woman forbidden because of a divorce with a limitation, and a woman forbidden due to her ervah status according to Torah law: the divorce condition can be rescinded, which is not the case with the status of ervah. Further, the Jerusalem Talmud believes that we can argue that since a man can divorce his wife and thereby remove the ervah prohibition from the co-wives, we cannot derive the prohibition of marrying the co-wives of the co-wives from the prohibition of marrying the co-wives of the ervah. [Because of this argument] the Jerusalem Talmud required a verse to teach us not to differentiate between the co-wives and the co-wives of her co-wives, and this answers why the Jerusalem Talmud differentiates [between the co-wives of the woman divorced with the stipulation of limitation, and the other women who are forbidden because of ervah]. At first glance, one can pose a strong question as to why there should be any difference between one ervah or any another, as all are comparable to one another. However, since the verse [of litzror] is needed to include the co-wives [to teach us not to differentiate between ervah relationships that can be removed by divorce, and others that cannot be removed, and since we lack a verse to cover the case of] a woman who is forbidden to marry a brother due to a divorce condition, her co-wives are permissible [to her brother]. Therefore, there is no room to say that according to the [Jerusalem Talmud’s version of the] Toras Kohanim, the list of the fifteen types of women includes the woman with the divorce having a stipulation of limitation, which R. Eliezer [rules to be effective]. One is [therefore] forced to conclude that [according to the Jerusalem Talmud, the Toras Kohanim] includes the wife of a maternal half-brother in the fifteen types of women. Even though the wife of a maternal half-brother, is excluded from the punishment of ariri, [excision without leaving issue], that is written in the Torah pertaining to the prohibition of marrying the wife of one’s brother, she is not excluded from kares [where one dies prematurely, but leaves issue]. Our Mishnah fully agrees [with what the Toras Kohanim lists in the fifteen types of women].",
+ "However, the Babylonian Talmud does not have the version [of the Toras Kohanim which exempts the co-wives of the co-wives from yibbum], from the word litzror; it derives this exemption from the logical argument of Rav Ashi. Therefore, according to the Babylonian Talmud, it would be impossible to exclude the co-wives of a woman [who was divorced with a stipulation of limitation], which R. Eliezer holds is valid, [as it does not believe that one can differentiate between those excluded by being ervah as defined by Torah law, or those excluded by a condition in a get]. Consequently, it is possible to say that the Tanna of Toras Kohanim, who excludes the wife of a maternal half-brother, is also exempting [the brother], from kares. In reality, she [the wife of the maternal half brother], does not exempt her co-wives, and the fifteen women who exempt their co-wives includes the woman [who was divorced with a condition], according to R. Eliezer. One must then conclude [that according to the Babylonian Talmud], our Mishnah that lists the wife of a maternal half-brother, disagrees with the Toras Kohanim in the derivation from the words, “she is [like] a niddah.”",
+ "This explanation, [that the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds disagree in the interpretation of the Toras Kohanim], resolves the objections to Rashi’s definition of kares. [Rashi is of the opinion that] throughout the Torah [kares] is synonymous with the word, ariri, which means [the Divinely-imposed punishment of] dying childless, while only the phrase “death by the hands of Heaven” refers to one dying at a younger age, but [with] surviving children. Tosafos’ question is: since the Jerusalem Talmud and Toras Kohanim rule [according to his understanding] that the wife of the maternal half-brother is exempt from ariri, why does such a woman exempt herself and her co-wives from yibbum and halitzah? [A woman is exempt from yibbum only if her union with the brother of the deceased involves excision, and according to Rashi, exemption from ariri includes exemption from all types of excision. Therefore, Tosafos argues that one must conclude that there are two types of excision: kares, dying a premature death, and ariri, dying childless. While the wife of the maternal half-brother is exempt from ariri, she is still subject to kares.] However, according to how we explained [that the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud disagree whether the Toras Kohanim includes the wife of the maternal half-brother in the fifteen types of women, we will demonstrate] that they must also disagree [in the definition of kares and ariri]. For according to the Babylonian Talmud, as stated in Yevamos 55a, the reason for the Torah to state [in Lev. 20:20, concerning the forbidden relationship with one’s aunt], “they shall die childless,” and the necessity for the verse [in Lev. 20:21, regarding the relationship of his brother’s wife], “shall be childless,” teaches us the extent to which the punishment of kares is meted out by God; [not only the children born from the time of the transgression and onward will die, but those born before the transgression will also die]. For according to the Babylonian Talmud, whatever punishment is written regarding one ervah must be applied to any other ervah; the reason for stating “childless” is only in order to define kares. Thus, Tosafos’s question has now been well answered, for according to our Mishnah, the wife of one’s maternal half-brother has not been excluded [from kares], whereas according to the Toras Kohanim, this woman is not included at all within the fifteen types, [and is thus exempt from the punishment of kares].",
+ "However, according to the Jerusalem Talmud [in Tractate Shabbos], in Klal Gadol, [the punishment of childlessness] is where the Torah states, “they will be childless,” [i.e., only if one is intimate with his brother’s wife, he will not have children from that time onward], and infers from the verse, “they shall die childless” [that only by having sexual relations with one’s aunt, he incurs the punishment of his children dying even if they were born prior to that sin]. Therefore, we see that according to the Jerusalem Talmud, we do not infer [the different types of ervah] from one another [and the different types of ervah can incur different types of excision]. Thus, it would logically follow [that according to the Jerusalem Talmud], the wife of the maternal half-brother is only excluded from the punishment of ariri, [being childless] however, [such a woman] is still included within the punishment of kares, dying a premature death [without affecting the children’s lives], similar to the other types of ervah. [Rashi’s definition of kares and ariri is in accordance with the Babylonian Talmud’s definition].
Translator’s note: The Netziv will be using the opinion of R. Nehuniah ben Hakanah in tractate Kesubos to prove that Rashi’s definition of kares and “dying by the hand of Heaven” accords with the Babylonian Talmud. Exodus 21:3 states that “If an ason (fatality) should occur, then you shall give life for life.” This verse teaches the halachic principle, “kam leh be-de-rabbah mineih,” “one is subject only to the greater penalty,” meaning that if the courts have sentenced a person to death and also to a fine, he is subject only to the death penalty. R. Nehuniah extends the “kam leh be-de-rabbah mineih” rule to apply even when one is liable to “death at the hand of Heaven.” Kesubos 30a states that R. Nehuniah derives this principle from the usage of ason in reference to Benjaimin in Gen 42:38, “He [Jacob] said to [to Reuben], ‘My son [Benjamin] shall not go down with you, for his brother is dead and he alone is left. Should an ason (disaster) befall him on the journey that you are about to take, then you will have brought down my grey hairs in sorrow to the grave.’” Just as ason in Gen. 42:38 refers to a death imposed by Heaven, so does ason in Ex. 21:3 refer to a death imposed by Heaven.",
+ "I would like to add that according to the Babylonian Talmud, kares must be as defined by Rashi, i.e., that both the transgressor and his children suffer excision. [For according to Tosafos, since he regards kares as dying a premature death with no effect on one’s children, he is confronted with how to define the punishment of kares and “dying by the hand of Heaven” as both appear to be the same]. Therefore, Tosafos must define kares as a punishment of dying before the age of fifty, while “dying by the hand of Heaven” is the punishment of dying before the age of sixty. There is a question against this definition because of what the Talmud states in Tractate Kesubos 30a, pertaining to the opinion of R. Nehuniah ben Hakanah, who infers from the word ason [stated in Ex. 21:23], and ason as it is used in reference to Benjamin in Gen. 42:38 that one subject to “dying by the hand of Heaven” is exempt from paying damages. How could the Talmud infer from the word ason, as it was used to refer to a possible disaster befalling Benjamin, that one deserving of “dying by the hand of Heaven” is exempt from payment? One could argue that [according to Tosafos’s definitions of kares and “dying by the hand of Heaven”], one is exempt from payment only if one is younger than fifty – i.e., kares, since Benjamin [at the time of that incident] was much younger than fifty. Therefore, one is compelled to conclude, as Rashi says, that kares [according to the Babylonian Talmud] means that a person and his children are liable to suffer a premature death by the hand of Heaven. Since Benjamin at the time of that incident already had children, [and Jacob was only concerned for the ason of Benjamin himself], the Talmud can derive from ason that it is referring to one liable to suffer a premature death [and not kares]. That is how Rashi inferred [in Kesubos] that kares means that both he and his children are punished.
Translator’s summary: Using several examples of enumerations of laws provided by the “masters of collections,” the Netziv illustrates how, using careful analysis of their words, one can derive new laws and obtain insights into the interpretation of the Talmud. By citing the example of the fifteen women who can exempt their co-wives and the co-wives of the co-wives from yibbum and halitzah, the Netziv demonstrates that the words of the “masters of collections” can create a domino effect permitting a succession of insights into several areas of Halacha. For by analyzing the enumeration and the types of women who are listed in the Mishnah or Toras Kohanim, combined with the understanding whether certain prohibitions are to be derived from Scripture or logic, one not only concludes which women are to be included or excluded from such a categorization; one infers whether or not the different types of ervah, forbidden relationships, can be derived from one another, which in turn influences how one is to define kares and ariri. The Netziv demonstrates this by illustrating how the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds have two different versions of the Toras Kohanim, and what appears to be a subtle variation, actually results in significant halachic differences.
According to the Jerusalem Talmud, the version of the Toras Kohanim is that the co-wives of the co-wives are exempt from yibbum and halitzah based on the Scriptural derivation of litzror. The need for this Scriptural derivation teaches us that the Toras Kohanim believes that the various types of ervah cannot be derived from one another, which thus precludes the use of the logical argument of Rav Ashi. It is therefore also clear that since various forbidden women cannot be derived from one another, one cannot derive the case of the woman with the conditional divorce from other ervah. For in the case of a conditional divorce the ex-husband can rescind his condition, and there is no verse that exempts the co-wives of the woman with the conditional divorce. Since the conditional divorce is not included in the listing of those women who exempt the co-wives and the co-wives of the co-wives, and there is a need to complete the list of fifteen, it therefore must include the wife of the maternal half-brother. If the Toras Kohanim is read to include the wife of the maternal half-brother, the question then arises as to how that inclusion is valid if the Toras Kohanim excludes such a woman from kares. Therefore, one is forced to conclude that the Jerusalem Talmud believes that there are two forms of excision, one of which is premature death inflicted on the transgressor and his children, and another type of excision, which affects only the actual transgressor.
However, according to the Babylonian Talmud, the text of the Toras Kohanim does not derive the co-wives of the co-wives from the word litzror. We thus infer that according to the Toras Kohanim, the various types of forbidden relationships may be derived from one another even when the forbidden nature of the relationship may be obviated either through divorce or by rescinding a condition. Therefore, the Babylonian Talmud understands the Toras Kohanim to include in the list of the fifteen women the woman who was divorced with the condition that prohibits her marriage to a certain man. If one were to include the wife of the maternal half-brother, the number would be increased to sixteen. Therefore, the Babylonian Talmud concludes that the Toras Kohanim excludes the wife of the maternal half-brother. Since the wife of the maternal half-brother does not exempt the co-wives from yibbum and halitzah, it would logically explain why such a woman would be excluded from the punishment of kares. Therefore, according to the Babylonian Talmud, there is no need to delineate two levels of kares.",
+ "Returning to the matter we were discussing, we see from the enumeration of the fifteen types of women that such categorizations function as goads to teach us novel concepts and secret matters. Similarly, one gleans [insights] from the sayings of the “masters of collections,” who have gathered [laws] from all of the scattered statements regarding a particular area and put them into one collection. [By careful analysis of the manner in which these laws have been collected], we obtain an understanding of the intent of the original Talmudic statements that have been collected.",
+ "[For another example], see [my commentary, Ha’amek She’elah] 134:4, in which we derived insights from the words of our master [the She’iltos] pertaining to the prohibition of filling one’s mouth with laughter. [We asked why the She’iltos] included this prohibition in the section pertaining to the laws of Tisha be-Av. Further, see the way we inferred so much in 57:4, as in many other places, by analyzing the manner in which [the She’iltos] categorized collections of laws. Similarly, we obtained further insights by analyzing the words of the Bahag, [as demonstrated] by what is written in [Ha’amek She’elah] 53:4, pertaining to the laws of the reading of the shema. In addition, see how this method was applied to Rav Yitzchak Alfasi based on what we wrote in [Ha’amek She’elah] 27:6 and 20:13, and as in many other places. When Koheles stated, “as goads are the masters of collections,” it was [in reference to this method of inferring laws from categorizations]. This means that [the way the collected laws are categorized and expressed, enables one to obtain insights about the law, even though] these interpretations were not explicitly stated by the “masters of collections.” These categorizations function as a “goad” to bring life to those who learn them."
+ ],
+ [
+ "HOW TO DERIVE TORAH PRECEPTS BY ANALYZING THE WORDS OF THE “MASTERS OF COLLECTIONS”
THERE IS ANOTHER method by which to learn [law, i.e.] from the manner in which [the “masters of collections”] gather [categorize], the laws. To those who read their works, at first glance it appears as if they are merely categorizing laws rather than conveying any novel ideas. However, if you read their words meticulously, you will find that a particular word comes [to convey a concept], that alludes to the logic of the “master of collection” and the direction he wishes to take. [However], since the [main purpose] of the categorizers of law was not to afford insights, but merely to arrange [laws] by topic in accordance with one’s understanding [of those topics], they wrote their words tersely so they would be easier to memorize, for that was the main purpose of his producing that compilation. Nevertheless, if we attempt to analyze their writings meticulously, word by word, we will be able to elicit the depth of their intent. It is in this manner that the “words of the wise” differ [in style] from the “masters of collections.” The purpose of the “words of the wise” was to resolve [conflicts] and to communicate their understanding of a particular [concept]. Therefore, [the “wise”] had to elaborate so that they could achieve that purpose. That is unlike the language of the “masters of collections,” because their main objective was to gather and assemble materials scattered [throughout the Talmud] so as to reduce the extent to which one was required to memorize the vast range of subjects. [Therefore], since they needed to keep their words to a minimum, it behooves us to deeply analyze [what they wrote], word by word.",
+ "Pertaining to this, you will see in a particular section of the Talmud, that often the Halachos Gedolos and the Rif elaborate at length; however, in most cases they write tersely. [The reason they elaborate in certain instances] is that when they saw that certain sections were being misinterpreted, they felt the need to clarify those areas well. However, [that method was only applied in few instances], and the main purpose of their compilations was to gather and assemble much information, with a minimum of words, systematically; that is why they categorized their insights [on particular] topics with a minimum number of words. This explains why Koheles compared the [“masters of collections”] to implanted nails. The intention of one who plants a cutting from a fruit tree is that it will bear fruit and for its roots and branches to spread, thereby enabling him to produce a harvest from this cutting. [To ensure this result,] he plants the cutting in the most effective manner. In contrast, the intention of one who hammers nails is only that the nails be properly arranged and remain in place and not become dislodged. Both aspects apply to the “masters of collections.” They are like the one who hammers nails, because their main intention is that [their writings] should be well organized to facilitate memorization; however, they are unlike nails and more like the person who plants cuttings, because they wish some of their writings to bear fruit [as novel insights] in Halachah.",
+ "After all that Koheles described regarding the two types of scholars that exist in every generation, he concluded with the words, “… coming from one Shepherd.” [This was written to indicate] why you must regard the words of both types of scholars as precious. Their two types of strengths emanate from the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written in Tractate Megillah 6b: “One needs Divine assistance to retain what he has learned.”",
+ "Thus one should not say that the “masters of collections” lack wisdom and that their [compilations are merely the result] of organizing the laws according to the [needs of the] time, or [that they merely reflect their interest in a] particular subject, and hence one should not be so concerned to analyze and consider their words carefully. On the contrary, this view is not correct, since they also have a strength [that emanates] from God, the Shepherd of Israel, May He be blessed, the Keeper of the Covenant, to assure that [the Divine words] should not be forgotten. He gives each individual strength according to his approach: This one explains, this one compiles; this one analyzes while another speaks; yet another, with the assistance of God’s hand, succeeds in accumulating much grain. This is why Solomon was particular in describing God as a Shepherd, as all these different approaches are only applicable to the revealed portion of the Torah that He has given us to practice [thus enabling us] to follow His words, may He be blessed. However, this is not so with the hidden portions of the Torah, and as I wrote previously, Koheles alluded to this portion of the Torah as words of truth, divrei emes, to demonstrate that there is only one path, i.e., emes, an absolute truth. If one does not concentrate on the proper understanding of [this] truth, and believes that he has grasped the proper combinations of God’s holy names, while in reality it is not so, [he has devoted time] to trivial matters, and his words do not glow with the light of Torah at all. It is because of this that [Solomon] said, “coming from one Shepherd,” to illustrate that He leads and guides Israel in the path it travels. [The sages] explained [this verse] in Tractate Hagigah and in Avos de-Rabbi Nasan, Chapter 18, as well as in many other Talmudic sources: Though these [scholars] rule that something is spiritually unclean, and other [scholars] rule that it is spiritually clean; though these [scholars] rule that something is forbidden, while other [scholars] rule that it is permitted, all [of their opinions] are the words of the Living God.",
+ "Behold how the sages of the Talmud made a great effort to analyze the language of the “masters of collections,” that is, the sages of the Mishnah, and [how this effort] produced many laws. [This method] is described in the common phrase found in the Gemara: “The wording of our mishnah can be used to prove [this point].” This means that they derived a new law, even though it was not stated explicitly and it only became known by analyzing their words. For the perception of the Sages of the Gemara was strong and so powerful that it enabled them to determine decisively the intent of the sages of the Mishnah. This [methodology] continued after the completion of the Talmud, as our masters the She’iltos, the Bahag, and the Rif were “masters of collections,” who were followed by the Rambam, the Ramban, and the like, whose perceptions were also great, and whose steadfastness provided them with success. The words of the Geonim encircled the halachic decision makers of the Rishonim, as the Spirit [directed] the Ofanim. [However], after the passage of many years, the manner of inferring [insights] from the words [of the “Masters of Collections”] was forgotten by the later generations, except by chance, and in a few places that are out of the ordinary. When we now attempt to analyze their words, so that we understand the direction in which they were going, we realize that our perception is weak and that we are threading through their words in darkness. In addition, [even] when we perceive that their words do not appear very exact, we lack the strength to understand their intent.",
+ "Therefore, when we wish to sharpen our perception, we need to place [the] three books [of the She’iltos, Bahag, and Rif] side by side. It will then become apparent to all who review their words, that, [for instance], two [of the three] are similar in their language on many subjects. However, they differ in the order that these topics are organized, as I wrote about the Rif in [Pesah Ha’amek], 1:4. It then becomes simple to discern any differences among them, even for the one who is dull of perception such as myself.",
+ "This is comparable to what the Rosh wrote in Tractate Niddah, in the chapter entitled Tinokos, section 3, regarding how to determine if a woman who had bled was in fact menstruating. Even though one may not be an expert in all the different types of menstrual blood, nevertheless, if one compares two types of blood [side by side], one can tell whether they are similar or different in appearance.",
+ "However, in order to understand the opinions [of the “masters of collections”] of blessed memory and the reason for their differences, it behooves us to analyze deeply and to compare the various opinions of the Rishonim who differ in relation to a particular subject. [By doing this], one can [more] easily infer from their choice of words which opinion a “master of collection” follows.",
+ "In order to illustrate the difference between our capability of understanding the intent of the Geonim today, and how the words of the Geonim were understood at the time of the Rishonim, I would like to provide the following parable: One who has summer fruit and would like to store it for the winter. If he stores the fruit in its current state in his [storage] room, it will spoil and rot. So what does he do? He dries them until they become hard, wrinkled, and small in volume. When the time arrives to eat them in the winter, if his teeth are in good condition, he can chew the dried fruits as they are and taste their flavor. However, if his teeth are in bad condition and he cannot taste their flavor since he can only chew them with his tongue, what does he do? He brings a pot, water, wood and fire, and cooks [the fruit] for a long time, after which he can extract the flavor that was hidden within them.",
+ "So it was with the early generations – they plowed, sowed, harvested and produced fruit. If they attempted to communicate what was in their spirit, [all of their knowledge], they would have perished due to the time and effort [required for the task]. Therefore, the “masters of collections” were required to produce an abridged form of the six Orders of the Talmud, so that the laws would not become lost due to the extent of the text. What did they do? They wrote in an extremely terse manner, yet [they were able] to incorporate many matters in few words. For [the “masters of collections” intended to communicate much even though they] “have no speech or words,” and though statements may be lacking [in their texts]. The following generations that [wished] to consume and benefit greatly from their knowledge, of blessed memory, varied according to their capabilities. The Rambam (and his equals), whose intellect was great, did not need to toil greatly to derive inferences from the nuances of the words of our sages; he would just apply his mind to the vast sea of knowledge and could thus decisively derive their opinion. Similarly, Rabbenu Tam, as I stated in Part One of Kadmas Ha’amek, chapter 15, derived a law and a fundamental halachic principle from a nuance in the language of the Bahag.",
+ "However, we are like ignorant children who possess no intellect, nor do we have the mouth [with good teeth] that is the means to consume and benefit from the nuances in the language [of the words of the sages]. Therefore, we need to delve deeply into the explanations that Rashi, Tosafos and their like among the Rishonim provided, and use these commentaries when applying pilpul to the various areas of the Talmud. With this perception, we can easily come to understand the approach of our Master [the She’iltos], as well as the positions of the Bahag and the Rif [in understanding the Talmud]. In this way, the opinion of our Master [the She’iltos] functions as a support, making known the distinctive features of an opinion based on the well-known traditions received by the Gaon, Rav Ahai, of blessed memory."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING THE GEONIC SOURCES DIRECTLY
THE REASONING OF the giants of Torah [of the previous generations] is not concealed from him [the Talmudic scholar], and at the due moment of “life,” may God bless them, [the Scholars of the current generations of Israel to properly study and understand the words of the “masters of collections”]. Everyone emphasizes the greatness of the She’iltos and the Bahag, and [it is known what] the Rishonim wrote pertaining to them, that all their words are words of holiness, and [everyone underscores] the holiness of the Rif, as [the Rishonim] wrote regarding the Rif’s book that it was compiled with Divine inspiration, and everyone knows that this awesome result came because the Rishonim knew how to analyze their words meticulously. They saw light within darkness, [insights within obscurity, derived] from the most subtle nuances. [Even though this is known by all], today’s generations have not gained a proper understanding of the opinions of the giants of the “masters of collections,” the pillars of Jewish Law. For [today’s scholars] have not habitually analyzed their words, even those of the Rif, whose words are before the eyes of all who study his commentaries and those of his armor-bearers, of blessed memory. It then goes without saying that they are not paying sufficient attention to the books of the She’iltos and of the Bahag, unless [they are reading] what the Rishonim have already inferred from their terse words.",
+ "Because [many do not read the words of the “masters of collections” in the actual source], it follows that [those who study] my book, which cites [various] opinions in the name of our “masters of collections” of blessed memory, will find it difficult to understand and analyze these opinions. Obviously, it will be even more difficult for one to build foundations [in Halachah], and to use pilpul in [the analysis of] their opinions, than those who analyze the great matters from the source. Every person’s insight is [proportional] to the greatness [of the source], even when understanding [the Geonic] opinions through the expressions of the Rishonim.",
+ "Therefore, I feel that I must quote from the inferences of the masters of the Midrash on the verse, [“The words of the wise are like goads,” etc.], which we cited at the beginning, and to explain it as God has beneficently granted to an unworthy person, such as myself [to understand]. The Midrash Rabbah says on the portion of Naso 14:",
+ "[On the verse], “The words of the wise are like goads,” it has been taught: Whence is it known that if a person hears a [Torah] matter from the mouth of a less significant [scholar] in Israel, he should consider it as if he heard it from a [great] sage in Israel? [From what] Scripture states, “If you listen to My commandments that I command you today…” (Netziv’s note – “If you listen to My commandments from whomever it may be, i.e., from whomever I direct to teach you [the law], since he is worthy of this task as a sage of his generation, even though you did not hear this [matter] directly from [a great sage]”). Not [only is it] as if you heard this matter from a sage, but as if you had heard it from [a group] of sages, as Scripture states, “The words of the wise are like goads.” Just as a goad directs an ox to plow so that it may bring life to the world, so does the Torah direct a person’s intellect to God. Not only is it as if he heard this matter from the sages, but it is as if he heard it from the Sanhedrin, as Scripture states, “like masters of collections,” [and “collections”] refer to the Sanhedrin, as Scripture states, “Collect for Me seventy men from among the elders.” Not only is it as if he heard this matter from the Sanhedrin, but it is as if he heard it from the mouth of Moses, as Scripture states, “from a shepherd.” [Moses was a shepherd]: Scripture states, “They remembered the ancient days, [when] He sent Moses to His nation, how He drew them from the sea with their shepherd.”‘ Scripture also states, “Moses was a shepherd.” Not only was it as if he heard this matter from Moses, but it is as if he heard it from the Holy One blessed be He, as Scripture states, “from one Shepherd.” The Holy One blessed be He, is called a Shepherd, as Scripture states, “Hear, O Shepherd of Israel…’ [One Shepherd refers to God] as God is One.’",
+ "This is the language of the Midrash, to which I have added a few emendations. This [Midrashic statement], with a few variations, is also cited in the Sifrei, on the Torah portion Ekev.",
+ "At first glance the statements of this Midrash are difficult to understand. Why is Koheles so verbose in communicating the message [that one who heard a law from an inferior scholar of Israel] is as if he reaches the top [i.e., as if he heard it from God]? [Why is this not expressed] in one large leap without the gradations in reaching this goal? Why not simply state that if we learn [a law] from an inferior [scholar] of Israel, we should regard it as if we had heard [the law] from the Holy One, blessed be He? What is the significance of each of these stages?",
+ "In reality, it is difficult [to comprehend even why one should treat a statement from a lesser sage as if from a greater Sage]; it should be just the opposite. How is it possible to compare what one hears from a lesser [scholar] to [what one hears] from a great sage? For it is taught in the Sifrei in the beginning of Devarim, as cited by Rashi with his explanation: [After Israel answered Moses], “[It is a] good thing that you said to [appoint judges],” Moses said, “You should have replied instead, ‘Our master Moses, from whom is it more fitting to learn, from you or from your disciple? Would it not be better [to learn] from you, [Moses], who suffered for it?’” As [this Sifrei] demonstrates, the power of [knowledge from one who is inferior and from one who is a great sage] are not the same.",
+ "[To answer this question], we need first to understand what is truly different in the power of understanding when hearing a statement from one who is great [in Torah], than from [hearing the same statement] from one who is inferior [in Torah knowledge]. Do they not both state the same thing? However, it appears that the difference is in two different areas. One is denoted in the Midrash Rabbah on Exodus, on the Torah portion Ki Sissa: [Pertaining to the verse], “He [God] gave to Moses, ke-challoso, when he finished speaking with him,” [meaning that during the forty days that Moses was on Mount Sinai, he was taught the entire Torah. One can ask], “Did Moses really learn the entire Torah? Is it not written in Scripture [pertaining to the Torah], ‘Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea,’ and yet Moses was able to learn it in forty days?” [Rather], God taught Moses the principles of the Torah; [this is the meaning of the word], ke-challoso, [as kaloso is similar to kelal, a principle].",
+ "We see from [this Midrash] that Moses’s strength in learning directly from the Holy One, blessed be He, was like an inexhaustible fountain that overflowed greatly and with much force so that with the basic principles that God unearthed for him, [Moses] was able to produce by himself all the minutiae of the Torah. This would not be so with one who did not learn Torah directly from the Holy One, blessed be He, as such a person would not acquire the power [to make such inferences]. From this we understand that depending [on one’s scholarship], there is a difference in the [effect of the same] teaching, depending on from whom it emanates. For one who hears from a lesser sage, who only possesses a replica of the original teaching, is unlike one who receives this teaching from a sage who through the power of his learning can delve and produce additional streams of the water [of Torah]. This is explicitly written in Tractate Eruvin 54b. And if he learned this matter directly from the Sanhedrin, his strength would be even greater, and if he learned the same matter from Moses, he would be able to produce Torah in an even more wondrous manner.",
+ "The second [way in which the understanding of the received Torah laws are affected when being taught by a great sage], is described in the Midrash Rabbah to Song of Songs, on the verse, “He kissed me with the kisses of His mouth.” There it states: R. Judah said, “When Israel heard the words, ‘I am the Lord your God,’ the knowledge of the Torah was fixed in their heart and they learned it and did not forget it. They came to Moses and said, ‘Our Master, Moses, intervene between us [and God], as it says, ‘Speak with us and we will hear…why should we die? What profit is there if we perish?’ They then became liable to forget what they had learned. They said, ‘Just as Moses, being flesh and blood, is ephemeral, so is his teaching ephemeral.’ Because of this they came to Moses a second time and said, ‘Our Master, Moses, perhaps God can be revealed to us a second time! If only He would kiss us ‘with the kisses of his lips! If only He would fix the knowledge of the Torah in our hearts as it was!’ He, [God], replied to them, ‘This cannot be now, but it will be in the days to come’, as it says, ‘I will put my law in their inner parts: in their heart will I write it’ (Jer. 31:33).”",
+ "Behold, we learn from this midrash that when one hears a Torah matter from the Holy One, blessed be He, [Who] lives and endures, this learning is everlasting. This is not so with one who does not learn directly from the Holy One, blessed be He; he does not achieve this power [of retention]. From this midrash we can understand that the degree of the power of retention [of a Torah matter] is proportional to the source of this material. The power of retention is different when one hears a Torah matter from a lesser [sage] of Israel as opposed to one who heard the same Torah matter from a sage, and so on with the gradations [listed in the midrash].",
+ "[With these insights] we can understand the Midrash Rabbah (ch. 2) to Song of Songs, commenting on the verse (2:14), “My dove is in the clefts of the rock.” The Midrash discusses how Moses was pained by Israel [wanting him as an intermediary rather than hearing the Torah directly from God]. [God allayed Moses’s concern, as Scripture states], “And God heard the sound of your words … and said…Everything that they said is excellent” (Deuteronomy 5:24). What is meant by, “Everything they said is excellent?” Hiyya bar Addah and Bar Kappara gave different explanations of [the Hebrew word, hetivu, which means excellent]. One compared it to the maintenance, hatavas, of the lamps, and the other to the preparation, hatavas, of the incense.",
+ "Although this midrashic statement is difficult to understand, it can be grasped [by combining] what we said above with a Midrash Rabbah on Koheles, pertaining to the verse, “I have observed the task which God has given man for affliction.” As the Midrash states, This is the ephemeral nature of Torah study ─ one learns the Torah and forgets it. The rabbis of Babylonia said in the name of R. Yitzhak of Israel and R. Tuviah said in the name of R. Yitzhak, “It is to man’s benefit that he studies Torah and forgets it. For if a person were to study Torah and not forget it, he would study the Torah diligently for two or three years, and then return to his work and not pay attention to the Torah for the rest of his life. It is only because when a man studies Torah that he forgets it, that he does not depart or separate himself from the words of Torah.”",
+ "It is now understood [why the Midrash in Song of Songs states] that God did not want to teach the Torah a second time directly to the nation of Israel, so that [the Israelites] would not forget it. [God wanted Israel to have lapses in memory so] they would [need to] study the Torah diligently. However, in the future days [of the Messiah], when the evil inclination is uprooted [from the nation of Israel], and [Jews] will be studying the Torah li-shemah, for the sake of Heaven, they will have these two benefits: that is, as taught in the Chapter of Acquisition of the Torah, that whoever studies the Torah for the sake of Heaven becomes an overflowing spring and a river that never ceases [to flow]. [I will now explain] these two [metaphors]. [The first metaphor about an overflowing spring, indicates] how one’s mind penetrates deeply and can infer additional laws, [over and above] the law he has been taught. [The other metaphor] describes how the strength of one’s memory will continue forever, as a river that never ceases [to flow]. However, this is not true in these times, as we do not study the Torah for the sake of Heaven, and because of this we are required to toil greatly in the study of the Torah, and the more one toils, the more he discovers. This is stated in Tractate Eruvin 54b, “Why are the words of Torah compared to a breast? Just as with a breast – every time a baby handles it, he finds milk in it – so it is with the words of Torah: every time a person meditates on them, he finds [additional] flavor in them.”",
+ "These are along the same lines we described above, regarding [what the Midrash on Song of Songs stated pertaining to the verse], “Everything they said is excellent.” These words imply that the Holy One, blessed be He, saw goodness in the words and request [of Israel]; this was contrary to the view of Moses, who felt grief [at their request]. [The commentaries] ask why the response of the Holy One Blessed Be He was “Everything they said is excellent,” for what goodness is there in their request? Therefore, Hiyya bar Adda states that [God] replied that the response of the Children of Israel was as fine as the maintenance, hatavas, of the lamps [of the Menorah]. The meaning is that the lamps of the Menorah have to be maintained constantly, as the wicks are continually being consumed, and they thus require a person to maintain them by constantly adding more oil. This would not be the case if the lights were constantly burning; they would not be attended to at all. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, that it was excellent when they said that they did not want to hear the Torah directly from Me, for through this [method of learning], their power of memory will be like an obstructed river and an extinguished flame, thereby requiring them to concentrate on, enhance and review the teachings.",
+ "But, according to Bar Kappara [God replied that their words were excellent], as they are as the hatavas, the preparation of the incense. This is because, as is known, the nature of incense is that the more thoroughly it is ground the more fragrant and potent it becomes. It is because of this that the Mishnah states that [the incense] should be thoroughly ground. In fact, for Yom Kippur, it has to be most thoroughly ground to make its fragrance even more potent. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, replied that their request that they did not want to hear the Torah directly from Me, was excellent, for as a result they will not be able to understand the spoken word [of Torah] unless they thoroughly grind the Torah [to understand its essence]. This is similar to the metaphor of comparing the Torah to a breast, for just as the baby who handles the breast causes it to produce milk, so it is with the grinding of the Torah: by analysis it produces more taste, that is, an additional understanding of the Torah. Alternatively, one’s own crushing, i.e., the toil in itself [arouses the Divine assistance of obtaining insights]. This is stated in Tractate Berachos 63b, When the verse states, “Haskes and listen, O Israel; [it is saying:] grind yourselves down [i.e., toil] over the words of the Torah, in accordance with the words of Resh Lakish. Resh Lakish stated, “From where do we know that the words of the Torah are retained only by one who [metaphorically] kills himself over the Torah? From what Scripture states, ‘This is the Torah of a man who dies in a tent.’” As can be seen from the other sources that I cited above, [when a man toils in the study of Torah he is given Divine assistance to obtain insights].",
+ "With the above interpretations we have now reconciled the various midrashic statements so that they do not contradict one another. Certainly Moses [was right to be upset] and to reply [to the people of Israel] that what they would hear from himself rather than from his disciples would be better in two ways: [it could help them] to retain and to comprehend a particular Torah statement. However, [God responded that their words were excellent] because regardless from whom the Torah teaching was received, one must toil over it and constantly review it.",
+ "This is what Koheles warned: that the teaching we receive from one who is inferior [in Israel] should be as beloved to us as a teaching that we have received from a sage. For if one toils over and reviews a saying [he will retain it and derive insights] just as if he had received that teaching from a great Sage. If he toils over it and reviews it even more, it will become as if he received the statement from a group of sages. If he further increases his diligence and analysis, it will be as if he received that teaching from the Sanhedrin, and so on.",
+ "Nevertheless, all of this is applicable only to teachings that one has received from a lesser teacher, who learned it from his teachers [who had a tradition to this effect], not from his colleagues who did not hear [this Torah statement] from their teachers. One has to accept that this Midrashic statement is referring to this when it states “One who heard this statement from one who is inferior [in Israel],” for if it were referring to what one originated by himself, it would not have stated that he was a lesser one of Israel. Rather, it is only referring to a lesser one of Israel who states a teaching [that he received from previous generations]. For this is applicable even to those who are inferior scholars of Israel, as it states in Tractate Eduyyos that two weavers from the Hill Gate [of Jerusalem] testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three log of drawn water can invalidate a mikveh that is less than forty se’ah.",
+ "Along these lines, see the Midrash Rabbah, Genesis section 97, where it states [pertaining to the verse], “May they proliferate abundantly like the fish within the land” (Gen. 48:16): Just as with fish raised in water, if water falls from above, they accept that water as thirstily as if they had never tasted water in their entire lives – so it is with Israel, who is raised on the water of Torah. If they hear a novel Torah law, they accept it with great thirst as if they had never heard a word of Torah in their lives.",
+ "[This midrash] is referring to a case in which one hears a clearly defined Torah law stated in the name of his rabbis. He who refuses to listen to any matter that he did not learn directly from the Talmud is [acting] foolishly and arrogantly, and is in a sorry state. This is not so with one who says, “So it appears in my eyes;” [when that has resulted] from deep analysis: each is according to his path in the toil of the Torah ─ this one derives the multitude of the Talmudic statements from the ambassadors, this one though pilpul and logic: behold, each man goes according to the path that seems right in his eyes. It is not surprising that each person’s opinion seems strange in the eyes of his colleague, for it takes much effort for an individual to align his opinion with that of each member of his group. This requires him to overcome his nature [and achieve] the love of truth and Torah, to the extent that he is so overcome by the trait of modesty and a pure spirit, that he loves the honor of his friend and graciously respects his opinion. Then fortunate is his lot, and it is befitting that the Divine Presence dwell upon him. However, [unfortunately], not everyone merits to achieve this level of purity.",
+ "However, this is not so with my book, Ha’amek She’elah, for God has given me the merit to analyze each word of the book, the She’iltos of Rav Ahai Gaon, meticulously. In many places I saw that his opinion is more obvious, while in others I unlocked the door to reach a deep understanding of his superior opinion, for during the days [of Rav Ahai Gaon] the living [Torah] was [more readily] elicited.",
+ "Behold, I say that the traditions of Rav Ahai Gaon are sublime, and I did not pause in my humble endeavor of producing fruit, to clarify the opinion of our Master [the She’iltos] with analysis of Torah and the use of pilpul, as the gracious hand of God bestows [understanding] upon the toiling soul. Perhaps the giants of the generation will realize the benefit [of my work] though it may be small and modest. [I request] that they refrain from flippantly contradicting my words, and that they first take the effort to carefully analyze the opinion of our Master, so that they may be able to understand it on their own, each according to the extent of his great ability. Both my and his [efforts] will assist in making the matter as clear as a spread garment, for this is the manner of Torah, as Moses gave us [the Torah] as a national heritage. Each must bequeath to his fellow [insights], whether they [seem to] be pearls or lowly pottery fragments, for the towers, the giants of Halachah, established [these] ornaments, halachic principles, in their rightful place.",
+ "Behold, I, the meek one, who dwell in darkness – I involve myself in prayer; I ask the One who graciously bestows [wisdom] to do so even to those who are unworthy. I pray that with His light and truthfulness, He may guide me in the paved paths and grant me a place beside the glorious light [of the Torah]. This is so that I may be able to spread and enhance the Torah, together with my son and son-in-law, who are esteemed rabbis, and men of great distinction. May God bless them with the threefold blessing and twofold peace: [that they receive] their daily bread, obtain what their families require, and [receive these gifts] in a most dignified manner. May the strength of the Torah implanted in their hearts produce tranquility and a heritage, thereby creating an [enduring] fertile garden planted near the tranquil waters of the Torah. May our feet be protected from becoming entrapped in error or stumbling, [for this protection] is the desired result of all striving. For His sake, may He be blessed, the One through Whom all acts are manifest: it is for Him that my spirit longs and my soul is consumed. To Him and to His kindness do I entrust my soul, that I may not be put to shame by my logic until the day He takes me from this world. May this be my reward for all my toil before Him, may He be blessed. Behold, I am the one laden with a great task, for my whole salvation and yearning is [to acquire] her [the Torah].",
+ "Addendum to Chapter 2
[THE SHEM TOV on Part 2, chapter 8 of the Moreh Nevuchim understands the Rambam’s opinion to be that one who is wise [even in secular matters] is superior to a prophet, for the prophet’s words may contain errors, Heaven forbid. He [the Shem Tov] rejoiced in this finding, saying, “It is more valuable than any precious vessel.” Nevertheless, I say that he [the Shem Tov] delights in scoffing rather than finding that which is holy. He found a peg to hang it on, [i.e., an authority upon which to base his opinion]. Heaven forbid [that this should be the proper understanding of that section in Moreh Nevuchim], for the Rambam did not intend to express this [idea], but was referring to something else [i.e., the sages].]",
+ "[WE HAVE ALREADY explained in Harhev Davar, Shofetim [Deut. 18:18], what the Prophet Ezekiel stated in 2:10 [“He spread it before me, and it was written within and without, and there was written therein lamentations, moaning, and woe”]. This view was also expressed by the Ra’avad in his Hassagos [on the Rambam], towards the end of chapter 2, in the Laws of Megillah. There he stated that there is no book in Scripture that does not contain additional information [external] to the book’s main theme. It is thus understood that one should not compete with Scripture or believe that he can compose language that is equal in beauty. [Nonetheless], there are those who believe that their compositions are even more eloquent than Scripture. However, this is mere vanity, for these [compositions] lack the Living Spirit [embedded] within Scripture – that is, Divine inspiration. For throughout Scripture there are many hints regarding many matters – a feat that would be impossible to accomplish without Divine inspiration. This is similar to one who draws a picture of a man or some other living being. There are some whose [drawings] depict the human being as more beautiful than the thing itself. This does not imply that the one who draws a beautiful picture of a man is a greater artist than the Master of Nature. For since [the artist] is only creating a lifeless form [of a man], he can make a human look better [than the way he appears in real life]. This is not so with one who possesses a living spirit, [whose form] is a result of many factors in nature; he is created with defective and unpleasant [characteristics], [but the reason for many of these deficiencies is unknown] to us since they originate from the secrets of nature.",
+ "Similarly, since parables composed by human beings are comparable to lifeless forms, their wording can be refined so that they are more attractive. This is not so with Holy Scripture, since it contains the living spirit of Divine inspiration. Therefore, the hints and secrets [that Scripture desires to convey] constrain and make it impossible for them [the Prophets] to express [their words] in refined language, because they must also convey [the hints and secrets embedded in their words] which are their splendor and majesty.]"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "Part III": [
+ [
+ "“And more than these, my son: be cautious, compose books without limit, and much of the talk of study is weariness of the flesh.” (Eccl. 12:12)",
+ "VARIOUS SCRIPTURAL AND AGGADIC SOURCES SUGGEST THAT A PERSON’S INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL GROWTH IS LIMITED BY HIS INNATE ABILITIES
WHEN [GOD GAVE the Torah to the Jewish people,] “He came with some of the sacred myriads, and in His right hand was eish-das, a fire of law, for them [Israel].” It was then that each one of Israel received his portion, [that is, his] strength of prophecy and power in Torah. This is stated in Shemos Rabbah, parashah 28: “God spoke all these words, saying.” [Why does the Torah include the word “all?”] R. Isaac said: “The prophets received from Sinai the message they were to prophesy to subsequent generations. Moshe told Israel: ‘But with him that is standing here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him who is not here with us this day, etc.’ (Deut. 28:14). It does not say ‘who is not here standing with us this day,’ but just ‘not with us this day.’ [This verse is referring to] the future people to be created; and because there is not yet any substance to them, [they were not yet in human form], the word ‘standing’ is not used [when referring to] them. Although they did not yet exist, each one received his share [of the Torah], as it says, ‘The burden of the word of God to Israel by the hand of Malachi’ (Mal. 1:1). It does not say ‘in the days of Malachi,’ but ‘by the hand of Malachi,’ for the power of his prophecy was already within him since Sinai, but he was not granted permission to prophesy…Not only did all the Prophets receive their [power of] prophecy from Sinai, but each of the Sages who arose in each generation received [his wisdom] from Sinai, as it says, ‘God spoke these words unto all of your assembly… with a great voice, without cessation” (Deut. 5:19)…. R. Shimon ben Lakish said: “[It was the voice] from which all subsequent prophets received their [power of] prophecy.”",
+ "[This Midrash teaches us] that God limited what each [scholar and prophet] was to receive in prophecy and in the Torah’s wisdom.",
+ "Similarly, Vayikra Rabbah, parashah 15 states, [Pertaining to the verse] “He makes a mishkal, a weight, for the spirit,” R. Aha said: “Even the Divine Spirit that rests upon the prophets only does so in measure, [since] one prophet writes one book by prophecy, while another two [books]”…[Pertaining to the words], “And he plans the waters with measure,” R. Yudan ben R Shemuel, said: “This means that even the words of the Torah, which are given from above, were given with measure. [Pertaining to] Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, Halachah, and Aggadah, there are those who become well-versed in Scripture, those in Mishnah, another in Talmud, others in Aggadah, while some merit to master them all.",
+ "[According to the sources cited above,] it seems reasonable to assume that regardless of a person’s toil and labor, he will lack the capacity to merit more [Torah knowledge] than the potential he received [from God], just as it is difficult for one to achieve wealth if it is not his mazal, his destiny. I would also explain that this is what Koheles states in Eccl. 7:16: “Do not be overly righteous or excessively wise: why become demented?” [The verse must be conveying that there is no benefit in attempting to be more wise or righteous than his innate abilities]. Otherwise, the meaning of “overly” and “excessive” is ambiguous.",
+ "Translator’s note: The Netziv for the remainder of this chapter will explain how the Sages interpret “overly” and “excessive.” He will then demonstrate in the following chapters that their interpretation does not accord with the theme and simple meaning of those verses.
In Tractate Yoma 22b, our sages of blessed memory explained that the phrase “Do not be overly righteous” warn us against being kinder than the Holy One, blessed be He, wills. [Yoma] describes how King Saul disregarded God’s words during the episode of Amalek [by being overly compassionate, causing] a Heavenly Voice to issue forth and say, “Do not be overly righteous.” This has also been described in the Midrash on Koheles on this verse, as it states: “a Heavenly voice issued forth and said, ‘Do not be overly righteous [– that is,] greater than what your Creator [wills].’”",
+ "Similarly, pertaining to the phrase “Do not be excessively wise,” our sages of blessed memory in Shemos Rabbah, parashah 10, explained that this verse was written by King Solomon is in reference to himself, who [thought that he was] wiser than the Torah’s warning [against marrying too many wives]. He had believed that since the Torah stated the rationale for this prohibition [as], “He may not have many wives, so that his heart will not stray,” and he was confident in himself that he would not reach such a level [of sinning], he therefore dared to transgress these negative commandments. [The Midrash continues]: “Solomon said: ‘For that which I thought I was wiser than the Torah’s laws, and where I thought I had understood the Torah’ wisdom, [I discovered] that [my] wisdom and understanding consisted of madness and foolishness. Why? ‘For what is man who will come after the King? It has already been done’ (Eccl. 2:12).” The Midrash is expressing that [Solomon was lamenting]: “I am unable to penetrate the deepest secrets embedded within the laws of the Torah, for [even when the Torah provides a rationale for a commandment], who knows how many other reasons there may be in addition to that [stated] rationale. Even where I knew the rationale, and I was convinced that there is no other reason for [that commandment], even [for this I learned] that it is foolish to nullify that warning, as it emanated from the “mouth” of the Holy One blessed be He. The Torah is built upon that hok [statute], and he who nullifies any statute, ruins the Torah’s entire structure.",
+ "Similar to how a person is built, with every limb being created with a special feature and purpose, even if the reason for needing a particular limb no longer exists, if one removes that limb from its place, one destroys the body and its composition, since it was created to be of a particular form consisting of every limb. So it is with the composition of the Torah, for the world has been built [through every] Torah [principle]; they are the fundamental laws of Heaven and Earth. This is stated in the Midrash Rabbah on the passage of Be-hukosai, “Im – If – you follow My statutes and keep My commandments,” are the laws [used by God to create] Heaven and Earth. This understanding that “statutes” includes the fundamental laws of Heaven and Earth led our Sages in Toras Kohanim, as quoted in Tractate Avodah Zarah 5a, to interpret the im as a “prayer,” meaning that im used in this verse is a language of request rather than of condition. [The verse must then be translated as: “im – if you would only follow My statutes and keep My commandments”]. They interpreted im in this way because they understood “My statutes and commandments” to include the fundamental laws of heaven and earth that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to exist perpetually. It was understood that He was asking Israel to guard the world and not destroy it by neglecting the study of Torah. Therefore, even if the purpose for a particular prohibition is absent, it is impossible to nullify it. This is so with any Torah precept that has a rationale; the details of the mitzvah are still to be treated as hukim [physical laws of nature through which the world exists]. For instance, as stated in the Tosefta cited in Tractate Shabbos 135b, [the mitzvah of] pidyon ha-ben [redeeming of the first-born son], must be [delayed] until after the thirtieth day [after the infant’s birth], since until that time we are in doubt as to whether the infant will survive. [Thus], even if the infant was born after a gestation period of nine complete months, the pidyon ha-ben must still be performed after thirty days and no sooner. Similarly, earthenware vessels [that have been used to cook non-kosher foods] cannot be made kosher through hage’alah [immersion in boiling water], for [the non-kosher] substance does not leave the walls [of the pot]. In fact, the Torah states that “it shall be broken,” even if it is known that it was cooked in a manner in which the pot did not absorb [any non-kosher substance]. It cannot be made kosher for use, as it is a decree by the Torah as written by Tosafos in Tractate Pesahim 30b. Similarly, a borrower who is liable for unavoidable losses because all the benefit is his, nevertheless, even if he is borrowing an animal for which he is obligated to provide food, [thus not receiving use of the animal for free], he is still liable for unavoidable losses. Many other examples could be cited.",
+ "[Thus, in all cases], although a fundamental principle has been established for a particular reason, once the Torah has decreed this principle as a rule, the details [of this rule] are like hukim [immutable laws]. [Therefore] one may not philosophize and nullify [the commandment even] if the [apparent] rationale [for that commandment] is not operative. This is how our sages of blessed memory explained the above-cited warnings [in Koheles].",
+ "Now that we have explained [that the verse “Do not be overly righteous or excessively wise” refers to how one is to practice a commandment even if the rationale for that commandment is inapplicable], we [now] need to explain the end of the verse, “Why become demented?” [The explanation is] that this refers to being punished [mentally]; King Saul who, after having been overly kind [to the Amalekites], was troubled with an evil spirit, and King Solomon who over-philosophized, expelled his knowledge and forgot it. This form of punishment lacks a scientific explanation, as it would be unnatural for one who attempts to make himself more righteous or wise, beyond [what is willed by] the Torah, to lose his sanity. However, [this penalty] is a metaphysical punishment decreed with the wisdom of the One who is to be blessed, similar to the way the punishment of kares [is exacted against those] who transgress the thirty-six prohibitions that are punishable by excision. Therefore, when there are those who sin a hundred times and the Holy One, blessed be He, is patient with them, though they are not excised in this world, they will receive a two-fold punishment in the World of Reckoning. Similarly, there are many who think that they are wiser than the Torah in this manner, and they are not punished in this world with madness. Their punishment is being saved for the World of Reckoning. Everything that [we have stated] regarding the explanation of these warnings is provided by the sages of blessed memory. [However, this explanation does not accord with the simple meaning of the verses.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "CONFLICTING SCRIPTURAL AND TALMUDIC SOURCES REGARDING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ONE SHOULD STRIVE TO RISE ABOVE HIS INNATE INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL ABILITIES
HOWEVER, THE MAIN character of the Book of Koheles is the wisdom of Solomon, as it states in Tractate Berachos 57b, “Whoever sees the Book of Koheles [in a dream] may anticipate acquiring wisdom.” This goes without saying for the opinion in Tractate Megillah 7a, that Ecclesiastes was not written with the Divine Spirit – it is merely Solomon’s wisdom – this is so even according to the opinion that says Koheles was written with the Divine Spirit. For certain [Koheles] was not written with the same character of Divine Spirit as was Song of Songs and Proverbs were written; the latter originated from the Divine Spirit – not so with Koheles. Interspersed among Solomon’s vast wisdom [in Koheles] are the results of investigations by the philosophers and scholars of natural science of his time [but the Divine Spirit influenced what was to be recorded and how they were to be expressed]. Only certain portions of his knowledge were permitted to be recorded [in Koheles,] as proven [in Megillah 7a] from the verse, “Do not add to its words.” We infer from this that these words of wisdom spoken by Solomon were imbued with a Divine imprint even though they originated from his investigation of nature, for the wisdom of nature is also His creation, may He be blessed.",
+ "There is a two-fold significance to knowing of this Divine influence. First, we know with certainty that these concepts [contained in Ecclesiastes] are [words of] truth, and no one can say that Solomon erred in any of his analyses, contrary to what the later generations say pertaining to the philosophies of Aristotle and the like.",
+ "[Addendum to Chapter 2]
[THE SHEM TOV on Part 2, chapter 8 of the Moreh Nevuchim understands the Rambam’s opinion to be that one who is wise [even in secular matters] is superior to a prophet, for the prophet’s words may contain errors, Heaven forbid. He [the Shem Tov] rejoiced in this finding, saying, “It is more valuable than any precious vessel.” Nevertheless, I say that he [the Shem Tov] delights in scoffing rather than finding that which is holy. He found a peg to hang it on, [i.e., an authority upon which to base his opinion]. Heaven forbid [that this should be the proper understanding of that section in Moreh Nevuchim], for the Rambam did not intend to express this [idea], but was referring to something else [i.e., the sages].]",
+ "Second, since the Divine Spirit had shone upon the writing of [Koheles], we can derive from it matters unrelated to its context. As we explained in Part 2, chapter 3, this is one of the virtues of what is written with the Divine Spirit. We used this concept there to explain the disagreement [in Megillah 7a–b] as to whether the Book of Esther was written with Divine inspiration, [which in turn would determine what laws could be derived from the Book of Esther]. We hold that Koheles was written with the Divine inspiration, and thus we can derive from it matters unrelated to its context. [An example may be found] in Tractate Shabbos 10a: Until when do [judges] sit in judgment? Rav Sheshes says: Until the time for the main meal of the day. Rav Hama says [that this may be inferred] from the verse [in Koheles], “Woe to you, O land, whose king acts like an adolescent, and whose ministers dine in the morning. Happy are you, O land, whose king is a man of dignity, and whose ministers dine at the proper time – in strength and not in drunkenness.” [We infer from the words, “in strength and not in drunkenness”], that the judges should fortify themselves with the strength of Torah rather than by drinking wine.",
+ "See what I have written in She’ilta 51:2, how this explanation is not in line with the simple meaning of that verse. In the Aggadah one can find many derivations [from Koheles] that do not relate to its context, and these derivations [were possible only] because it was written with Divine inspiration.",
+ "However, since the main theme of Koheles is the investigation of the natural sciences, this is why all [of Koheles’s] warnings [in this Book] are associated with [the name] Elohim, as the creations of the universe, i.e., the nature of the world, was written with the name Elohim. An additional [reason for using Elohim in Koheles] is because the nations of the world do not know of any of [His] names other than Elohim. This is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin 60a, [where R. Hiya says that one who hears a Divine Name being blasphemed nowadays is not obligated to rend his garment. The Talmud derives that R. Hiya is speaking of hearing an idol worshiper blaspheming God’s name, Elohim, and not the Specific Name. As the Talmud notes]: “If [R. Hiya’s statement] refers [to an idol worshipper] blaspheming the Specific Name, [we must object] – are idolaters familiar with that Name?” Since [Solomon] also taught wisdom to the scholars of the nations of the world, [he needed to use the name Elohim]. It is because of this [theme] the book is entitled Koheles, in the feminine. As explained later in chapter 9, when comparing the sciences to the Torah, the feminine form is used. Here too, [regarding Koheles], the gathering [of scholars] to investigate the natural sciences is called Koheles rather than Hikahel.",
+ "[With this understanding], we learn that the warnings [and their associated] punishments that are written in Ecclesiastes [operate] in a manner [that is consistent] with human logic and where the laws of nature dictate a particular result. One should not disobey [these warnings] unless [one is able somehow to operate in a manner] that is above nature. Therefore, one should understand [that according to the simple meaning of these verses], the intent of these warnings and their associated punishments are scientifically based, and result in madness.",
+ "Along these lines, “do not be overly righteous” means that [one should] not be overly zealous with the warnings of the Torah, whether one is a Gentile or a Jew, and perform more than what is required by the Torah, since doing so may result in harm so great that life is endangered. The verse, “He who obeys the commandment will know no evil” does not apply to this situation, for in circumstances [where harm may result], a person is forbidden to perform a mitzvah. As it states in Tractate Pesahim 8b, [regarding the search for leaven on the eve of Passover], “[R. Nahman ben Yitzhak says that] if there is a hole in the [adjoining] wall between the dwellings of a Jew and an Aramean, he searches as far as his hand can reach.” However, [we follow the opinion of] Pleimo that he does not need to search at all, and the Gemara explains that there is no need to search at all since it involves danger. Even though we hold “those sent to perform a mitzvah are not harmed,” this rule does not apply when there is a likelihood of danger. The Talmud is not saying that one is exempt from searching for leaven. It is saying that one is not allowed to do so when there is a likelihood of danger.",
+ "The Talmud [must be saying that one may not search], as it derives this rule from the Prophet Samuel, who [when charged by God to go and anoint David as king] protested, “How can I go? If Saul finds out, he will kill me.” Samuel did not feign piety by placing himself in danger when there was a likelihood of harm. [This can also be inferred] from Tractate Bava Kamma 61a–b, regarding the three mighty men of David [who risked their lives] by breaking into the camp of the Philistines [in order] to ask the Sanhedrin a halachic question. King David refused to relate this ruling in the name of the three warriors, as he said, “So have I received a tradition from the Court of Samuel the Ramathite: ‘We do not cite any halachic statement in the name of one who surrenders himself to death on account of the words of the Torah.’” The reason [for David’s declaration] was that the three mighty men behaved improperly [by placing their lives in danger for the sake of that mitzvah]. Similarly, [Rava] stated in Tractate Avodah Zarah 35b regarding Aivu, who [practiced against the rulings of the Sages] by eating the bread of an idolater: “Do not cite Aviu because he eats Aramean bread.” The Ran cites in the name of the Geonim that Rava was stating that no halachah may be cited in his name because he acted improperly. The three mighty men [of David] also did not act properly when they subjected themselves to danger [for the sake of a mitzvah]. This is the meaning of the warning, “Do not be overly righteous.”",
+ "Solomon’s additional warning, “Do not be overly wise,” is related to the first clause, [“Do not be overly righteous”]. In other words, he warns not to strive to be wiser than the capacity we merited to receive at the time of the giving of the Torah. This potential is recognizable from a person’s makeup and intellect. Pertaining to these two warnings, [Solomon] wrote in accordance [with the laws] of nature: “Why become demented?” For he who is overly confident that his righteousness will enable him to endure a dangerous situation, being overly confident that the merit of a mitzvah will stand him in good stead ─ when he fails, he is likely to become insane. Similarly, he who strives to become wiser than his mental capacity is likely to destroy his intellect in any area [of study] he toils to understand that is beyond his mental capacity. This appears to be the simple meaning of this verse.",
+ "However, one can argue [against this interpretation], as we see many Aggadic statements where our Sages of blessed memory seem to convey the opposite [point of view]. Tractate Shabbos 83b states, “The words of Torah are retained only by one who memis [kills himself] over them, as it states, ‘This is the Torah [law] concerning a person when yamus, he dies in a tent’ (Deut. 19:14).” One cannot retort that memis is not be taken literally as “kills himself,” but [as “deadening” one’s sensitivity to pride]. This would accord with Tractate Tamid 32a: “What should a person do so that he may live [spiritually]? He should kill himself.” The Mefaresh explains that the phrase “kill himself” means that he should lower himself [make himself modest], implying that he should eliminate his sensitivity to not receiving [sufficient] honor or [being unable to exercise his own] desires, for those sensitivities can nullify or disturb the power of the Torah. Tractate Eruvin 54a states, “R. Mattena said: ‘What is the meaning of “From the wilderness is Mattanah?” If a man allows himself to be treated as a wilderness on which everybody treads, his study will be retained by him. Otherwise it will not.’” There are many other similar [Aggadic] statements. Therefore, [one could strongly argue] that the previously cited statement from Tractate Shabbos, “one who kills himself over them,” refers to one who makes himself similar to the dead by [deadening his sensitivities and] ignoring these vanities.",
+ "However, it is impossible to explain [Tractate Shabbos] in this manner because of the manner in which Tractate Gittin 56b, explains that same statement: For Your sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalms 44:23). R. Nahman ben Yitzhak stated: “[This verse] can be applied to the students who kill themselves for the words of the Torah, in accordance with the saying of R. Shimeon ben Lakish, who said: ‘The words of the Torah reside only with one who kills himself for them, as Scripture states, “This is the Torah law concerning when a man dies in a tent.”’” We see that the Talmud says explicitly that if one attacks his learning in such a way that if he would take the same approach with other forms of wisdom, it would result in his death ─ the merit of the Torah protects him. This [interpretation aligns well] with the inference from, “when a man dies in a tent.” For we infer that he [can act in a manner that is dangerous] specifically when he is dwelling and meditating in the tent of Torah. Whereas, according to the former explanation, [i.e., “kills himself” means that he is to kill his sense of vanity, this interpretation] would have to apply even when a person is not in the tent. Therefore, one must conclude that the explanation is, as it says, that he endangers himself with his studies.",
+ "So did Hillel endanger himself for the words of Torah, as stated at the end of the third chapter of Tractate Yoma. It was [that quality of sacrifice] that stood him in good stead to ascend as the leader of all of the Sages of Israel. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer the Great, as it is taught in Avos de-Rabbi Nassan and in the beginning of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, that he did not eat for many days and endangered himself for the sake of the words of the Torah. Also in Tractate Kesubos at the end of the chapter entitled Ha-moder, [it relates] that R. Yehoshua ben Levi would mingle with those who were stricken with [the contagious disease] ra’asan and study Torah with them, as he relied on the merit of the Torah to protect him. He was spared from harm. This is just the opposite of the way we explained, “Do not be overly righteous,” and what we had proven from Bava Kamma 61a–b [pertaining to how the three mighty men of King David acted wrongly to endanger their lives for the Torah]. We also learn this concept from Tractate Eruvin 54, [that states:] “‘It is not in Heaven,’ for if it were in Heaven, you should have gone up after it.” We explained in [Ha’amek She’elah] 19:4, that this statement is not to be understood literally, rather as: if it is “above” [beyond the capability] of your intellect, and it is difficult to achieve, as [if it were] something that is placed in the heavens, you are required to toil thereby becoming wise [enough] by bringing it “down” [i.e., within your grasp of understanding].",
+ "Also in Tractate Kesubos 63a regarding R. Akiva, [when he returned home as a great sage, his father-in-law, hearing that a great scholar had come to his town, approached R. Akiva (not realizing that R. Akiva was his son-in-law) in order to request an annulment of his vow in which he disowned his daughter for having married him. When he completed his request, R. Akiva] asked, “Would you have made your vow if you had known that he was a great man?” [His father-in-law replied, “No, even if he had known but one chapter or even a single halachah.” “Akiva then said to him, ‘I am the man’. The other fell upon his face and kissed his feet and also gave him half of his wealth”]. Tosafos questions [why R. Akiva was allowed to suggest to his father-in-law an opening to absolution for a vow, as Akiva became a great Sage after the vow had been made], and it is thus considered to be nolad, [i.e., a different set of circumstances existed when the vow had been uttered]? Tosafos answers: Since R. Akiva had been a student at the academy at the time of the vow, it would not have been considered unusual for Akiva to become a great scholar, as it is likely that those who go to the academy [to study Torah] become great men. Thus we see that [even] a simple man who does not seem competent to study Torah, such as R. Akiva who was illiterate, [can overcome his intellectual deficits]. Also, Avos de-Rabbi Nassan relates how R. Akiva, at the time he began to pursue his studies, felt that just as a stone’s [shape] was changed by a constant drip of water, [so he, by constant study, could sharpen his mind and achieve knowledge]. He became so successful that there was no [scholar] greater than he. This is [obviously] unlike the way we explained the warning, “Do not be overly wise,” [that a person should not strive to achieve wisdom beyond his inborn capabilities]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "GOD’S PROVIDENCE TRANSCENDS NATURE FOR THOSE WHO RISE ABOVE THEIR PHYSICAL NATURE THE [ABOVE DESCRIBED CONFLICT] can be resolved by studying Nahmanides’s commentary on the Torah passage of Aharei Mos. He writes that there are many ways to serve God when performing the commandments and studying the Torah diligently: Be aware that [the level] of one’s living through the commandments is proportional to one’s being prepared [mentally and emotionally] to perform them. He who performs the commandments not for their sake – i.e., who performs them to receive a reward in his world [i.e., this world] – his life in this world will consist of wealth and honor. This is what Scripture states, “Bi-smolah [in her left hand] are wealth and honor;” our Sages explained this verse as, “La-misma’elim bah, those who study [the Torah] not for its sake, will obtain wealth and honor.” Similarly, those who perform the commandments in order to merit [a share] in the World to Come – i.e., they serve God out of fear – merit by their intent to be saved from the judgment reserved for the wicked, and their souls will dwell [eternally] in goodness. But those who fulfill the commandments out of love, [in a manner] that is proper, while also acting properly in the affairs of this world, will be rewarded as written in Im be-hukosai: “Your threshing shall last until the vintage.” In other words, they will merit achieving a good life in this world in accordance with nature, and in life eternal in the World to Come, their merits will be rewarded in a complete manner. However, those who completely forsake the concerns of this world and pay no attention to it, acting unlike physical beings, with all their thoughts and intentions being directed only to their Creator, just as was the case with Elijah – because their souls cleave to the Glorious Name, they will live forever in body and soul, as evidenced in Scripture concerning Elijah, etc. All of these are the words of the holy man of God, Nahmanides, may his memory be for a blessing.",
+ "We learn two main principles from his words. First, there are two approaches to performing the commandments for the sake of Heaven, where expressing love of God. One approach is to serve God for His honor, may He be blessed, without any expectation of reward – yet he does not lose the sense of his own physical being, “because he is created of flesh” and composed of human nature. This is a path of holiness, and fortunate is the one who merits in [achieving] this. Pertaining to this approach the first chapter of Avos teaches, “R. Yosi says… ‘Let all your deeds be for the sake of Heaven.’” Avos de-Rabbi Nassan explains this Mishnah to mean “for the sake of the Torah,” i.e., he [performs the mitzvos] because the Torah directs him to do so. Even so, he does not lose the nature of man, and he does not merit to be glued in his thoughts to the Holy One, blessed be He due to the barrier created by his human nature.",
+ "There is, however, another form of love for God where one is so powerfully bound to God with love that it causes him to forsake his human nature utterly. There is nothing greater than this path of righteousness. But the righteous ones of the earlier generations, even though they had merited to [obtain] this love, to sample life consisting of the light of spiritual delight to the extent of forgetting their physical being – though their souls constantly longed to remain within that delight and purity – they did not constantly remain in that state. At times they actually reached [this spiritual pleasure], and they clung to it with Divine inspiration, whereas at times they could not immerse their thoughts totally in this love, or even if they did have the opportunity to deeply focus and hunger for it, they still were unable to achieve [Divine inspiration]. It is because of this that at times King David refers to himself as a hasid, a righteous one, and at other times as an ani, one who is bereft (a distinction that has already been addressed in the Aggadah). However, according to our understanding [of these terms], he referred to himself as a hasid because he constantly longed for that love and devekus [close bonding]. This is the implication of the word hasid, and with God’s assistance I elaborated on this at great length in my composition Rinah Shel Torah. Because he recognized that he himself was many times unable to achieve such a state, or that he lacked the opportunity to achieve his holy soul’s longing, he [also] referred to himself as ani. For an ani is simply one who is unhappy with his lot in the area of the service of God, and [he felt bereft] that on many an occasion he could not fulfill his great want.",
+ "Truly, if a person were to merit being a merkavah de-shechinah [a Chariot of the Divine Presence] ceaselessly, he would never die, as experienced by Elijah the Prophet. However, [if everyone reached such a state], the world would never be inhabited, as I wrote, with Heaven’s help, in the Hashmatos [Omissions], 21:6 ─ the world was not created for [everyone to be a Merkavah de-shechinah] but rather to be inhabited. Nonetheless, one who [constantly] longs to express his love for God finds many opportunities to function as a Chariot of the Divine Presence and to disregard himself [i.e., his physical nature]. As we explained in She’ilta 1, pertaining to Hillel, because all his acts were performed for the sake of Heaven, he reached a level that nullified his physical being, such that he did not desire [physical pleasure] from his eating and bathing. For him, these things became [a spiritual act] similar to laying tefillin and the like. This is the first concept that we learn from Nahmanides’s words.",
+ "The second concept that we learn from Nahmanides, of blessed memory, is that the manner of God’s Providence over Israel is proportional to how Israel serves Him. Thus, it also naturally follows that there will be a difference in this world for the one who serves out of love – yet he remains within his human nature, which is what the Holy One, blessed be He, has provided. Providence relates to him in a manner that does not completely negate nature, [though] the eye of God is directed towards those who fear Him with a Divine Providence that is characterized by nature. This is the attribute of the Kingdom of God, may He be blessed; His Providence [as applied to individuals] is similar to how He [generally] governs the world [i.e., in accordance with nature]. Therefore, if such a person places himself in a dangerous situation and he requires a miracle that transcends nature, God, may He be blessed, will not assist him.",
+ "However, if he is able to rise above human nature and becomes an Israelite through whom God, may He be blessed, becomes glorified, His Providence in return transcends the nature of the world, and [He] will cause His glorious arm to march at his right hand. This matter is further elaborated in my compilation, Ha’amek Davar, on the Torah passage of Yisro, where I explain that God communicated this concept to Israel at the gathering [around Mount Sinai] prior to the giving of the Torah, with Moshe reiterating this at the giving of the Second Tablets. I also discussed these two ways of performing the Commandments and their respective ways of Providence on the Torah portion dealing with tzitzis [fringes], read daily [in the shema]. This subject is quite involved and it will be explained there [in Ha’amek Davar] as God decrees that it should be so, and may He assist me in that task. [However, I am not delving into this concept of Providence] here, I am only touching on this subject to clarify and answer the question at hand.",
+ "It can be said with certainty that if one has not attained this level of love of disregarding his physical being, i.e., he has not left the category of human nature, it is forbidden for him to feign righteousness and place himself in a dangerous situation. However, he who stands on the Mountain of God and serves Him in His holy place, has removed the sandal from his foot, and has removed the bodily attire of nature, there is no matter that stands before him, every [potential obstacle] becomes [flattened] as a plane. He may then perform the commandments under any dangerous circumstance.",
+ "This concept clarifies what Tractate Pesahim 8b states [regarding the search for leaven on the eve of Passover]: “If there is a hole in the adjoining wall between the dwellings of a Jew and an Aramean, [according to the Tanna Kamma] he searches as far as his hand can reach.” [According to Pleimo, however, he is not to search at all]. This disagreement is difficult to understand, for should not the Tanna Kamma be concerned with the likelihood of harm? And if in fact the [Tanna Kamma] disagrees [with Pleimo and holds that one is to perform the search even though there is a likelihood of harm], why do we follow the opinion of Pleimo [when he is a lone authority]?",
+ "[Addendum to Chapter 3]
[THE ROSH STATES that [there is a rule that] when we deal with dangerous situations, we follow the lone authority. I find this difficult based on what is stated in the chapter entitled Mi Mefanim. [The Talmud there discusses the lone opinion of R. Yosi, which is cited in the Mishnah in Tractate Shabbos 128b, that when delivering a baby on the Sabbath] one may sever the umbilical cord to reduce the risk of danger to the infant. [Tractate Shabbos 129b] states, “Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah, the son of Avuha, who said in the name of Rav that the halachah is in accordance with R. Yosi” [who opposes the majority opinion, as stated by the Tanna Kamma, that one may only tie the umbilical cord]. Therefore, we see [that there is no rule that we follow the lone opinion when there is a risk of danger], for without [Rav Nahman’s clarification] we would not rule [that the halachah is in accordance with R. Yosi].]",
+ "You may wish to argue that [the Tanna Kamma and Pleimo do not disagree], as the Tanna Kamma is discussing a special circumstance where it clearly does not involve any danger – the Jew knows that his Aramean neighbor will not suspect him of witchcraft. If so, what is Pleimo’s reason [forbidding one to perform the search]? [If Pleimo is speaking of a different circumstance than the Tanna Kamma, this distinction] should have been clarified as, “According to Pleimo, if the [search] involves danger, one may not search.” Rather [it must be that] the Tanna Kamma, [like Pleimo], is discussing [searching for leaven] in a dangerous situation with a likelihood of harm; however, he is speaking of a person who confidently knows of himself that he will nullify his physical senses when he performs this mitzvah. [The Tanna Kamma is also] teaching the basic law regarding to what extent one needs to search a hole for leaven, and that is as far as his hand will reach. However, certainly, not every person merits to reach such a spiritual level and it goes without saying that [a halachic authority] cannot rule for one who comes to inquire [to perform a mitzvah in a dangerous situation], for one cannot ascertain what lies in another’s heart. [Therefore, Pleimo is stating that we must never rule that others should endanger themselves by performing any mitzvah].",
+ "Behold, [when] the Holy One, blessed be He, [directed Samuel to anoint David as king], He did not direct Samuel from the outset, “Take a calf with you” [to conceal his task from Saul], until Samuel asked Him [what to do, as he feared that Saul might kill him if he were to discover the purpose of his mission]. For certain, Samuel was at an extremely high spiritual level, but it was only in this instance [that he could not reach that level] since he was pained [to be involved in the termination] of Saul’s reign. He could not be confident in this dangerous situation, as he could not find the joy of heart that he required in order to achieve a powerful love and connection to God. It was because of this that Samuel properly asked [God how he could perform this task, since it involved danger], and God’s response [to Samuel] was that he was not to endanger himself, [and to conceal from Saul the fact that he had anointed David as king].",
+ "In my previously referenced compilation, [Ha’amek Davar], I explained that this was Moshe’s request after [the sin of the Golden] Calf: “Whoever is for God, [let him come] to me, and all the Levites gathered unto him.” Moshe’s request was not directed to those who did not worship the Golden Calf, as there were many others [besides the Levites] who did not serve the Golden Calf; there were only three thousand men who had sinned. Rather, [his request was directed to those who were on a high spiritual level] because he wanted to direct them to perform a very dangerous task of going from gate to gate and killing openly the men they were seeking. It was certainly possible that the [sinners’] relatives and friends would fight the Levites, resulting in atrocities from a battle ensuing in the camp. This dangerous task could not be achieved other than by one who was confident that he “is for God” [deeply immersed in God’s service]. This is similar to the way in which the Midrash Rabbah on Mattos explains the verse, “He whom you shall serve,” meaning, “You are to dedicate yourself to the Torah and to occupy yourself with the commandments [to the extent] that you have no other service,” i.e., he does not serve himself at all. [Only such a person] could be assured that calamity would not result from his passing [throughout the camp to kill those who served the Golden Calf]. The Levites were so successful that not a single one was harmed, and it was because of this that Moshe blessed them: “Dedicate yourselves [from] this day [forward] to God, for each has opposed his son and his brother, that He may bestow upon you a blessing [from] this day [forward].” [Moshe] means that they had utterly forsaken their personal needs to the extent that it would not have been difficult for them to kill his son or brother by his own hand. It is because of this that the Levites were blessed [by Moshe] in the wilderness [so they] could reach this elevated manner of service. This is explained further [in the previously referenced Ha’amek Davar]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "TORAH STUDY PROVIDES THE MOST APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR ONE TO RISE ABOVE HIS PHYSICAL NATURE
IT SEEMS THAT EVEN if one performs a mitzvah for its own sake – not for any personal gain in this world, nor for any hope in the World to Come – [he can still] be distant from the spiritual level that characterizes one who abandons [the physical] to the extent that he ignores his physical needs. [Therefore, even if a person performs a mitzvah] for its own sake, he may not endanger himself unless he knows for certain that he has achieved such a state – that he is holy and separate from the nature of man.",
+ "Our Sages stated in Tractate Nazir 23b, “A transgression committed with good intention is better than a precept performed with evil intention.” The Talmud cites a proof from Yael, who committed a sin for the sake of Heaven, and she is praised greatly for this. [Tractate Yevamos] in the chapter entitled Mitzvos Halitzah 103a, [asks why Yael deserved praise, since she] derived gratification from that transgression. The Talmud answers, “All the favors that the wicked [perform for the righteous] are evil to [disdained by] the righteous,” meaning that she [Yael] received no pleasure at all [from having had intercourse with Sisera]. Tosafos at the beginning of Tractate Kesubos and in many other places explains that the Talmud is questioning the idea that she should not have been praised for that act if she received any pleasure from it. For certain, even if she had received pleasure from it, she would be allowed to perform this act to save the Jewish people. Nevertheless, it is a dangerous path, for one may not derive pleasure during the commission of a sin. The great mitzvah of saving Jewish lives does not negate the sin or the [prohibition] of receiving pleasure from it. If it was so, [that she received pleasure from that sin], then she did not achieve the lofty [level] of one deserving the praise [expressed in Devorah’s] song that was composed with Divine inspiration. One cannot argue that since she performed that act for its own sake, [to save the Jewish people], then she must have forgotten her [physical] self ─ that would be a more heavenly and lofty level than that which Yael had reached, for in spite of all her righteousness [to risk her life] she still derived pleasure [from the act]. [Therefore, the Talmud answers] that the “favors of the wicked are disdained by the righteous” – [in fact, Yael received no physical pleasure from the act].",
+ "All of this applies to the performance of the mitzvos – not so regarding the diligent study of the Torah. (Though it is a mitzvah like any other, where one may study the Torah for its own sake without negating his sensitivities to his physical being, and it would thus be forbidden to go and study the Torah in a dangerous environment). Nevertheless, the Torah is called a “beloved hind”; a praise implying [an effect] where one who engages in deep [Torah] study even for a moment, it will naturally follow for his Jewish soul to cleave to [the Talmud] with a most powerful love, such that he forgets his physical self. This is demonstrated in Tractate Shabbos 88a, where Rava did not notice how he ground his fingers [under his feet] and his fingers spurted blood, since he was so engrossed [in Torah study].",
+ "Also see Tractate Eruvin 54b pertaining to the verse, “May you always be insane with her [the Torah’s] love,” “This refers to R. Elazar ben Pedos, who would sit and study Torah in the lower market of Tzipori and would forget his cloak, leaving it in the lower market of Tzipori.” It was not, Heaven forbid, that he left his cloak there on purpose, rather since he was so immersed in the analysis [of Torah], combined with an intense love, that he forgot his personal needs. Pertaining to this, the verse [in Proverbs] states that with the love of [Torah] one is allowed to act insanely; one who acts in an unusual manner is called insane. In truth it is forbidden to act in a manner that is considered insane to others, however, [since] the love of Torah results in one forgetting his human nature, one is permitted to act in an “insane” manner.",
+ "[Eruvin 54b] states further, R. Shmuel ben Nahmani, said, “… [What is the meaning of the verse] ‘She effuses charm?’ This teaches that [the Torah] brings allure to those who study it.” This means that when [people] usually see a person acting insanely, or one who deviates from accepted behavior, such a person is detested by mankind. This is not so with one who clings [to God] through the love of Torah and deviates from [normal] human behavior. Such a person is not despised, Heaven forbid; everyone exalts him with graciousness and honor.",
+ "However, this only happens when one performs this [mitzvah] with true love, rather than with a love for himself – out of an ulterior motive. For then he will not be successful, and thus it would be prohibited to act in such a way, because of the [resulting] profanation of God’s name and the disgrace of Torah’s honor. They said of R. Elazar ben Pedos that one time they saw a poisonous snake lying on [R. Elazar’s] cloak, [thereby preventing others from stealing it]. [This honor of the Torah occurred] from [R. Elazar’s] clinging [to the Torah] with true love, and thus all [barriers were leveled] before him as a plane. The change of nature was not too exalted for him. It therefore naturally follows that one may risk one’s safety by analyzing the Torah deeply in such a way that if he [in a similar circumstance] were to apply analysis and mental toil in other areas of wisdom, he would, by the nature of things, endanger himself or become demented.",
+ "However, the love of Torah is more exalted than any other act, and it is understandable why [the Torah] states, “If a man dies in a tent,” [which is interpreted by the Talmud to mean] that a person may place himself in a dangerous situation while he is within the tent of Torah, a moment in which he is clasped within her love and diligence [of study]. This was not so with the three mighty men [of David] who stood on the battlefield. They were not engrossed in the diligent study of the Torah, but went to enquire of the [Sanhedrin] at the gates of Bethlehem about a halachic matter. Even though they traveled there for the sake of Heaven, it was like any other mitzvah, where the act itself does not induce clinging to God, unless as we have elaborated above, he is one who has reached the level [of rising above their physical nature]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "A FURTHER ELABORATION OF HOW TORAH STUDY, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TEMPLE, ENABLES ONE TO TRANSCEND THE PHYSICAL REALM
TO FURTHER ELABORATE and clarify this matter, I would like to begin by quoting Avos de-Rabbi Nassan, chapter 28: “R. Nassan said, ‘There is no love like the love of Torah, there is no wisdom as the wisdom of the Land of Israel, there is no beauty, and so on.’” R. Nassan teaches us that spiritual love is greater and more powerful in potential than the love that results from physical pleasure, which has a finite limit. All that man aspires to achieve in physical love is provided for the sake of what his soul loves, [a form of love] that has precedence over everything [and is experienced by all]. This is not so with the love of Torah, which is so powerful in capacity, to the extent that the soul [reciprocates] and also contributes love for [the Torah’s] sake, [as experienced by] the one whose soul is greatly accustomed to her study and taste. Even though this is difficult to conceptualize and is incomprehensible to the one who has not experienced it – since it is beyond man’s intellect and human nature – however, its truth is known to the one who experiences this additional spirit within himself and is bound to the spirit of the wisdom of the Torah.",
+ "This is what Tractate Rosh Hashanah 4a is expressing in its interpretation of this verse describing [God’s promise to] Israel: “Daughters of kings are with your precious ones; at your right hand the shegal stands erect in the golden jewelry of Ophir.” If shegal means “dog,” what promise is the prophet bringing to Israel? What he means is this: Because the Torah is as dear to Israel as a shegal is to the heathens, you have earned as your reward the gold of Ophir.”",
+ "Behold, this parable is like “vinegar to the teeth and smoke for the eyes.” However, the interpretation is that regarding all different forms of love existing in the world, even though there are diverse ways in experiencing love, as some may have a great love for one thing while others have a greater love for another, even so, everyone can identify with the various sorts of love through their natural human intellect [and experiences]. This is not the case with the love of Torah which is so powerful, the Torah of the Living God – never can it be perceived by one who has never experienced it. [Such a person] can only perceive it by comparing it to the other physical loves that he has experienced, such as the love for a dog that is experienced by those who play with it; which is incomprehensible to those who never experienced this lowly type of love. [The verse is expressing that] the reward for the Torah being beloved by Israel is a lofty matter which is incomprehensible to those [who have not experienced it], just as the [lowly] love of the shegal [dog] is incomprehensible to the human intellect. [By achieving this love of Torah], you will have merited obtaining the gold of Ophir.",
+ "The reason and cause for this [Torah] love, indeed its very origin is explained in the Aggadah of Tractate Bechoros 8b, where the Athenian sages stated the argument to R. Yehoshua ben Hanania: If a man goes and asks the hand of a woman in marriage, but [her family declines] and does not offer her to him, why should he see fit to go where the people are of higher social status than the first woman and seek one of their daughters? [If he was found unworthy by the first, more common family, he will surely be unacceptable to the second].” [R. Yehoshua] took a pin and stuck it in the lower part of the wall, but the [pin] did not enter. [R. Yehoshua then raised his arm and stuck the pin] in the upper [part of the wall, where there was a crack] and it entered. [R. Yehoshua] said [to the Athenians], “This [man] too, [despite his rejection by the first family], may chance to find [among the second family] a woman of his constellation.” Clearly, the Athenian sages were not asking R. Yehoshua frivolous questions. Certainly they were asking about very important matters that pertained to the differences between Israel and the other nations. [The Athenian sages] were attempting to prove that the Jewish religion was inferior to paganism, for when the Holy One, blessed be He, was giving the Torah, He [first] approached [the other nations such as] Paran and Edom, who rejected it, [and only afterwards] did He offer it to the people of Israel who accepted it. [If God approached Israel last], how could they possibly be greater than the other nations in wisdom and importance? R. Yehoshua responded that certainly [the other nations] are [by nature] wiser and greater in measure than Israel. However, the nations of the world are not of the same constellation of the Torah, while Israel is. It states in the Zohar, “Israel and the Torah are one,” meaning, the root of the Spirit of Israel is bound up together with the root of the Torah. This is the reason that Israel and the Torah were brought together in a powerful love similar to the way a flame clings to its source [in Heaven], when unrestrained by something [such as a wick]. When the spirit and soul of Israel embrace for a few moments in the sharpening of the mind in the study of Torah, they [the Torah and Israel] combine to become a single spiritual torch. This is a love powerful in magnitude.",
+ "However, we still do not understand the previously cited statement of R. Nassan. Why did R. Nassan state, “There is no love like the love of Torah”? Should he not have stated that “There is no love like the love of the Holy One, blessed be He?” In chapter 8 of Song of Songs it is written: “Love [for You] is as strong as death,” for it is the nishmisa de-nishmatin, “the soul of the souls” (this is the language of the Zohar on the Torah portion of Beha’alosecha 152b). [In other words, it is as if God is the Soul consisting of the souls] of Israel. [God] is the origin of both the Torah and Israel.",
+ "One should understand that a complete love is consummated when the beloved draws close to the one who desires to pour forth his spirit of love. If the beloved does not draw close to him, so that his love does not match the one who desires to express it – then for certain, the love becomes degraded and weakened.",
+ "[Addendum 1 to Chapter 5]
[THIS IS WHAT King David said of Yonasan, “Your love was more wonderful to me than the love of women.” [King David] did not say “Our love was more wonderful than the love of women,” which would suggest that they loved one another [equally]; David’s love for Yonasan was not as extraordinary. Yonasan drew himself close to David in the greatest possible manner, even though his love for David was much greater in measure [than David’s love for him]. David did not express the same powerful love to Yonassan, for his [David’s] capacity for love was less. It is common that a woman’s love for her husband is greater in measure than her husband’s is for her; nevertheless, her love towards him is powerful since the man expresses his desire for her and pours forth his spirit upon her. David did not express great love for Yonasan, for [his expression of love] was smaller in measure [than Yonasan’s], and thus [David] could not find the emotion to pour his love upon him. Even so, Yonasan loved David with the [deepest] love of the soul, thus the love of Yonasan was [truly] “more wonderful than the love of women.”]",
+ "It describes in Tractate Yoma, in the chapter Hotziah loh, 54a, to enable this end result [of bringing love between God and Israel], the kohanim [Priests] would pull back the Paroches so the Jewish masses could see the Keruvim embracing one another, [thus displaying God’s love for Israel] as the love of a male and female [for one another]. [The kohanim] did not do this to instill pride, Heaven forbid, but so that the people should more readily love and cleave to Him, may He be blessed. For when Israel expressed its love for God, it would be impossible to achieve a complete love for God, unless at that time God [reciprocated] by bestowing his love in abundance for Israel. This only occurred only in the Land of Israel and in a generation that was worthy of this. It cannot occur in these days, as it states in the second chapter of Tractate Sukkah that [even though] it was fitting that the Divine Spirit should rest upon [certain pious sages, it did not occur] because the generation was not worthy.",
+ "This is unlike the love of Torah, as a complete love can be experienced in any place or time, as [expressed by] wisdom’s statement communicated by Solomon through Divine inspiration, “I love them who love me, and those who seek me earnestly shall find Me.” Two things are guaranteed, that she [the Torah] loves us [Israel], and that [the Torah] is readily accessible. It states in Tractate Sanhedrin 91, “‘When the soul toils, the soul then toils for him,’ he toils in one place and then the Torah toils for him in another.” The Torah assists [by both helping him] to understand it and by sweetening his heart so that he is drawn unto her with a complete love that is spiritual [in nature and] most powerful. In conclusion, in these times the love of Torah is more precious before God than the love of God, for [only] the love of Torah can be achieved in a most complete manner.",
+ "The Aggadah states that King David of blessed memory requested of the Holy One, blessed be He, that He consider the recitation of Psalms as if one had stated the laws of Negaim and Ohalos. This implies that studying the Torah with deep analysis is more precious than the hymns and praises of Psalms in arousing Israel to love their Father in Heaven. It is then difficult to understand why David had uttered so many praises [of God], for would it not have been better for him to occupy his time instead with the study of the laws of Negaim and Ohalos [which would have brought him to a higher level]? Is it possible to say that David troubled himself [to compose Psalms only] for those men who lack the strength to study the Torah in depth? However, the correct understanding [of this midrash] is that certainly King David himself experienced Divine inspiration while he recited the various Psalms. Since he achieved a complete love of God, certainly for David, [the love of God] was more precious than the love of Torah. However, in those generations where man cannot experience Divine inspiration through the recitation of Psalms, even though it arouses one to grasp a certain level of loving God, it cannot be achieved to its fullest. This is not so with obtaining the love of Torah, [i.e., the laws of Negaim and Ohalos] for it can be achieved to its fullest, and is thus more precious and greater than anything else.",
+ "One should know that the love of Torah is precious in two ways. One: it causes the love of God, for it is a stepping stone for approaching this level – for those who wish to ascend to this most elevated love of holiness. This is taught in the Sifrei on the Torah portion of Va-es’hanan: The Torah states, “You are to love the Lord your God… these words that I command you today shall be upon your heart.” I would not know how I should love the Holy One, blessed be He, therefore Scripture states, “And these words,” i.e., [with the Torah] you will understand the Holy One, blessed be He, and you will cling to His ways.” This is explained further in my compilation, Rinah shel Torah.",
+ "Second, even if one who does possess the mind or desire to reach such a level, it is possible for one to toil and exhaust himself with the Torah and to cling to it with love and yet never experience the clinging to or love of God, since he did not focus on [reaching this goal]. This is similar to how a specialized tool will not benefit a craftsman if he does not perform the task for which [the tool] is designed; the craftsman does not wish to perform that particular task. Similarly, the word of God does not benefit [even] one who meditates on [the Torah], to achieve the love of God, if one does not concentrate on achieving it. Even so, the love of Torah itself is precious and esteemed in the eyes of God to the extent as described by our Sages in Tractate Avodah Zarah, 3b: During the day, the Lord strings a thread of grace around those who study the Torah by night, as Scripture states, “In the daytime, God will command His lovingkindness. Even by night His song is with me, a prayer to the God of my life.”",
+ "Kindness in this context means that his prayer will be accepted [by God], as indicated by the ending words of the verse, “a prayer to the God of my life.” The simple understanding of the words, “His song is with me,” describes how, when reciting hymns and praise by night, he grasps love and cleaves to the Holy One, blessed be He. [However], R. Simon ben Levi, explains that shira [song] is referring to the song [utterance] of the Torah. As it states in Tractate Nedarim 38a, that the verse “In order that this song will be for Me a witness against the Children of Israel” refers to the entire Torah. [We thus infer that the interpretation of “His song is with me,” is “His Torah is with me,” and King David is stating that by studying the Torah at night], one reaches a level where one’s prayer is accepted by day.",
+ "[Addendum 2 to Chapter 5]
[THE UNDERSTANDING THAT the love of God can be synonymous with the study of Torah] assists us in understanding [a seemingly difficult mishnah] at the end of Tractate Uktzin: R. Yehoshua ben Levi said, “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath three hundred and ten worlds to each and every righteous person, for it is written: ‘I will cause those who love Me to inherit yesh [substance], so that I may fill their storehouses.’”",
+ "At first glance this statement is difficult to understand, since “each and every righteous person” includes even one who serves God out of fear. [We know that] one [who serves God out of fear] is also referred to as “a righteous person” from what is stated at the end of the fifth chapter of Tractate Sotah, when [Rava told two of his students], “Both of you are completely righteous rabbis, but one is motivated by love and the other by fear.” However, [this verse cannot possibly include those who fear Him], for the verse specifies “those who love Me,” meaning only those who serve God out of love. However, [on the other hand the words] “those who love Me” surely cannot be specific to those who serve God with love. Otherwise, the wording at the end of the verse, “That I may fill their storehouses” would not fit well [“storehouse” describes elsewhere those who serve God out of fear], as used in the verse, “The fear of God is His storehouse.”",
+ "Rather, the entire verse is discussing how the Torah provides an inheritance for “those who love Me,” [meaning] that the Torah provides an inheritance for those who study the Torah diligently with love [and, as shall be explained, can also include those who serve God out of fear]. “Inheritance” refers to a share in the 310 worlds, for [“world”] refers to secular wisdom, for every area of study is a world unto itself. Whoever studies the Torah diligently out of love, will achieve with ease, the knowledge in the other areas of wisdom, without the need to expend much effort. For this reason the accumulation of secular knowledge is compared to an “inheritance,” as an inheritance is obtained without toil or labor. One’s comprehension in other fields of study increases proportional to the amount of work that one applies to Torah study. This is why the verse ends with the words, “I will fill their storehouses,” meaning, one’s storehouse will be filled with the fear of God. A [righteous person] wishes to know how to perform the commandments without lacking the knowledge required to fulfill any commandment requiring an understanding of science and the like. It is because of people’s diligence in Torah study, combined with love, that God promises them that He will help them to fill their storehouses [i.e., accumulate knowledge] so that they may comprehend various areas of knowledge and thus be able to perform the commandments properly. That is why R. Yehoshua ben Levi closes the six orders of the Mishnah with his statement [“God will bestow upon every righteous person a share in 310 worlds”], for the six orders of the Mishnah involve all forms of knowledge and wisdom. If one should wonder how it will be possible to know how to calculate exactly the [various] measures required in every area [of halachah] (as this involves a thorough understanding of the areas of science and secular knowledge); R. Yehoshua ben Levi answers that you should not wonder about this since the Torah states: “Those who love Me will inherit yesh [substance]” – [the love for Torah] assists one to obtain understanding in all matters of wisdom and knowledge.",
+ "This verse alludes to the fact that there are 310 different forms of wisdom in the world, every one of which assists those who study the Torah diligently to understand the Torah fully and fill their “storehouses of fear” by knowing how to perform [the commandments]; this is the purpose of the Torah. A proof to this [interpretation can be found] in Tractate Bava Basra 134a, where the Talmud describes how the Torah assisted R. Yohanan ben Zakkai in comprehending all forms of wisdom [references the same verse]. (The [alternative] explanation offered by the Rashbam is unsatisfactory).",
+ "Translator’s note: The Netziv is going to explain that Tractate Avos has a different understanding of this verse.
Relevant to understanding this verse Tractate Avos, chapter 5, explains the phrase “I will fill their storehouses” as referring to those who love God by serving Him out of love, as the Mishnah states: The disciples of our Patriarch Abraham enjoy the fruits of their good deeds in this world and inherit the World to Come, as Scripture states: “I will cause those who love Me to inherit an everlasting possession and I will fill their storehouses.” It is clear that the phrase “those who love Me” alludes to the disciples of Abraham, who are referred to as “the descendants of Abraham, who loved Me,” for Abraham served God out of love, as I wrote in my [commentary] Ha’amek She’elah] 145:24. [The Mishnah] explains “inherit an everlasting possession” in the World to Come, and “fill their storehouses” with reward in this world. However, R. Yehoshua ben Levi [unlike the Mishnah] explains that the entire verse is discussing this world, as we have explained above.[",
+ "So did the Sages derive in Tractate Tamid 32b: R. Hiya taught, “Whoever is immersed in the study of Torah at night, the Shechina, the Divine Presence, stands before him. As it says in Scripture, “Arise, cry out with hymns at night at the beginning of the watches! Pour out your heart like water in the Presence of God! [Lift up your hands to Him for the life of your young children, who swoon with hunger at every street corner].”",
+ "The main theme of these verses teach us that prayer will be accepted [even] after the destruction of the Temple, and the Eulogizer [Jeremiah] is telling us that in these times when you wish “to lift up your hands for the sake of your young children who swoon from hunger,” you should rise to cry out at night and then the Divine Presence will be standing before you ─ He, may His name be blessed, will be close to you and your prayers will be accepted. Simply understood, the verse implies that when one rises to cry out with hymns and praises he obtains love that bonds him with the Holy One, blessed be He. However, the [sages] of blessed memory explained it to be referring to the singing of the Torah; [Torah study] is considered as hymn and praise, for it enables prayer to become more readily accepted. This topic is quite involved and is well-explained in my aforementioned compilation, [Rinah shel Torah], where it was appropriate to discuss this matter at length. My purpose here is only to address the difficulty I raised in chapter 2, i.e., why [the sages who placed themselves in dangerous situations are considered] to have acted properly and became even wiser in the study of Torah. Not only did they avoid harm, but the opposite occurred – they rose to the greatest heights. The reason for this is that the study and analysis of Torah for its own sake brings one to a state of having a powerful spiritual love, which is incomprehensible to one’s natural faculties, as it nullifies one’s focus on his physical being and propels him above any matter of nature.",
+ "We now understand [the previously cited] Tosafos who stated, “Whoever goes to study Torah [becomes a great person],” for when a person leaves home to study at the academy, he has the intent to study it as diligently as necessary with love. Thus it naturally follows that the Torah “toils for him,” and there is no impediment to his achieving greatness.",
+ "It is proper for Koheles to warn those who investigate nature with their human intellect and mind [to refrain from risking the loss of their mental health or life]. Truly, one who studies [Torah] not for its own sake, and has not reached this level [of nullifying the sense of his physical self], is deserving of the two warnings: “why become demented” and not “to be overly wise” than the intelligence he has been allotted. This has been stated in the midrash that we cited at the beginning of our discussion [of this topic]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE DIFFICULTIES IN UNDERSTANDING RAVA’S STATEMENTS THAT THE TORAH CAN BE A DEADLY POISON
BASED ON WHAT we have explained, we can now answer [a seemingly difficult statement in] Tractate Yoma 72b: R. Yehoshua ben Levi said: “What is the meaning of the verse: ‘And this is the law which Moshe sam (set) [before the children of Israel]?’ If one is meritorious, it, [the Torah], becomes for him a medicine of life, if not, [it becomes] a deadly poison. That is what Rava [meant when he] said: “If he is uman bah, skillful in its use, it is a medicine of life unto him; [but if] he is not uman bah, skillful in its use, it is a deadly poison.”",
+ "We can understand the interpretation of “if one is meritorious” from what Rashi writes (on this same folio of the Talmud) [in explaining the following statement] of R. Yohanan: “The Torah writes zar, “alien,” which may also be read as zer, “crown.” If you are meritorious, the Torah becomes a crown for you; if you are not meritorious, it becomes alien to you.” Rashi explains “meritorious” to mean that he merits to study the Torah and practice the commandments for their own sake. It is therefore clear that “not being meritorious” means that if one does not study the Torah for its own sake, it becomes “foreign to him,” which Rashi explains as meaning “he forgets it.” Such a person is unlike one (as described in Part 2, chapter 13), who studies [the Torah] for its own sake, thereby becoming like a river that never ceases [to flow] – in other words, never forgetting [what he has learned].",
+ "This interpretation [of Tractate Yoma] is difficult to understand, since R. Joshua ben Levi would then be stating that if one studies the Torah, not for its own sake, it becomes a deadly poison to him. [This conflicts with] the well-known statement [of our Sages] of blessed memory in Tractate Pesahim 50b: A person should always engage in the study of Torah and the performance of the commandments even [if they are not performed] for their own sake, for [even if at first] they are not performed for their own sake, eventually they will be performed for their own sake.",
+ "One cannot argue [that there is no conflict] since the proper interpretation of Yoma is that [the Torah] becomes a poison only for those who during their entire lifetimes do not study the Torah for its own sake. This cannot be because [of an additional statement by Rava]. Pesahim there states, “Sometimes one is zealous and is rewarded, while another is indolent and is rewarded,” etc. The Talmud there [cites a Baraisa] that one who is indolent and is rewarded “is one who does not work the entire week and [also] does not work on the eve of Shabbos.” Rashi explains that such a person is also considered to be one who performs a mitzvah not for its own sake. Rava then adds: “These women of Mehoza, even though they do not work on any day because they were pampered, since they do not work on the eve of Shabbos, they are considered as being lazy and [yet are] rewarded.”",
+ "One needs to understand what [novel concept] Rava is adding to what was already stated by the Baraisa. [He is pointing out] it is possible to believe that only if one has the potential of eventually refraining from doing work on the eve of Shabbos for its own sake, such a person receives a reward [for performing this act, even when it is not performed for its own sake]. However, if one refrains from working on the eve of Shabbos because that is his nature, [i.e., he is lazy], since he will never [perform this act for its own sake], he would not receive a reward for refraining from working on the eve of Shabbos. Rava therefore adds, even though the women of Mehoza did not work on any day because they were pampered during their childhood [and thus because of their upbringing they would never refrain from performing work on Shabbos eve for its own sake], nonetheless, they are considered as being among those who are “indolent and rewarded.” For the phrase “Even if at first they are not performed for their own sake, they will eventually be performed for their sake” means that if another person sees the women from Mehoza refraining from work on the eve of Shabbos without knowing that they doing so because of their upbringing, he will assume that they are refraining from working on the eve of Shabbos for its own sake, [and he will do the same].",
+ "(Netziv’s Addendum – [Evidentiary support for this interpretation can be found] in Tractate Sanhedrin 105b, stating: If one performs a mitzvah not for its own sake, he will merit to have a descendant who performs the commandments for their own sake. – End of Netziv’s Addendum)",
+ "Therefore, there is an apparent conflict between the Yoma statements by R. Yehoshua ben Levi, [that “If one is not meritorious, it becomes a deadly poison,” followed] by Rava’s [statement agreeing] that “If one does not use it skillfully, it becomes a deadly poison,” and Rava’s own [statement in Pesahim that even those who perform the mitzvos not for their own sake will be rewarded even if they never perform the mitzvah for their own sake during their lifetimes]. One cannot attempt to resolve this problem by arguing that [the statement of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, pertaining to study not for its own sake [refers to a contentious person]. As Rashi explains [the statement in] Tractate Berachos 17a: “One who performs a mitzvah not for its sake – it would be better for him not to have been created,” as referring to a contentious person [who uses his Torah knowledge as a weapon against others]. Tosafos here and in Tractate Pesahim offers this same explanation. See also Tractate Ta’anis 7a, R. Bana’a used to say: “… if one studies the Torah not for its own sake, it becomes a deadly poison to him, as the Torah states, ‘My teachings shall drop as the rain,’ (Deut. 32:2). The term used here for dropping, ya’arof, also denotes killing, as it states, ‘They shall break, ve-arefu, the heifer’s neck.’” (Deut. 21:4)",
+ "However, it is impossible to explain the Tractate Yoma statements in this way. First, as we noted above, the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi is written in the context of R. Yochanan’s statement [in Yoma dealing with studying for, or not for its own sake, and therefore it is unlikely that they are speaking of contentiousness]. In addition, how can we associate one who is contentious [using Torah knowledge to harm others] with the description of “one who does not merit?” Behold, the former is a sinner and transgressor who becomes contentious by exploiting the King’s crown! Further, Rava states, “If he does not use it skillfully, it becomes a deadly poison.” If this is to be interpreted as “he is contentious,” why would Rava state that he “does not use it skillfully,” which implies that he is not doing anything wrong, but is simply not using it in the best manner? Behold, he is skilled in being contentious and harming others!",
+ "Certainly, it must be that the words, “he does not merit,” is referring to one who does not study the Torah for its own sake, and therefore the original questions remain: why is it that [if one does not study the Torah for its own sake], it becomes a deadly poison? Further, it is Rava himself who stated in Tractate Pesahim that one receives a reward even when not studying the Torah or performing a mitzvah for its sake, and yet he states in Yoma that if one does not merit, i.e., he does not study the Torah for its own sake ─ it becomes a deadly poison to him.",
+ "I have a further question based on what is stated in Tractate Shabbos 88b: R. Hananel ben Papa said: “What is meant by, ‘Hear, for I will speak princely things;’ why are the words of the Torah compared to a prince? [It is] to tell you that just as a prince has the power of life and death, so do the words of the Torah have [the potentialities] of life and death.” Thus Rava said: “To those who go to the right hand [of the Torah], it is a medicine of life; to those who go to the left hand thereof, it is a deadly poison.”",
+ "Furthermore, see what is stated in the same Tractate [Shabbos] 61a: Rava ben R. Shila said, while others say R. Yoseph ben Hama said in the name of R. Sheshes: “What is meant by the verse, ‘Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand are riches and honor’? Is there in her right hand length of days only, but not riches and honor? Rather [the proper interpretation is] those who go to the right hand there is length of days, and certainly riches and honor, whereas for those who go to the left hand there are riches and honor, but not length of days.” Rashi explains that the left hand, as the weaker one, is descriptive of those who do not study the Torah as deeply as required, or they do not study the Torah for its own sake. One can ask regarding R. Hananel ben Papa: why does he explain that for those who go to the left hand [of the Torah] it is a deadly poison; yet we see that there are riches and honor for those who go to the left hand as well?",
+ "One may suggest that in those areas of Torah that one merited to acquire because of one’s natural abilities, such a person fulfills the commandment of studying the Torah, even if he does not study it for its own sake. However, if a person studies areas of the Torah that are beyond his natural abilities, it is good to say that if he merits to study the Torah for its own sake, the Torah assists him to comprehend it, even though it was not originally within his ken. This is the meaning of [Rava in Shabbos 88a that the Torah] becomes a medicine of life for him. Yet if he strives to understand those areas of the Torah that are beyond his natural abilities, and he does not study the Torah for its own sake, it then becomes a deadly poison to him. [Therefore, when Tractate Shabbos 63a states that there are riches and honor for the one who does not study the Torah for its own sake, it is speaking of those areas that are understandable to him with his inborn abilities]. This would appear to be the proper interpretation.",
+ "However, this interpretation is not apt, for why would [R. Yehoshua’s and Rava’s statements] be limited to Torah study when any matter of wisdom that a person strives to comprehend beyond his natural ability involves danger? Why would Scripture state, “This is the Torah,” meaning that it is unique to the Torah? [Also Proverbs] states: “Hear, for I will speak princely things,” from which the Sages in Tractate Shabbos [inferred that the words of Torah have the potentialities of life and death], which also makes it clear that this statement is limited to the Torah. [Therefore, the statements cannot be speaking of one studying the Torah not for its own sake in a way that exceeds his natural abilities, otherwise these statements should have been expanded to studying the other areas of knowledge not for their own sake as well].",
+ "This matter can be understood by carefully re-examining the wording of the above-mentioned Tractate Yoma, which infers [that the words of Torah can be either an elixir of life or a deadly poison] from the verse, “This is the law which Moshe set [before the children of Israel].” Why is this derived from the words “which Moshe set?” Granted, the Mechilta, on the Torah portion of Be-shalah, infers from these words that the Torah is associated with [Moshe’s] name. Nevertheless, since the inference that the Torah is like an elixir [of life or death] is only alluded to by a verse linking the Torah to Moshe, a reason for this exegesis is necessary. [A further difficulty] is how the prophet Malachi warns [Israel to keep] the Torah: “Be mindful of the teaching of My servant Moshe, whom I charged at Horeb with laws and rules for all Israel.” It is difficult to understand why there is a need for this extra phrase and description “Whom I charged at Horeb,” etc.",
+ "However, this can be explained by what is stated in Tractate Nedarim 38a: R. Yosi ben R. Hanina said: “The Torah was given only to Moshe and his seed, for it is written, ‘Write for yourself these words’ [and] ‘Carve for yourself’: just as the carvings [of the Tablets] are yours, so is the writing yours. But Moshe generously gave it to Israel, and concerning him it is said, ‘He who possesses a bountiful eye shall be blessed, etc.’” R. Hisda objected, “[The Torah states]: ‘God commanded me at that time to teach you hukim [statutes] and mishpatim [judgments]?’” [R. Yosi answered], “[It should be translated as], ‘He commanded me, and I [passed it on] to you.’” “[There is a further objection, as the Torah states]: ‘Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me?’” [R. Yosi answered], “He commanded me, and I then taught you.” “[Another objection is that Scripture states]: ‘Now, therefore, write this song for you!’” [R. Yosi answered], “This refers only to the song [whereas the rest of the Torah had been given to Moshe alone].” “[But does not “song” refer to the entire Torah, as Scripture states]: ‘This song shall be a witness against the children of Israel’?” “Only pilpul be-alma [the pilpul method] [was given to Moshe alone, and he later taught it to the people].”",
+ "The Rosh explains that pilpul refers to the understanding and sharpness of reasoning. That is what is meant by [the phrase], “The writing is yours,” for all wisdom and reasoning are hinted at in the writing of the Torah by the forms of the letters. (The Netziv’s addendum – One must say that “forms of the letters,” refers to how the letters are combined, [such as] when words are written haser [with missing letters], or malei [with all of the letters], or when an unusual use [of a word or letter is employed] – end of Netziv’s addendum).",
+ "The Mefaresh to Nedarim writes, “The ability to infer one matter from another, [was given to Moshe, and he treated it with generosity by giving it to Israel].” We will expand on the significance of this later. We learn from this that the pilpul method, i.e., deriving Halachah by meticulous exegesis of Scripture, and by application of the thirteen hermeneutical principles with which the Written Law may be expounded, was given to Moshe alone. All of Israel was limited to the halachic decision process by applying the Halachah that Moshe received at Mount Sinai pertaining to every parasha and mitzvah of the Torah. Where no tradition was received, the Halachah was to be derived by using logic in comparing one matter to another, as it states in Tractate Bava Basra 130b, “In the entire [domain of] the Torah comparisons are made.” This is the main halachic decision method found in Israel. We previously explained in Part 1, chapter 4, how this method is written [in Scripture] pertaining to the “rebellious scholar.” Scripture first states: “You must approach the scholarly priests and the shofet who are alive at that time,” and then states [a few verses later], “If any man [who is ordained and sits on the Great Sanhedrin] should rebel and refuse to listen to the Kohen who is in charge of serving the Lord your God there, or to the shofet [judge]….” These verses are difficult to comprehend, for what does the Kohen “who is in charge of serving God” have to do with addressing uncertainties in Halachah, which can be resolved by [one who possesses] exceptional wisdom, such as the Head of the Sanhedrin, i.e., the shofet?",
+ "However, there are two types of extraordinary [judges]. One type [addresses] doubts pertaining to areas of pilpul [deep analysis], and these types of issues are asked of the shofet, i.e., the Head of the Sanhedrin. The second type [of judge addresses] questions that involve comparative logic, and in this area the [greatest] power of adjudication was given to Aharon, as it states, “[You, Aharon, will also be able] to render decisions for the Israelites in all the laws that God has taught you through Moshe.” It is impossible to rely on the pilpul method for the more common forms of adjudication, because that requires argumentation and deliberation; this method relies instead on sound logic.",
+ "Translator’s note: For the next several pages, the Netziv will be proving that when the Torah describes the High Priest as having the “crown of anointing oil,” it is stating that the High Priest was foremost in rendering on-the-spot halachic decisions. His analysis pertains to the two ways the High Priest assumed office:
• By being anointed with the oil of anointment.
• By donning the vestments of his office. This High Priest is called merubeh bi-vegadim, literally translated (as the priest distinguished by) a “larger number of [official] garments.” During the Second Temple era, when no anointing took place, the High Priest assumed office in this manner.
Following Aharon, every High Priest was greatest and foremost in deciding Halachah by applying the known traditions he amassed and by using comparative logic. With this [concept] we can understand what is written in the Torah portion of Emor, “The Priest who is greatest among his brethren, upon whose head was poured the anointing oil…. He shall not leave the Sanctuary and he shall not profane his God’s Sanctuary, for the crown of his God’s anointing oil is upon him,” etc. The usage of “crown” in “the crown of his God’s anointing oil,” is unclear. In addition, it is known that the High Priest who assumed office by donning the special vestments performed his duties while being an onen, [a mourner before the burial of a close relative]. This is difficult because the verse explicitly states, “For the crown of his God’s anointing oil is upon him,” which implies that only the High Priest who assumed office with the oil of anointing [was prohibited from leaving the Sanctuary] – not the High Priest who assumed office by donning the special vestments. Rashi in Tractate Horayos 12b, s.v. Talmud Lomar, states: “The High Priest serves while he is an onen regardless if he assumed his office with the oil of anointment or by donning the special vestments… for [these two types of High Priest] are included within the category of a High Priest….”",
+ "I find this problematic because of the [source of the] prohibition against the High Priest marrying a widow [demonstrates that the various types of High Priest cannot be inferred from one another]: “The priest who is highest among his brethren,” refers to the High Priest; “Upon whose head the anointing oil is poured” refers to the priest who is anointed for war; “Who is consecrated to put on the garments” refers to the High Priest who is dedicated by the additional garments alone.",
+ "We therefore see that if the Torah did not state explicitly the law pertaining to the priest appointed to wear the special vestments, [the prohibition against his marrying a widow] would not be inferred from the priest who had been anointed with the oil of office. Therefore, how is it known that the one appointed to wear the special vestments is included in the requirement for a High Priest to perform his duties while he is an onen?",
+ "The source is from the Toras Kohanim where it states: We only know that a Priest who is appointed with the oil of anointment [is to serve when he is an onen]; from where is it known that this same rule applies to the one appointed by the special vestments? The Torah therefore states, “For the anointing oil of God is [upon you].” Although this [text] is unclear, the holy one, Eliyahu, correctly edits [this Toras Kohanim] by [including a different verse], “For the crown of his God’s anointing oil is upon him.” However, this exegesis remains unclear, [for how can the words pertaining to anointing oil teach us that even the one appointed by the special vestments may perform the service even while he is an onen]?",
+ "It appears that this Toras Kohanim can be explained by the previously cited Tractate Yoma: “The Torah writes zar, “alien,” which may also be read as zer, “crown.” If you are meritorious, the Torah becomes for you a crown, if you are not meritorious, it becomes alien to you.” Zer refers to the crown on the Ark that resided in the Holy of Holies, for it was from there that the power of halachic decision-making emanated, enabling one to attain the truth through comparative reasoning. It is pertaining to this that [Yoma] inferred that if one does not merit [to receive the crown of halachic decision-making], the traditions will be forgotten by him. It is for this reason that “crown” was written such that it may be read in two different ways: [zer, “crown” and zar, “foreign”]. However, pertaining to the High Priest, who most certainly merited to [obtain the crown of halachic decision making], Scripture clearly states, “For the zer [crown] of his God’s anointing oil is upon him.” [“Crown”] teaches us that even if he does not have God’s anointing oil upon him, [i.e., he is appointed by the special vestments], nevertheless the crown [of the Ark] is upon him, i.e., [Divine assistance] for halachic decision making.",
+ "The power of halachic decision existed in the Tent of Meeting, for it was from there that the teaching of the law emanated for Israel. It states in the Midrash Rabbah pertaining to the verse in Song of Songs: “‘To the chamber of her – horasi – who conceived me,’ [‘chamber’] refers to the Tent of Meeting, from which issues forth the teaching of the law.”",
+ "However, to know the pilpul method, enabling one to comprehend deeply how the traditions are all alluded to in the Torah, and how to [use this comprehension] to derive laws that are not addressed by tradition (as we have written in Part 1, chapters 6 and 7) initially – these were provided only to Moshe and his descendants. When our teacher Moshe arrived at the plains of Moab, he taught [this methodology] to all of Israel, and this is why Moshe taught the Torah a third time on the plains of Moab. Moshe did not merely review with them what he had previously taught, for why would the Torah specify only “the plains of Moab?” He [continued] to study and teach as much as possible, throughout the entire forty years that they traveled in the wilderness. Rather, the third time Moshe taught them the Torah, he taught them a new methodology, which is pilpul and inference from Scripture. This [idea] is clearly stated in the Midrash Rabbah on Shemos 40, [Scripture states]: “Then did He see it, and declare it; He established it and hikerah, searched it out.” [This teaches us], “Then did he see it and declare it” at Sinai, [then] “he established it” in the Tent of Meeting, [and he] “hikerah, searched it out” in the plains of Moab.”",
+ "In the Tent of Meeting he prepared the laws [that Israel would] practice, for from there the teaching of laws for Israel issued forth. Yet in the plains of Moab, [Moshe together with the people] investigated in order to learn the rationale of the laws; [the methodology that] was described in Part 1 pertaining [to our interpretation of the words] izen, ponder, and hiker, investigate."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Translator’s note: This chapter lays the foundation for resolving the questions regarding Rava’s statements. The resolution to these questions is stated in chapter 8.
MOSHE BEQUEATHED THE DIVINE GIFT OF PILPUL TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO ENSURE THEIR SURVIVAL IN EXILE
THE REASON [Moshe taught Israel the pilpul method] is because God decreed at the Incident of the Spies that the Temple was to be destroyed, and that [the Children of Israel] were to be scattered in [foreign] lands. As it states in Psalms 106:26, “Then He lifted up His hand [in an oath] against them, to throw them down in the wilderness.” In addition, the Prophet Ezekiel, in 20:23 stated, “I also lifted up My hand [in an oath] that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them throughout the lands.”",
+ "[Addendum 1 to Chapter 7]
Translator’s note: In this addendum, the Netziv explains the reason for Israel’s exile.
ALTHOUGH THIS DECREE [of exile] is not stated explicitly in the Torah, it is alluded to [by how God decreed during the incident of the spies that they would not enter Israel]: “But as I live and the glory of God shall fill the entire world.” The commentaries say that this statement is an oath [of punishment to be read as], “Just as I [God] live and the glory of God fills the entire world; all the men who have seen My glory and My signs… will not see the Land that I have sworn to give their forefathers,” etc. However, we explained in She’ilta 30:7 that this is not an oath [of punishment]. Rather, it is a rationale as to why they were not forgiven completely as they should have been, since Moshe entreated God by invoking the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy. See there [what we wrote].",
+ "In addition, [God is explaining to the generation that left Egypt why] it was [also] decreed that the future generations were to be dispersed among the different lands. For it is known that if it were not for the fact that Israel was exiled and scattered among the various lands of the Diaspora, the glory of God would have never been revealed to the nations of the world; the ancient ones of the nations of the world were idolaters and did not know God. This remained so until Israel arrived and was intermixed among the various nations and the Name of God and His glory were thus revealed from “the rising of the sun to its setting.”",
+ "The meaning of the word ani (I), as used in Scripture, is referring to the fulfillment [of the potential] and purpose of the speaker. For the Midrash Rabbah on the Mi-ketz states: From the ani of flesh and blood, we learn how to interpret the ani when it is used by the Holy One, blessed be He. For when Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Ani – I – am Pharaoh. Without your command, no man will lift a hand or foot in all of Egypt,” the words “Ani – I am Pharaoh,” express he is one possessing complete power and might, and it is due to his possessing that complete power that he is able to assign great authority to Joseph. Therefore, when God states, “But now see! It is ani [I], ani [I] am the One,” etc., a fortiori, even more so that it is with God. [God] is stating, “I am the One through Whom the entire purpose of Creation is to be manifest for [the sake of] My glory, and I shall reveal My glory throughout the land.”",
+ "It is [because of this interpretation of “ani”] that our sages of blessed memory expounded [in a mishnah] in the fifth chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin: “When a man of Israel suffers [for his sins], what expression does the Shechinah, the Divine Presence, use? – ‘Kalani – I am lighter than My head, I am lighter than My arm.’” In the Jerusalem Talmud this [Mishnah] is explained further: “What is meant by ‘kalani’? The ani is not light” [i.e., the ani is a burden]. The interpretation of this [Jerusalem Talmud] is, that the ani, so to speak, is being diminished through the weakening of the glory of Heaven and His will, may He be blessed. (It appears that this is the proper interpretation of Rava’s statement [explaining this mishnah] in the Babylonian Talmud. “[It is like one who is saying], ‘The world is kal – light – to me,’” that is, the world is unworthy [to contain My glory]. This [Mishnah] is expressing that the ani is not [manifest as the Divine Will intended it to be from the beginning of creation]. Rashi’s interpretation is weak.)",
+ "[With this interpretation of ani we can now understand the purpose of the exile]. This is the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, at the Incident of the Spies: “But as I live,” [meaning] when does the ani live, i.e., reach its ultimate purpose? When “the glory of the Lord fills the entire world,” for the entire world was created to be filled with its Creator’s glory. When this purpose is fulfilled, then the ani “lives” [i.e., is manifest]. When Israel caused the profanation of God’s Name with the Incident of the Spies, it resulted in: “Ani, I, will live.” In other words, “The glory of God shall fill the entire world,” by [Israel] being scattered throughout the world. [Since Israel sinned, they could no longer publicize His glory by acting in a manner above nature while remaining in Israel. They were limited to acting in a manner in accordance with nature and were thus required to be dispersed among the nations and to make his Name known]. This was not clearly explained to Israel [at that time]. It is only later that [God] added, “You will then understand My absence,” meaning that there will be a time [in the future that] you will understand what I intended to accomplish by means of [the exile].",
+ "Moshe understood that with the power of traditions [alone], the Jews would not be able to formulate laws and statutes [to compensate] for what had not been received from Sinai, or [to compensate] for what would be forgotten during the mourning period for Moshe. Even more [he was concerned] for the later generations, when Israel would be devoured by gaping mouths and would not be able to reach the Temple. Even during the period of the Second Temple, the power of the Temple would become diminished and the light of the Ark would be absent. [Therefore,] Moshe was forced to rise and teach [Israel] the method of pilpul, for [with pilpul] it would be able to derive any law that was not received at Sinai or to [compensate] for those laws that were received and forgotten, analogous to what we wrote pertaining to Osniel, who, through his pilpul, restored all the forgotten laws.",
+ "This is what Moshe warned [Israel] of at the beginning of Devarim: These are the words that Moshe spoke to all of Israel, on the other side of the Jordan…. Eleven days from Horeb, by way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea. It was in the fortieth year… when Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel regarding everything that God had commanded him for them. After he had smitten Sihon…. On the other side of the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moshe ho’il began explaining this Torah, saying….",
+ "This means that before Moshe explained the Torah – in other words, taught them how the traditions are alluded to in the Torah – he had to tell them why it was necessary for him to teach [them] this method. He reprimanded them, saying [that it was necessary] because they had sinned, so it was decreed upon them that they must dwell for forty years in the wilderness. This [punishment] alluded to [their future dispersal] among the other lands, as it is written in the Torah passage of Shelah: “There shall be one year for each day, a total of forty years until your sin is forgiven. You will then understand My absence.”",
+ "We previously wrote that [God] hinted to them that they would know eventually why they had received this decree [from Him]. Therefore, [since the future generations were to be dispersed], there was an absolute need to teach [Israel] all that God had directed him [Moshe, to do] – that is, the pilpul method. This is the explanation of ho’il Moshe: meaning that Moshe generously [taught them this method], or [it can be translated as, “Moshe began”] – meaning that he began to teach them in a new way in which he had never taught them before.",
+ "This explains the order of the [following items cited in the] Torah passage [of Va-es’hanan]: This is the law that Moshe presented before the Children of Israel. These are the testimonies, rules and laws that Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel when they left Egypt. On the bank of the Jordan, in the valley, opposite Beis-pe’or, in the land of Sichon, king of the Amorites, who dwells in Heshbon, whom Moshe and the Children of Israel smote when they went out of Egypt. They possessed his land,” etc.",
+ "According to the theme of this passage, everything [in the latter verses] appear to be extraneous, for what is the relevance of possessing the land of Sichon and its borders with the importance of keeping the Torah’s statutes? However, this matter can be explained with the Midrash Rabbah on Hukas: Why was the Torah given [to the Children of Israel] in the wilderness? For if the Torah was given in the Land of Israel, the Tribe within whose border it was given would state that it was foremost in the portion of the Torah. Therefore, the Torah was given in the wilderness so that all [would acknowledge] that they are equal [in its study].",
+ "When it was time for Moshe to teach the Children of Israel a new method [of Torah study] by using pilpul, as implied by the words “Moshe began explaining this Torah,” this teaching would be difficult to transmit on the other side of the Jordan River. This land had already been apportioned to the sons of Gad and Reuven, and there was a concern that those two tribes could claim that they had a greater share in this area of the Torah. He therefore approached this wisely, as it is clearly explained [in the above-mentioned midrash].",
+ "[The land “opposite Beis-pe’or was neutral land, for Israel was forbidden to dwell there], as the Sifrei on the Torah passage of Balak stated: “R. Elazar ben Shamua said, ‘Just as it is impossible for a nail to be dislodged from a door without [taking] the wood [with it], so it is impossible for [the Children of] Israel to separate from Peor without [losing their] souls.’” The Sifrei then cites a number of instances where the Temple of Pe’or would entice and seize Jewish souls, even more than other nations. [Because of this strong attraction,] Jews were forbidden to live opposite Beis-peor, as it states in Tractate Avodah Zarah 17a–b [it is forbidden to place oneself in a situation where one is likely to be tempted to sin]. When R. Hanina and R. Yonassan approached a fork in the road, with one path opening onto the door of a temple of idol worship, and the other path opening onto the door of a brothel, one Sage said], “Let us go on the path that opens onto the door of the temple of idol worship, for its inclination has been slaughtered” – in other words, as Rashi explains, so that the evil inclination will not overcome us.",
+ "Because of this [strong temptation for idolatry], the area opposite Beis-pe’or remained without [a tribe attempting] to possess it [at that time]. Even though in fact this land should have been connected to Reuven’s inheritance, as it was near the border of Nevo, [and regardless of the fact] that Moshe was buried in Beth-peor, that particular string of land that stood opposite that [area] of idol worship, which was not possessed by Reuven, remained unclaimed.",
+ "Therefore, Moshe and all of Israel arose in that particular place, and while the Jews were engrossed in the elucidation of the Torah, the Sword of Israel shielded them from the enticements of the evil urge to this idol worship. This is the explanation of the verses [in Va-es’hanan], “These are the testimonies, rules and laws that Moshe spoke…. On the bank of the Jordan, in the valley, opposite Beis-peor,” etc. In other words, the reason that they stood in that dangerous area is [that since] they [already] possessed all of the land of Sihon, inclusive of all that was within that border, [Moshe] was unable to give over to them this portion of the Torah and [this methodology] of study in a place that had already been possessed, [without it being viewed as being partial to Reuven or Gad]. Therefore, they stood on unowned land.
Translator’s summary: Moshe taught the pilpul method opposite Beis-pe’or for two reasons. First, it was neutral land, and it was demonstrated that all of Israel have a share in the pilpul method. Second, they learned how the pilpul method protects them from falling prey to even the most powerful form of idol worship.",
+ "[Addendum 2 to Chapter 7]
[IN THIS ADDENDUM, the Netziv will be proving that pilpul enabled Gad to inhabit the land opposite Beis pe’or].
With the above explanation, we can now explain Moshe’s blessing of Gad: Blessed is He Who broadens Gad; he dwells like a lion, tearing off arm and even head. He sees the foremost portion, for that is where the lawgiver’s plot is hidden; and he came with the heads of the nation, doing what is just with God and His ordinances with Israel.",
+ "According to the simple understanding, all [the words in] these [verses] are speaking of the tribe of Gad, however, it is unclear what is meant by the words, “He came with the heads of the nation, doing what is just with God,” etc. It seems that the meaning of the phrase “broadens Gad” is not that his portion was more expansive than the rest of the tribes, as it appears that half of the tribe of Menasheh received a larger amount of land. In fact, anything that was to be linked to [Gad’s] possession should not be referred to as “broadened,” for everything it received was within its allotted share; “broadens Gad” means that it took more than its allotted share. It is stated in the Sifrei on the Torah passage of Ve-zos ha-beracha that Moshe had died within the inheritance of Reuven on Mount Nevo and that he was buried in the valley that was tied to the inheritance of the tribe of Gad, as it states: “for that is where the lawgiver’s plot is hidden.” This [statement] is unclear, for how could they divide the land in such a precise manner that they could draw a marker through a mountain and valley [so that Moshe’s grave would be in the land of] two different tribes? Is it not clear that [Nevo] is not defined as being within the borders of Gad [but Reuven’s], and if this is so, how [can this area also] be considered as Gad’s?",
+ "However, this is the proper interpretation. The strip of land [including Mt. Nevo] that stands opposite Beis-peor was not taken as a possession by the sons of Reuven due to the fear of idol worship. When Moshe died, the sons of Gad came and possessed it and their possession was thus expanded. They did not fear [the sin] of idol worship, and this is the interpretation of the words, “he dwells like a lion without fear, tearing off arm and even head.” As it states in the Midrash, which is also cited by Tosafos in Tractate Sotah 45, when idolatry raises its head [in that area] and views the grave of Moshe, it lowers itself. This is what the verse states: “He sees the foremost portion, for that is where the lawgiver’s plot is hidden.” The foremost reason for Gad’s confidence [that it would be protected from the sin of idolatry], was that Moshe was buried there. The verse adds, “He came with the first of the nation” [that is, he came with the foremost of the nation], for he brought there the heads of the nation, i.e., sages engrossed in the study of Torah, [and this provided additional protection]. By doing so, [the tribe of Gad was involved in] “doing what is just with God,” as it made this place habitable for Israel, since it is known that there is a mitzvah to settle the land of Israel. By increasing the number of scholars [and deep analysis], “His ordinances with Israel” were increased [through the insights provided by these scholars of Gad]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "BY RESOLVING THE APPARENT CONFLICT IN RAVA’S STATEMENTS, WE UNDERSTAND HOW THE MISAPPLICATION OF PILPUL CONTRIBUTES TO THE WORLD’S DESTRUCTION
Translator’s note: Here the Netziv asserts that pilpul is an elixir of life, a method of Torah study that God directed the Jewish nation to employ in order to guarantee its survival in the various exiles. However, if this precious tool of pilpul is misapplied, it becomes an elixir of death. The Netziv’s proofs depend on the meaning of three words ─ hukim, mishpatim and la’asos. The word hukim is generally interpreted as counter-intuitive laws, whereas the word mishpatim refers to the laws that have a discernible rationale, or laws that regulate conduct between persons – e.g., torts, contracts, etc. The word la’asos is usually translated as either to make or to perform. Both here, and in many places in his commentary on the Torah, the Netziv argues that the translations of these terms vary according to context. With regard to the word hukim, he concludes that it may also mean analysis or analytical rules, such as the thirteen hermeneutical principles of R. Yishmael. Similarly, the word mishpatim can also mean practical laws, or, alternatively, the application of analysis, namely, the methodology as to how to apply hukim so that it results in the derivation of practical laws, such as the ones in the Shulhan Aruch.
The word la’asos and its various conjugations may be translated as ‘to perform’ or ‘to create,’ depending on the context. The Netziv asserts that if la’asos is translated in various statements as “create” or “enhance,” the difficulties discussed in chapter 6 pertaining to the interpretation of various Talmudic statements and the contradictions between the various statements of Rava are resolved by limiting the word to the application of analysis and pilpul to generate new laws.
WE EXPLAINED in Part 1, chapters 7 and 8, that with the destruction [of the Temples] and the beginning of the exile, Isaiah [at the end of the First Temple period], and afterwards, the Men of the Great Assembly [led by Ezra during the Second Temple period], resolved to enhance the Torah and [use of] pilpul among Israel. This was the message of Malachi: [“Be mindful of the teaching of My servant Moshe, whom I charged at Horeb with hukim, laws, and mishpatim, rules, for Israel”]. Malachi, [who is actually] Ezra, as stated in Tractate Megillah 15a, [is referred to as] a sofer, “enumerator,” of the Torah of Moshe, for he counted the letters of the Torah and applied exegesis to them. It is written in Ezra 7:11 that “He counted the words of the commandments of God and his statutes that [were commanded] to Israel.” Had the text stated, “He counted God’s commandments,” I would say that Ezra had counted the commandments, [which is in itself] a great wisdom, [as explained in Part 2]. However, the language used is, “He counted the words of the commandments,” implying that he counted the details of each and every mitzvah.",
+ "[We see elsewhere that the word sofer is defined as one who enumerates the details of the mitzvos]. As the Talmud explains [regarding the colleagues of Ya’abetz], “families of soferim, enumerators” [refers to the grouping or counting of the details of the various commandments]. See this interpretation in chapter 5 of the Jerusalem Talmud [in Tractate Shekalim]. [Based on what is said in Ezra and the way a sofer is defined in Tractate Shekalim], we infer that Ezra was a “master of collections,” i.e., one who enumerated the details of the mitzvos. It also states in the Book of Ezra that “hukav, his statutes, which [were commanded] to Israel,” were originated by Ezra. [The term] hukav, his statutes, refers to Ezra [and not to God], meaning that he investigated [the Torah] deeply [from the word mehokek] and thus originated new laws, teaching Israel how to do the same. [We thus see that during the First and Second Temple periods, the leaders of Israel, mindful of the impending exiles, instructed Israel in the method of pilpul].",
+ "(Netziv’s addendum – [As a support for my interpretation of the word hukav as used in Malachi, see] the Mechilta on the Torah section of Beshalah: “‘You shall keep all hukav, his statutes’ – these are the halachos, the laws.” In other words, [these are the practical laws] that are derived through deep examination and hakikas, analysis of the mind. – end of Netziv’s addendum)",
+ "As I explained above pertaining to Tractate Nedarim, [the way to derive new laws] was mainly by application of pilpul to the Torah. The prophet Malachi warned Israel: “Be mindful of the Teaching of My servant Moshe, whom I charged at Horeb with hukim, laws, and mishpatim, rules, for all of Israel.” “Mindful of the [Teaching of My servant Moshe],” refers to the portion of the Torah that was given only to Moshe at Horeb, [i.e., the pilpul method]. Today it is incumbent upon all of Israel to use the pilpul system, and this is what is meant by linking hukim together with mishpatim. That is, it should not be a pilpul of vapor without a goal, but rather a method to comprehend the hukim and mishpatim [i.e., a practical result]. This is the wording of the Torah: “See, I have taught you hukim and mishpatim,” meaning, I [Moshe], have been directed to teach you statues and rules. Tractate Nedarim understands this verse as, “I have been commanded [in this method], and I am now teaching it to you. This is referring to pilpul be-alma, [i.e., deriving laws by analyzing the nuances of the letters and words in the Torah]. Hukim and mishpatim mean that the laws should be studied, le-hokek, to analyze the words deeply, so that one can derive mishpatim, [laws that are to be practiced] from them. This interpretation is supported by the above-mentioned Mechilta, and this is Malachi’s exhortation [to be “mindful of the teaching… with hukim, analysis, and mishpatim, rules of practice”].",
+ "[Addendum 1 to Chapter 8]
THIS [EXPLANATION OF hukim and mishpatim] resolves a question raised by Tosafos in the fourth chapter of Tractate Bava Kamma. [The difficulty is that Bava Kamma relates that the Sages] taught Torah to non-Jews, yet the Sages in Tractate Sanhedrin inferred from the verse “It is the morashah [heritage] of the Congregation of Jacob” that [teaching the Torah to non-Jews is forbidden. The source of the latter rule] is that the word morasha may be read as me’orasah, betrothed; meaning that we are betrothed to the Torah, and a non-Jew who is immersed in the study of Torah is liable to the death penalty. In addition, Tractate Hagigah states that it is forbidden to teach a non-Jew Torah and inferred this law from the verse, “Such mishpatim they know not.”",
+ "However, by defining [hukim and mishpatim] as above, no question remains. For certain, one is allowed to study established laws with [non-Jews]; it is only the Talmud, the pilpul of the Torah, that is forbidden. It is “the Torah that Moshe commanded us” [the pilpul] that is betrothed to Israel. This is stated by the verse: “He relates His words to Jacob, His hukim and mishpatim to Israel. He did not do this for any other nation; such mishpatim, they know them not.” “His words,” i.e., the Written Torah, “He relates” [communicated such that it enables the people to infer nuances from Scripture]; “to Jacob,” the entire congregation of Jacob, [meaning that it was transferred exclusively to those who enter the congregation of Jacob]; “His hukim and mishpatim” – these are the [hukim], hermeneutical rules and methods of analysis [that result in the mishpatim, laws]; “He did not do so for any other nation” refers to “His words”; the [methodology which permits inferences of minutiae from] the Written Torah [were not made known to the other nations]. Even though they, [the nations of the world], know the Written Torah and [it was God’s] desire from the beginning that they should know the Written Torah, (for that is why the Torah was written in seventy languages, as stated in the seventh chapter of Tractate Sotah), He did “relate” the Torah to them [as he had done for Israel]. The phrase “Such mishpatim, they know them not” does not exclude the hukim, the analytical rules [as the nations of the world] may study the hermeneutical rules [and understand them] at face value. However, they are unable to grasp the analysis such that they can apply them [to derive new mishpatim applicable] to daily life; thus, the Talmud was not made known to them. In fact, this interpretation [of hukim and mishpatim] is clearly stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, which is also cited by the Ran on Tractate Nedarim 37a, [while discussing the scope of the prohibition for compensating those who teach Torah, states:]",
+ "One may argue that one is required even to teach Scripture and Targum gratuitously, therefore the Torah states: “[God commanded me at that time to teach you] hukim and mishpatim.” You are to teach them hukim and mishpatim gratuitously, whereas you are not required to teach Scripture and Targum for free.",
+ "We thus see that hukim and mishpatim refer to the Talmud. This [conclusion] is also strongly supported by the Sifrei on Deut. 12:1: “These are the statutes and judgments;” [the Sifrei says] that mishpatim refers to practical laws. Targum Onkelos also translates hukim in this verse as keyamayah, “that which is established,” [which means they are laws that are established by the rabbis]. This is unlike the way hukim is translated by the Targum when used in the context of the verse “This is the hukas of the Passover offering” [which he translates as a decree.] [Thus, the meaning of mishpatim and hukim varies depending on the context. Therefore, the reason that the sages, as stated in Bava Kamma, were able to teach Torah to two members of the Roman government is that they were only teaching the established laws of the Torah, whereas when Sanhedrin states that it is forbidden to teach non-Jews the Torah, it is referring to pilpul].",
+ "Now all of the previously cited [Biblical and Talmudic] statements are clear and can be resolved without any difficulty. [Returning to Tractate Yoma quoted in chapter 6: “The Torah writes zar, “alien,” which may also be read as zer, “crown.” If you are meritorious, the Torah becomes a crown for you; if you are not meritorious, it becomes alien to you”]. Clearly, the teachings that are referred to as zar, “alien,” are those that have already been received through tradition. Even though a person does not merit studying them for their own sake, nevertheless he [who has done so] has not sinned, though he does forget it, [which explains why it becomes zar, alien]. However, when Scripture states: “This is the law that Moshe presented before the Children of Israel,” it is referring to the power of formulating novel concepts and applying pilpul. If one does not merit to apply [pilpul] for its own sake, certainly it becomes for him an elixir of death. He has now formulated laws to be practiced – not in accordance with the truth, for he has formulated novel laws, not for the purpose of achieving the truth but [rather driven by] his will [and ulterior motives]. He has slanted pilpul to derive [incorrect] laws by stretching logic, and there is no greater evil than this.",
+ "The Midrash Rabbah on Exodus, parasha 25, comments: [When the verse states], “His bread shall be given, his waters shall be trustworthy. Your eyes will behold a King in His beauty;” [it is referring] to the Holy One, blessed be He, who commands those who study Torah. One should never say, “I heard” about anything that he did not hear. Never forbid others from doing that which you allow yourself. Let all the utterances that come from your mouth be reliable, as were those that came from Moshe, and I will make you behold His beauty face to face.",
+ "“His bread shall be given” refers to what is received, i.e., learned from others. The meaning of the midrash is that regarding the given bread – the traditions that he says he received from his teachers – must be transmitted truthfully. One must not say, “I heard [such and such]” about what he really did not hear. [The verse then continues] to exhort those who originate novel law, referred to by “his waters”; those [novelties] which he produces by himself “shall be trustworthy,” lacking any [influence from] his [personal] will. [If one relates correctly the traditions he received and originates properly novel law], “your eyes will behold a King in His beauty,” the Holy One, blessed be He, will reveal to him a “face” [a means] to determine the true Halachah. However, if he misapplies [pilpul], being influenced by his biases and personal desires, he incorrectly formulates Halachah, perverts the Halachah being taught to the masses, thus producing an elixir of death.",
+ "The previously cited aggada of Tractate Shabbos [63a]: “Those who go to the left hand [i.e., those who do not study the law for its own sake], ‘there are riches and honor,’ is referring to learning matters that have been received by others. [Continuing to use this distinction of originating law vs. studying the received laws, we can] explain the previously cited [Tractate Shabbos 88b]:",
+ "What is meant by “Hear, for I will speak princely things”? Why are the words of the Torah compared to a prince? To tell you that just as a prince has power of life and death, so have the words of the Torah [the potentialities] of life and death. [Thus Rava said: “To those who go to the right hand [of the Torah], it is a medicine of life; to those who go to the left hand thereof, it is a deadly poison.]” He who originates new laws through the wisdom of analysis is comparable to a prince. Similar to a prince who directs others according to whatever crosses his mind, [even though it may not be ordered by the king], so is the one who originates and produces laws that have not yet been directed [by the King, i.e., God]. It is in this area that one has the potential to kill or to revive [the spiritually ill]. If, through the power of his analysis, he “goes to the left of the Torah” [not for its own sake] and produces laws that are not in accordance with the intended Halachah, then behold, he possesses the ability to kill.",
+ "This is what Rava concluded in [the previously cited Yoma 72b]: “If he is uman bah” – upright and applies pilpul in an upright manner – “it is a medicine of life unto him.” We know the meaning of the word uman is “row,” [something that is straight], as [for example] in Tractate Peah 4:5, it states: “One gives peah from each uman,” which is translated to mean that one gives peah from each row. Thus, for one who “is not uman bah” – in other words, one who does not apply pilpul to produce straight laws – “it is a deadly poison.” This interpretation aligns Rava’s [statement in Yoma] with the above mentioned statement of Rava [in Shabbos 88b], “For those who go to the right hand [of the Torah], it is a medicine of life; for those who go to its left hand, it is a deadly poison.”",
+ "Due to the merit of resolving the above mentioned explanations, we can also explain what is stated in Tractate Berachos 17a: A favorite saying of Rava was: “The goal of wisdom is repentance and good deeds, for a man should not study Torah and Mishnah and then rebel against his father and mother, his teacher and his superior in wisdom and rank. [This is what Scripture] says, ‘The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, good understanding to all oseihem – who perform them.’ It does not say osim, ‘who perform’, but ‘oseihem,’ ‘who perform them,’ which implies that they perform them for their own sake and not for other motives. If one performs them for other motives, it were better that he had not been created.”",
+ "Rashi explains: The words, “for other motives” mean one who learns to “criticize and quarrel.” Rava in [Tractate Pesahim in the chapter entitled] Makom she-nahagu, addresses a contradiction between two verses. One verse states, “For great until Heaven is Your kindness,” and another verse cites, “For above the Heavens is Your kindness.” Rava answers, “One verse is speaking of one who performs [a mitzvah] for its own sake, while the other verse is speaking of one who performs [a mitzvah] not for its own sake.” [Therefore, Rava in Pesahim] is referring to one who studies for the sake of receiving honor, [that is, until Heaven, whereas in Berachos, Rava is speaking of one who studies in order to criticize and quarrel, thus being a person who should not have been created]. This interpretation seems [to be what is stated] in the Jerusalem Talmud. [This interpretation] is also provided by Tosafos there in Pesahim.",
+ "However, in my humble opinion, it is difficult to explain “not for their own sake,” to mean “to criticize and quarrel” [for why did he not use those words explicitly?]. In addition, how could Rava [describe two extremes] – one who studies the Torah for its own sake and one who studies in order to criticize and quarrel? Would not [Rava] be skipping [the most common situation] ─ merely studying not for its own sake without a motive to criticize and quarrel? [A further difficulty] is Rashi’s principal interpretation of one “who does not oseh, perform, for its own sake,” is to be translated as “one who does not study” does not fit well, as the Talmud should have stated osek, “involved in study,” [rather than oseh, “perform”]. True, the Talmud is quoting the words as stated in Scripture, but the question can be related to the Scriptural verse itself ─ if it is speaking of study, why does it employ the word, oseh, which denotes “performing?” [This question is strengthened] by the existence of another version of this talmudic statement [in Berachos 17a], where it notes, “Scripture did not state ‘good understanding to all who study them,’ but ‘good understanding to all who perform them?’” [According to this version], Rashi’s interpretation [of the Talmud’s answer that the verse is referring to those who study in order to “criticize and quarrel”], does not really address the question [why the verse states “perform them” rather than “study them”]?",
+ "If one wishes to [offer another] interpretation, that [according to this version] the Talmud is not referring to study, but to those who perform the mitzvos for their own sake [and Rava is stating that “if one performs them [the mitzvos] for other motives, it were better that he had not been created’], then one can ask why should it be if one performs the mitzvos not for their own sake, it is better that he had not been created? Is there not a well-known Talmudic statement that a person should be involved in the study of Torah and the performance of the mitzvos, even if he is not performing them for their own sake? [Nor can Rashi’s interpretation be applied to this version to say that Rava is referring to one who performs the mitzvos not for their own sake], for to say that one who performs mitzvos “to criticize and quarrel,” is not apt language.",
+ "Rather, it appears that the proper interpretation of the Gemara explaining [Psalms 111:10] that proper study provides “good understanding to all oseihem is that it “provides a good understanding for those who produce them” – i.e., novel [laws and concepts] of the Torah. The Talmud, when explaining “If the verse had stated osim (perform) rather than oseihem (those who perform them),” should be interpreted this way: if the verse had written osim, “perform,” I would have explained the verse as referring to those who perform the mitzvos. However, since the verse stated oseihem [the word oseihem is not be translated as “perform them,” but as “produce them” – the verse is referring to one] who himself creates [the laws].",
+ "This is stated [by Rava] in Tractate Avodah Zarah 18: At the beginning the Torah belongs only to the Holy One, blessed be He, but at the end it belongs to him [who studies it], for it is said, “But His desire is in the Torah of God, and in his [own] Torah he meditates day and night.” [Meaning], it is as if the Torah is his, since he has produced [new laws] according to the will of the Holy One, blessed be He.’” For the Torah is at first referred to as “His desire,” and then as “he meditates” [and “meditates” means that he derives new laws]. This [interpretation that la’asos and its derivatives can mean the creation of halachah is further supported] by what is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin 99b, [pertaining to one who teaches another’s son Torah: Scripture regards him as though he had created the words of the Torah, for it is written, “You will preserve the words of this beris [covenant], va-asisem – you will make – osam – them.’ Do not read the last word of the verse as osam, “them,” but rather read it as atem, “yourselves.” See what I wrote in She’ilta 7:3 [that va-asisem is referring to the origination and establishment of halachah]. In the midrash on the Torah passage of Be-hukosai, it states: “va-asisem,” and you will make them.’ If you guard the Torah I will consider it as if you had produced the commandments.” Therefore, when Scripture states asisem, it means “you had created them.” However, when one originates a Halachah in sincerity, behold, he has created that law and this is the meaning of oseihem [in the verse: “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, good understanding to all oseihem, who make them.” The fear of God helps ensure that good understanding is provided to those who originate laws in truth].",
+ "[Addendum 2 to Chapter 8]
TRACTATE SHABBOS 10A states: [“Moshe sat to judge the people, and the people stood by Moshe from the morning until evening.” Now, can you possibly think that Moshe sat and judged the entire day?] If so, when would his [Moshe’s], Torah na’ases, be done? Rather, any judge who renders a true judgment is considered by Scripture as if he became a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the act of Creation.” The Sheiltos phrases this as, “When would his Torah be studied and taught?” [We thus see that na’ases refers to deep analysis in order to originate law]. This is the explanation of the words in the prayer [Ahava Rabbah], “Lishmor (to safeguard), la’asos (to make), u-lekayem (and to establish) all the words of your Torah’s teachings with love.” In other words: “safeguard” [by retaining] that which you have already learned; “make,” [derive] new laws, and “establish all the words of your Torah, etc.,” which means to establish the study of Torah throughout Israel. This is the inference of the Talmud [that la’asos means “to produce new laws”].",
+ "The Vayikra Rabbah on Kedoshim, parasha 28 states: [R. Huna and R. Yirmiyah said in the name of R. Hiya ben Abba]: “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will prepare a shade and canopies in the Garden of Eden for those who perform the precepts, accompanied by the students of the Torah.” And [R. Hiyya], has three texts to support him. (1) “For to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money”; (2) “Fortunate is the man who oseh, creates this, and the son of man who strengthens her”; (3) “She is a tree of life to those who strengthen her.”",
+ "“Fortunate is the man who oseh, creates this,” refers to the Sages who oseh, “produce,” the Torah, as the word “this” refers to the Torah, [as seen from Num. 9:23], “And this is the Torah that Moshe placed before the Children of Israel.” “And the son of man who strengthens her;” refers to he who supports those who study the Torah, so that they can produce [novel law]. [Such scholars can] deeply penetrate the Torah with their intellect, and study diligently with a clear mind, [since they do not have to worry how they will be able to support themselves]. We thus see that [the Midrash understands the word oseh] to be referring to those who possess the wisdom “to make” the Torah, i.e., those who originate novel law. See this [Midrash] discussed at greater length towards the end of chapter 10 [in this section].",
+ "[Returning to the previously cited Berachos 17a], the other version which reads, “It does not say lomedeihem, ‘who study them,’ but ‘oseihem,’ ‘who perform them,’ which implies that they perform them for their own sake and not for other motives,” can now also be understood. The Talmud is saying that Scripture did not state lomedeihem, “who study them,” which implies studying that which has already been received, but ‘oseihem,’ “who create them,” meaning those who originate novel law. Pertaining to this, Rava concludes that [God provides good understanding] only to those who produce novel law for its own sake, and not to those who derive novel laws not for their own sake. If one produces law not for its own sake, for certain it would be better if he had not been created, as he inverts the words of the living God. In addition, this conclusion is derived from the verse, “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Heaven” – that is, the fear of Heaven should precede wisdom for [the fear of Heaven] provides good understanding for all who produce Halachah.",
+ "On the other hand, those who study the received law without originating new laws, even when they are not performed for their own sake, even without the fear of Heaven – does not involve, Heaven forbid, any evil. This appears to be the interpretation of Tractate Berachos.",
+ "[Returning to] the baraisa of R. Ba’na’ah in Ta’anis 7a, [If one studies the Torah not for its own sake, it becomes a deadly poison for him, as Scripture states, ‘Lik’hi – my portion [teachings] – ya’arof [shall drop] like the rain.’ Ya’arof also denotes killing, as it states, ‘Ve-arefu – and they shall break the heifer’s neck.” One can certainly explain, as did Tosafos, [that R. Bana’a] is speaking of a contentious person. However, one can suggest that he is also speaking of one who is involved in the sharp debates and creation of the Torah, similar to the way it was explained in the numerous above mentioned statements [of Rava]. That is, [R. Bana’a] understands the phrase “Lik’hi [my teachings] ya’arof [shall drop] like the rain” to refer to producing novel law. It is clear to me based on what I wrote in another location that “my portion” refers to Moshe’s portion, which we explained above [is the art of pilpul which originally was transmitted by God only to Moshe].",
+ "The conclusion from all that we explained above is that one who is blessed by God [with the ability] to originate laws must be extremely careful to do so only for their own sake, preceded by the fear of Heaven.",
+ "In the Midrash Rabbah on Exodus, parasha 19, it states, It is written: “Let my heart be undivided in your hukim [statutes] in order that I may not be put to shame.” David said: “Lord of the universe! When I occupy myself with Your statutes, let not the Tempter have power to influence me, as it says: ‘Teach me, God, Your way, that I may walk in Your truth; [unite my heart to revere Your Name].’”",
+ ")The Midrash is proving that one cannot explain the phrase “Let my heart be undivided” to mean that David was praying he perform the statutes absent of improper thoughts. We know from what David requested elsewhere, in similar language, [“Unite my heart”], as a prayer that God should “teach” him His ways; in other words, his learning [of the hukim, “analytical rules”] should enable him to achieve the truth.(",
+ "[The Midrash continues], “Prevent my evil inclination from leading me astray and embarrassing me before the righteous.” )It explains the last words of the verse, “in order that I may not be put to shame,” to mean that David was asking that he not be embarrassed before the righteous if he makes an error, since the evil inclination leads people astray in halachic matters due to personal motives).",
+ "[The Midrash continues], “Moreover, if it [the evil inclination] misleads me, I will neglect the study of the Torah, and when I proclaim my learning before You and those lesser than I am, they will say to me: “It is not so.” As a result, I will be put to shame. I beseech You, therefore, to make my heart whole so that I may occupy myself with the Torah in integrity.’” (The Midrash explains that David was also requesting that he not be put to shame before the students. For if he would not originate new laws for their own sake, his personal motives would lead him astray. For when he comes to describe the formation of his novel laws and derivations before his students, they will recognize his error more than he, as they will be lacking [the same personal motives as David] that would “blind their eyes.” Since he [will have been influenced by personal gain], it will result in [him] becoming embarrassed, and this will restrain him from teaching them Torah [in the future]).",
+ "It is written in Proverbs 12:8, “A man is praised according to his intelligence; but he that is of a distorted understanding shall be despised.” According to the commentaries, “shall be despised,” is connected to the phrase, “he that possesses a distorted understanding.” [However], according to this interpretation], the end of the verse is not parallel to the beginning of the verse, [since the beginning of the verse deals with a proportional nature, that a man is praised according to the level of his intelligence, and then it states that if he is of “distorted understanding he shall be despised,” which is not proportional]. Rather, the verse’s proper interpretation is that “shall be despised” is connected to “according to his intelligence,” and this is how the verse should be translated: [“A man is praised according to his intelligence; but when combined with distorted understanding, he shall be despised.”] In other words, he who possesses a distorted understanding and distorts the law due to personal motives will be despised proportional to his intelligence. The greater one is [in intellect,] the more he can mislead others, for he brings down the strongholds [of the Torah] by trusting in his [superior] intellect."
+ ],
+ [
+ "A FURTHER EXPLANATION OF THE VERSE: “MORE THAN THESE, MY SON, BE CAUTIOUS: COMPOSE BOOKS WITHOUT LIMIT, AND MUCH STUDY IS WEARINESS OF THE FLESH”
Translator’s note: In this chapter, the Netziv lays the foundation for his interpretation of Eccl. 12:12 described in chapter 10. Most of this chapter is devoted to demonstrating that the word “beni,” usually translated as “my son,” can also in certain contexts be translated as “scholar.”
WE WILL NOW INFER concepts crucial to our objective of explaining the verse: “More than these, beni [my son], be cautious, asos [compose] books without limit, and much study is weariness of the flesh.” This verse is difficult to understand [for several reasons]. If Solomon is warning people not to produce many books, the verse should have stated me’asos, “of [composing books].” Further, if the verse is to be understood as warning one not to compose too many books, what would be the limit as to how many one could or could not compose? Is it possible, Heaven forbid, that Koheles might be warning others not to enhance the Torah more than what it was during his time? In addition, [if Solomon is warning others not to record the Oral Law, it would already have been known from the Torah] during Solomon’s time that writing books in order to instruct others would have been forbidden – “that which is oral you are forbidden to say in writing.” Moreover, what is the warning not to engage in “much study?” Certainly, one should study the mitzvos as much as possible! Rather, as we will soon explain, the interpretation of this verse must be the opposite [of what we have just suggested].",
+ "First we need to understand the meaning of the word, beni, “my son,” as its usage here is unclear. In Proverbs, [Solomon,] through Divine inspiration, conveys statements uttered by the mouth of wisdom, and thus it is well understood that wisdom and understanding [in Proverbs] are represented by em, “mother.” As it states in Tractate Berachos 57a, “One who cohabits with his mother in a dream may expect to obtain understanding, for it is written, ‘ki im – for if – you call out to understanding.’” It is clear [from what the She’iltos states] in the hashmatos of the Torah passage Mishpatim that [this exegesis] was inferred from im being written with the vowel tzereh, such that it is to be pronounced as em, [meaning “mother]. This is recorded by our master in his [original] handwriting. [That is, by vocalizing im as em, the verse reads, “As em [a mother] you shall call understanding”]. It is for this reason that [one could argue that in the Book of Proverbs], understanding is personified as one, [a mother] who expresses longing for Israel, as represented by the word, beni, “my son.” However, Ecclesiastes, which relates to the investigations of Koheles [in the natural sciences], and [based on the context of] the [above-mentioned] concluding verse [of Ecclesiastes], there is no room for suggesting [that beni expresses] longing.",
+ "We find another ambiguous usage of beni in Scripture due to the theme and context. When Ezekiel depicts the cruel and powerful sword of Nebuchadnezzar, he says: A sword! A sword has been sharpened and polished. It has been sharpened to inflict slaughter; [therefore] it has been ground to a brilliant polish. How can we rejoice? Beni – My son – it scorns the rod and every stick…. There is a trial; and what if he disdains even the rod? It shall not be, says the Lord God.” On the whole, this statement [of Ezekiel] is difficult to understand, and in particular, the usage of the word beni, which represents longing, does not belong here [in the context of slaughter].",
+ "[However], I believe that the word beni has two meanings: one [that relates to construction] since one’s male offspring is called ben, which is a derivative of binyan, “building,” for the male builds his father’s house [i.e., his family]. Also, female offspring is called bas, with the main form of bas being really benas. As in Aramaic, where we find that a male child is called bar and a female child a baras, so in Hebrew, the main form of the word bas is benas; a proof being that the plural of bas is benos. Benas is also a derivative of binyan [“building”], and the reason for the addition of the letter tav to the root of ben [to form benas], is to lessen the effect of the female’s “building up” of her [father’s house] in contrast to how a male “builds up” his father’s family. For a female [is limited to] extending her father’s house by combining her father’s family with another’s or by building up her husband’s family. Although it is [obviously] impossible [to achieve these ends] without her, as she participates in the building of the world, [relative to her father’s family itself, her “building” is of a lesser effect].",
+ "The second connotation [of beni] is one who possesses intellect and understanding, and the ability to delve deeply into a matter and produce novel insights from the words of the Torah. [Such a person] is called ben because [in this case, the word] is derived from the word tevunah, understanding. Tevunah is also [derived from the word] binyan [“building”], for when one [applies deep analysis to the Torah], he ties one matter to another until he produces a tower that blossoms with the spirit of wisdom. [A person who possesses intellect and understanding] is represented by the word beni, even though a speaker is not referring to his son, [i.e., the possessive form], as the word beni is a noun, [and in many instances it is not to be translated as, “my son”]. For the letter yud is appended [to the noun] as we find with the word nirdi, in which the yud is added [to nard], and it is not to be translated as “my spikenard,” but as “spikenard.” There are many [examples where we find nouns appended with a non-possessive yud].",
+ "(Netziv’s addendum – We find beni used in a figurative sense in Bereshis Rabbah on the Torah reading Miketz. When he did not agree with an analysis of his students, R. Tarfon would say to them, “Beni shall not go down with you,” [meaning, “Beni, a scholar who possesses understanding, would not agree with you and would not go along with your in-depth analysis.” – end of Netziv’s addendum)",
+ "One who possesses intellect in other areas of wisdom is called a bas – benos in the plural – because the main result of studying the other areas of wisdom is not to build the spiritual world but rather to enhance the structure of Torah. The other sciences are intertwined with [the application of] many Torah laws. A proof of this may be found in Midrash Rabbah, parasha 90: [When Scripture states]: “Benos saw her and acclaimed her;” it is referring to the tribes [of Israel], as it states: “[Their] fame was heard in Pharaoh’s house, saying: Joseph’s brothers have come.” [When the former verse continues], “Queens and concubines praised her,” it is referring to Joseph, [as it states]: “Pharaoh said to his servants: Can we find such a one as this? “",
+ "It may seem odd that Pharaoh’s house would be represented by benos. However, it is consistent with the above explained [definition of benos]. “Pharaoh’s house” refers to the sages of the House of Pharaoh, who rejoiced [with the arrival] of Joseph’s brothers, for it was well known that the Hebrews were knowledgeable in all areas of wisdom. They realized that upon their arrival, much knowledge would be received from them, thus increasing their learning. It is for this reason that [Egypt’s sages] are referred to as benos.",
+ "This is [consistent with] the wording of the verse, “Benos [daughters] of kings are with your precious ones; the shegal,” etc. It was previously explained [in chapter 5], the exegesis of the Sages of blessed memory in Tractate Rosh Hashanah 4a that [“daughters of kings”] refers to those who diligently study the Torah with an intense love. The Torah helps those who reach such a level to understand the other types of wisdom and thus learn those areas of Torah that require [secular knowledge] to fully comprehend them. “Daughters of kings” refer to the various forms of knowledge possessed by the kings of the nations of the world. “Are with your precious ones,” mean that the nations of the world, will hold you in high regard [as “precious”], for he who is learned in Torah and is also wise in secular knowledge causes the Torah’s to be held in higher regard – that the Torah is the main structure of the world.",
+ "One should now understand that every occurrence of the word beni in Proverbs, uttered by the mouth of wisdom, does not denote yearning, but is in fact a noun that represents a scholar who deeply studies the Torah’s wisdom. Proverbs is exhorting this type of person, and is not directed toward the multitudes of Israel. Even those who fear God and hold His mitzvos dear are not at the intellectual level of those immersed in Torah study. It would be incomprehensible [to them], unlike someone involved in observation and analysis. This is unlike the section of Proverbs from chapter 10 [through chapter 30] describing ethics and etiquette applicable to all of Israel. In chapter 31, Proverbs then reverts to reproaching Torah scholars in particular when it states: “The burden with which his mother corrected him. What, O beri, and what, O bar of my womb? And what, O bar of my vows?” “The burden with which his mother corrected him,” is referring to understanding, as we explained above [“mother” refers to understanding]; and understanding, she, calls to them: “And what, beri.” [Beri] is not Aramaic, and not to be translated as “my son”. Rather, it is a [Hebrew] noun [derived] from the word barur, [meaning that which is clear]. [Beri] denotes one who clarifies the words of understanding. [Pertaining to the words]: “And what, O bar of my womb” [“bar” does not mean “son,” but] is an adjective [meaning “pure”]. Just as a fetus whose formation is completed little by little within the darkness of its mother’s womb, so is the structure of wisdom and its clarity accomplished. At first it is slowly fashioned within the bowels of the observer, surrounded by the darkness and obscurity of thought, [after which] the spirit [of life is fashioned] from his understanding. [Pertaining to] the phrase, “And what, O bar of my vows,” [bar] is also an adjective [translated as “pure”], meaning that the Torah assists one to achieve clarity [in his understanding], as [wisdom] promises: “I love those who love me, and those who seek me earnestly shall find me.” We therefore find that the clarity [of understanding the Torah] is achieved through vows [to study Torah].",
+ "Returning to the subject [of understanding Ezekiel 21:14, 15: A sword! A sword has been sharpened and polished. It has been sharpened to inflict slaughter; [therefore] it has been ground to a brilliant polish. How can we rejoice? Beni scorns the rod and every stick…. There is a trial; and what if he disdains even the rod? “It shall not be,” says the Lord God.] Beni [in those verses] refers to one who deeply penetrates the wisdom and understanding of the Torah. In addition, with God’s assistance, we have explained in my compilation Ha’amek Davar that the Torah is referred to as a sword. Tractate Shabbos 60a explains [“sword,”] as in, “Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, your glory and your majesty,” “to refer to the words of the Torah.” [This metaphor] teaches us that the Torah protects those who study it as if it were a sword in the hand of the valiant. [Pertaining to this verse], I explained many Talmudic statements, the expressions of the Ancient Ones, at great length, as clearly explained in Harhev Davar towards the end of the Torah portion, Bo. This is also stated explicitly in the beginning of chapter 20 of Avos de-Rabbi Nassan, “He who places the meditations of the Torah upon his heart, the fear of the sword is removed from him,” etc.",
+ "Ezekiel foresaw that the sword of Nebuchadnezzar was approaching to destroy the people of Israel beyond measure. [And though this transpired], many of the Sages of Israel and giants in Torah were saved. This is expounded in the [section of the] Sifrei, in Ha’azinu, relating to the verse “infants together with white-headed elders.” [Scripture states]: “He [Nebuchadnezzar] exiled… all the military men seven thousand, and the craftsmen and the gate sentries one thousand; [and the king of Babylonia brought them into exile into Babylon].” What sort of war do people bound in fetters and chains wage? Rather, they were mighty men of Torah who waged the war of Torah [through pilpul].",
+ "Also during the days of Zedekiah towards the end of the period of the destruction of the [First Temple were the Sages spared], as it states in Shemos Rabbah, parasha 24, “Is this the way you repay the Lord, you naval and unwise people?” This verse refers to the generation of Jeremiah; they were a “naval people” because they produced nevelos, “corpses,” for it says, ‘They have given the dead bodies of Your servants to be food unto the birds of heaven.’ Why? Because their wise were absent, as it says [and should be translated as], “You naval people, lacking wise ones.”",
+ "Behold, we see that the sages remained alive [throughout the destruction, as the “wise ones” were no longer there when the other Israelites were made into “corpses”]. Not that Nebuchadnezzar loved the sages of Israel, but rather the power of the Torah shielded them, and rescued the sages of Israel from whatever place [whether it was] one from a city, [or] two from a family, bringing them to Jerusalem, from which they were taken alive into exile. This happened during the destruction of the Second Temple, when the sages of Yavneh were saved by R. Yohanan ben Zakkai. All of this is what Ezekiel was expressing, for the greatness of the sword [of Nebuchadnezzar] came for two purposes: one, as its plain meaning, to butcher countless people, and two, to gladden the soul of Israel – that the staff of the beni, the Talmudic scholar, “scorns the rod and every stick.” Every forest was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s sword. A slender, lightweight rod [a people lacking scholars], cannot withstand it [the sword] – yet the scholar could stand against it. The prophet adds, “There is a trial, and what if he disdains even the rod? It shall not be, says the Lord God.” The [Torah] had placed the greatness and strength of the sword [of Nebuchadnezzar] under trial, for though at the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy it had destroyed and laid waste all the cities of Israel, [“it shall not be”], it did not conquer Jerusalem. [It was observed] that for cities lacking a single scholar – in other words, a “rod that denigrates,” those cities had no survivors. We should rejoice with [at least] knowing the greatness of the power of Torah, and the merit [provided to those who study her, for Jerusalem was spared. We thus learn the strength of the Torah, for a single scholar can save an entire city]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE URGENCY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF SOLOMON’S MESSAGE: “MORE THAN THESE, MY SON, BE CAUTIOUS, COMPOSE BOOKS WITHOUT LIMIT, AND MUCH STUDY IS WEARINESS OF THE FLESH.”
RETURNING TO [our discussion of] Koheles, first, as I wrote in Part 2, chapter 12, Koheles [in 12:11] describes the two types of Torah giants in each generation: the sages and the masters of collections. Both function in every generation “as goads” [providing direction], enabling him to originate novel law, and as “implanted nails” [cuttings which are planted in the earth], enabling one to “harvest the fruit” of halachic decision-making. Koheles then warns those who originate and delve deeply to enhance and add to the Torah, more than what has already been received [from the “wise ones” and the “masters of collections”]: “Ve-yoser (and more) me-hemah (than these) beni, be cautious” – in other words, he [who is a Torah scholar who penetrates into the core of the Torah] and wishes to make the Torah yoser – more – than what currently exists has a responsibility to be more cautious than would be required of one who is merely studying the Torah in its current form [without his enhancements]. If one is only studying the Torah, even if not for its own sake, it is not considered an evil act. Even if he does not analyze it sufficiently, he has done no evil. This is not so if one wishes to originate [new laws], for then he needs to take care not to destroy [the Torah] with the decisions that stem from his bitter analysis (that is, not for its own sake). He who is hasty (with little analysis) is capable, Heaven forbid, of destroying the world.",
+ "Solomon “also taught the people” how to be cautious when originating additional laws [by warning]: “Compose books without limit.” This means that if one is meditating on the words of the “wise ones” and the “masters of collections,” conceiving novel concepts, he should write them down for himself. He should not wait until the moment that he will need [to use that concept] for decisions and application of analysis. One should note that even though it was forbidden in Solomon’s time to commit the Oral Law to writing, as stated in Tractate Gittin 60b, nevertheless it was permitted to write notes for oneself. This is referred to in Tractate Shabbos 6b by the phrase megillas sesarim, a “secret scroll,” on which Rashi comments: It was hidden because it was not allowed to be written down. When they heard novel opinions of individual [scholars] that had not been learned [previously] in the study hall, they would record them so that they would not be forgotten, and they would conceal the scroll.",
+ "“It was not allowed to be written down” means that [it was prohibited] where the purpose was to teach others [directly from the scroll]. The Baraisa states, “Matters of the Oral Law are not allowed le-omran bi-chesav, to be communicated in writing;” it does not state “are not allowed le-kasvan, to write them down.” One was certainly permitted to record the laws so that the author would not forget them.",
+ "This is also stated in the fourth chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin: “Two judges’ clerks stand before [the judges], one on the right and one on the left, recording the arguments of those who would acquit, and those who would convict.” They not only recorded their decisions, but also the rationale of their decisions, as it states in 35a [of Sanhedrin]: “Courts do not convene on the eve of the Shabbos or Yom Tov. For if he is tried on the eve of Shabbos, and the matter concluded on the first day of the week, they might have forgotten their reasons by then. Although two judges’ clerks stand before them and write down the arguments of those who would acquit and those who would convict, they can only record according to the mouth [in other words, what they heard said – once the heart forgets, it remains forgotten. Hence it is impossible [to convene on the eve of Shabbos].” This [concept] is clearly stated [in Sanhedrin] 34a, that they [the clerks] recorded the rationale, “lest two judges draw a single argument from two Scriptural verses,” or for some other purpose. Behold, there is no prohibition [in recording matters pertaining to the Oral Law], it is just that it is forbidden to record the Oral Law to study and learn from [the text]. This is stated in Tractate Temurah 14b: “If one writes the laws it is considered as if he had burned the Torah, and he who studies [this text] receives no reward.” [We thus see] that it is forbidden to study from what is written and it is thus forbidden to record the received laws. However, it is certainly permitted to write them for one’s personal use, so that he will not forget his own opinion.",
+ "Translator’s note: The Netziv cites an additional proof that the prohibition of recording the Oral Law is when the text is used to teach others.
[Temurah 14b states: “You are not allowed to state oral matters from what is written, and you are allowed to recite written matters orally”]. Tosafos interprets this earlier prohibition on the topic in Temurah, “The Written Torah may not be recited orally,” to mean that one may not recite the Written Torah orally for others [unless he is reading directly from a Torah scroll, so that others may fulfill the obligation of hearing the reading of the Torah]. The Gaon, Rabbenu Eliyahu, agrees with this in Shulhan Aruch, Orah Hayyim 49, based on what is discussed explicitly in Tractate Ta’anis; see what he wrote there. Therefore, just as [the latter statement, “Written matters are not to be recited orally,” is referring to reading for others], so does the first statement, “You are not allowed to state Oral matters from what is written,” also apply to teaching others the Oral law that has been recorded; recording them for one’s personal use is permitted. It is for this reason that scholars who recorded [these oral statements] hid them so that others would not study from them.",
+ "This is also stated by the Rambam in the introduction to Yad ha-Hazakah: In each generation, the head of the Beis Din [court] or prophet would write down notes for himself in order to remember the matters that he heard from his teachers, and he would use them [as an aid] to teach the masses. Each and everyone would write down for himself the explanation of the Torah or its laws, as he was able, in accordance with what he heard.",
+ "One can add that this is what is stated in Tractate Nedarim 38a: R. Yosi ben R. Hanina said: “The Torah was given only to Moshe and his seed, for it is written, ‘Write yourself – lecha – these words’ [and] ‘Carve for yourself’ – lecha: just as the carvings [of the Tablets] are yours, so is the writing yours.” The Talmud there concludes that it was pilpul be-alma and we previously cited the Rosh’s explanation that pilpul be-alma refers to the hints provided by the letters. However, this [explanation] does not fit well with pilpul be-alma, for the Talmud could have simply stated, diyukei dikrah, “inferences from the nuances in Scripture.” The Mefaresh explains [pilpul be-alma] means “inferring one matter from another.” However, it is unclear how we know from the phrase “write for yourself these words” [that it is referring to pilpul that was given to Moshe alone]. A further difficulty is that the Talmud [infers this] by comparing the phrase “write for yourself these words” to “carve for yourself,” and concludes that “just as the carvings [of the Tablets] are yours, so is the writing yours.” Could we not have inferred [that pilpul was given only to Moshe] from the phrase “write for yourself these words” alone [without reference to “carve for yourself”]? If the reason for needing “carve for yourself” is to teach us that ‘‘lecha” does not mean [“for your benefit,” as is used in Genesis], “lech lecha,” [which is interpreted to mean “go out for your own benefit”], and as “Kach lecha (take for yourself) high-quality spices,” [which is also interpreted “for your benefit”], we still obtain no proof from “carve for yourself” [for one could still argue that “carve for yourself” should be translated as “carve for your benefit”]. See the way I have explained [lecha] in my commentary Harhev Davar on Shemos.",
+ "It therefore seems R. Yosi ben R. Hanina [in Nedarim] explains the verse, “Write for yourself these words, for according to these words have I made a covenant with you and Israel,” to be speaking of [only] one subject [i.e., the oral law]. This is unlike Tractate Gittin 60b, which states, “Write for yourself,” refers to the Written Torah, and “by the mouth of these words” refers to the Oral Law (it is explained in the same manner in the Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Peah and in the Midrash Rabbah on the Torah passage of Ki Sissa). However, “R. Yosi ben R. Hanina explains the entire verse to be speaking of the Oral Law. [He also understood] that the contradiction between “write for yourself” and “by the mouth of these words” would be answered according to what we have just explained: “write for yourself,” means it is proper to write what you originate through pilpul – only for yourself, however, to transmit and teach it to others should only be done [“by the mouth”] – orally. It would therefore be possible to explain that Moshe was [always] required to teach the Torah of pilpul to Israel, and the meaning of “write for yourself,” is that he was not to submit the recorded words of pilpul to others for study. Scripture therefore also said, “Carve for yourself,” from which we infer that just as the Oral Law [which was contained within the Tablets] was only for [the benefit of] Moshe and his descendants – and the others had no share in pilpul – so, too, the writing of pilpul was given only to Moshe and his descendants.",
+ "Translator’s note: The Netziv has explained “write for yourself” refers to the writing of notes required for organizing one’s thought when applying “pilpul be-alma.” The Netziv in the following paragraph is citing the history of the Tribe of Zevulun to demonstrate how the gift of pilpul requires an additional ability to properly comprehend the previous generations’ notes.
See what I wrote at length in Ha’amek Davar to Devarim 33:23 and in my compilation Rinah shel Torah: that “Out of Zevulun, they who handle the pen of the scribe” means that they would record for themselves what they heard [originated by other scholars]. This is also the intent of Jeremiah chapter 8: “How can you say, ‘We are wise and the Torah of the Lord is with us?’ For it has performed falsehood, the pen of falsehood of the scribes.” This means that you should not say that since the Written Torah is with them, [well-known by Jeremiah’s generation]; it must be considered wise. The scribes [of the previous generations created opportunities] for falsehood, for the preceding generations left them notes from their numerous novel insights that existed from the days of Hezekiah – for naught, for as we wrote below, during the days of Jeremiah they did not toil in the Torah [and misused those notes].",
+ "[It is in reference to the notes of pilpul] that Koheles warns those who have the ability to enhance the Torah and to originate decisions that are to be established as Halachah: to first make private notes [at the moment of discovery] and not rely [on his ability to remember these novel thoughts] when the moment arrives for applying his ideas and making decisions. Those [private notes] provide two benefits: First, at the time when he needs to apply his ideas, there is concern that he may be influenced to slant his opinion and lose his objectivity because of his prejudices in a particular matter and his personal involvement in the case. Alternatively, once one [scholar] decides in a particular way, it is the nature [of human beings] to take a position different from the one that his colleague has proposed, such that when he makes his decision based on halachic principles he may ignore a particular element because he has deviated [from his objectivity]. Then, he will corrupt the decision, Heaven forbid. Yet if he made notes during his study, when he originated novel insights in Halachah and decision, [using those notes when making his decision], he will no longer uproot halachic elements because of shiat, his passions. The second [benefit of private notes] is [to counter] the concern that at the time of application, he will be pressured to complete the decision with minimal analysis, thus being unable to discern the required elements of that halachah.",
+ "It appears from the commentary of the Targum Yonassan that this is the intent of Jeremiah’s warning in chapter 2: “A wild donkey who is used to the wilderness, who gulps the wind in her desire, who can hinder her lust? All those who seek her will not weary themselves. In her month, they shall find her.” The Targum states: Like a wild donkey… so is the congregation of Israel that runs away, [rebels], and sways from the Torah, ignoring the Prophet’s retorts. He [Jeremiah], says to her [Israel], that she does not toil with any of the openings of the mouth, [i.e., make inquiries] of the Torah, [they think] they will find it [in its proper] time.",
+ "It appears that the Targum is describing the reproach, directed against the Torah scholars who did not toil in the study of the Torah and who went “wildly” as they desired. They thus erred in their halachic decisions and did not desire “to return,” even after the greatest among them came to reverse their decisions. In the prophet’s statement, “All who seek her will not weary themselves, in her month [of giving birth] they shall find her,” he describes [the scholars’ thinking]. All those who sought the Torah did not toil [in it], believing that in the proper time, the time when an unfamiliar situation would arise requiring their decision, “they would find her.” They believed that they could make the decision based on the proper halachic elements; they did not believe that they would have to toil before that time or to study the Torah diligently.",
+ "This is not much different from the theme of Jeremiah’s warning during the period of the destruction [of the first Temple], for the worst destruction was related to the strength of the battle of Torah among Israel; this being explained at length in my compilation, Rinah shel Torah, [as I was blessed] as decreed by the Living God. To a lesser degree, this is also addressed in the following chapter. It is for this reason that Koheles taught knowledge to the beni – the one who originates new laws and builds new categories. Therefore, when they meditate on the Torah they should write notes without measure, for they do not know when the need for decision will present itself, and they will then need to analyze the issue; they will find that all [as required] is readily available [in their notes].",
+ "[Koheles] also admonishes them, “Much talk of study is weariness of the flesh.” In other words, one should present his innermost thoughts to his colleague and students. This is stated [by Rabbi] in Tractate Ta’anis 7b: “I learned much from my teachers, more from my colleagues, and most of all from my students.” Midrash Rabbah on the parasha of Nitzavim also states: “For they are life unto those who find them (li-motzeihem).” [This means that they constitute life] for those who “speak them out” (motzian) [who study audibly]…. Another explanation is that [they are life] for those who motzian, “teach it to others.”",
+ "We have already explained in Part 1, chapter 4, regarding the exegesis of Tractate Sanhedrin 5a, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” refers to the Exilarchs of Babylon who ruled over Israel with scepters; “and he who legislates from between his feet” refers to the descendants of Hillel who teach the Torah in public.",
+ "At first glance, it is unclear how “and he who legislates from between his feet” refers to teaching the Torah in public. However, we explained that mehokek refers to one who originates and penetrates deeply in the analysis of legislation and thus produces novel laws. The meaning of “between his feet” does not refer to Judah but to the legislator, for their custom was that the head of the yeshiva would sit on a bench and the students would sit on the ground between his feet, and he would legislate with [the students’] assistance.",
+ "[Discussing the Torah with others] benefits in two ways: First, if his mind is deviating from the truth and he errs in a matter, the students will redirect him, causing him to stand in truth. We previously quoted in chapter 8 the Midrash on Shemos how David’s request, “Let my heart be undivided in your hukim [statutes], in order that I may not be put to shame,” [refers to] the students [detecting his error].",
+ "[The] second [benefit], is stated in Tractate Ta’anis [7b], [R. Nahman ben Yitzhak said], “Why are the words of the Torah compared to a tree, as it states: ‘She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her’? To teach that just as a small piece of wood sets a big piece of wood on fire, so do minor scholars sharpen the minds of the greater ones. This is what was stated by Rabbi, [‘I learned much from my teachers, more from my colleagues, and most of all from my students.’]”",
+ "Rashi explains that Rabbi gained much from his students because they constantly asked questions. However, it appears to me that the parable is accurate. At times, the student begins to awaken the foundation of a halachah, and even though he lacks the ability to build and complete [the analysis], nevertheless he begins to enlighten the path before his master, just as a small piece of wood can set a big piece of wood on fire. This is the meaning [in Koheles] of, “much talk of study,” that the words of Torah are uttered from his mouth numerous times [until it becomes fully understood].",
+ "Along these lines it is stated in Tractate Eruvin 54b: Why are the words of Torah compared to a breast? Just as with a breast, every time a baby touches it [with his mouth], he finds milk in it; so it is with the words of Torah, every time a person utters them, he finds [additional] flavor in them.",
+ "It is therefore fitting, when one originates [halachah] he utters his thoughts with his mouth many times, and [the Torah] thus becomes sweeter than when [the concept] first arose in his mind. Koheles adds that a scholar should speak his ideas out not only while studying privately, when he is comfortable, but also when it involves “weariness of the flesh,” the toil [required] of one speaking it out with his students and explaining [the Torah] to them. All of this facilitates the production of novelties in their true light, and it is for this reason that he needs to be heedful [to talk his insights out with others].",
+ "It appears that this is what is stated in Shemos Rabbah, parasha 47: “[We infer from the phrase] ‘For by the mouth of these words’ that you should toil in the Torah using your mouth. This [is similar] to what is stated, ‘It is in your mouth and heart to perform it.’” It is unclear how “by the mouth” implies that one should toil in the Torah. It therefore appears to be similar to what we have just explained, and is referring to studying only with others, when a person toils in order to [defend] and explain his logic. For the explanation of the phrase “‘For by the mouth of these words” is similar to [what is expressed in] the verse in Proverbs, “And adds learning to his lips,” for it is with his discussion with others that one increases the strength of analysis and thereby brings the halachah to light. The [above-mentioned] midrash brings a proof from the phrase “It is in your mouth and heart to perform it,” for the main theme of that verse pertains to the laws contained in the Oral Law that have not been received, and [their conception] requires us to analyze [the received Oral Law] deeply and [bring them to light] by inferring one matter from another. [Therefore, the verse should be translated as follows: “It is in your mouth and heart to produce it.”] This is what Scripture states: “It is not in the heavens, [so that you cannot say, ‘Who shall go up for us to the heavens and take it for us, and let us hear it that we may produce it].’” This is stated in Tractate Eruvin 54a and see [how this gemara is explained] at length in [Ha’amek She’elah], She’iltah 19.",
+ "Pertaining to this, the Torah states: “For the word is exceedingly close to you; it is in your mouth and heart to perform.” The simple meaning of this verse is that one should utter the Torah with his lips; study it so that it may be practiced. However, according to this interpretation, it should have stated “It is in your heart to perform it” before “It is in your mouth” to perform it, as the fear of sin precedes wisdom.",
+ "(The Netziv’s addendum – In addition, the cantillations of this verse do not fit [well with this interpretation, “It is with your mouth” [to study] and your heart to perform it”], since the tipeha should be placed over the word be-ficha, “in your mouth,” [thereby separating “mouth” from “perform”]. [Therefore, the word la’asoso, is not to be translated as “to perform it,” but as “to produce it.”] It therefore appears [that the words “in your mouth” are connected to the words “to produce it”], and this is the intent of Tractate Eruvin 54a, where R. Yitzhak infers [from this verse that one is to speak out what he studies: “When [is the Torah] close to you? When it is in your mouth and heart to produce it.”] – end of Netziv’s addendum)",
+ "Therefore, the correct interpretation [of la’asoso”] is [“to create it,”] which refers to the deep [analysis] of the halachah that is incumbent upon you to infer, [even though] it is distant from you. As explained in the above-mentioned reference, you may think that it is in the heavens or overseas. In other words, it may appear to you [to be impossible] to produce laws from deep analysis [by yourselves], and thus it is as if [these laws] were in the heavens. Or [you may think] that you will have to travel overseas [to find] a rabbi who has already learned these laws. Therefore, Scripture states that this is not so. Rather, it is within the ability of your mouth and heart to produce these matters of halachah. The interpretation of la’asos is similar to the way we previously explained [in chapter 8], “good understanding to all oseihem (who perform them),’ where [oseihem should be translated as “make them”], i.e., to produce the halachah. Thus, one can explain that the words “and your heart” is tied to “and your mouth”; the speech [of Torah study] should be with the toil of the flesh, influencing the heart [understanding], and this is how one brings the halachah to light. This is the interpretation of the Midrash which infers [from: “For by the mouth of these words’] that one must toil [in the Torah with one’s mouth].",
+ "We therefore find that the Torah alludes to these two pieces of advice for producing halachah from pilpul. One, “write for yourself these words,” means to make notes for yourself, and “by the mouth of these words,” to teach them to others. Koheles elaborated on these two pieces of advice for producing halachah beyond what is received: one should write many books for himself, and also engage a great deal in the “talk of study,” together with the “weariness of the flesh” [the toil associated with teaching others]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WHY KING HEZEKIAH PLACED A SWORD AT THE DOOR OF THE SCHOOLHOUSE AND PROCLAIMED, “HE WHO WILL NOT STUDY THE TORAH SHALL BE PIERCED BY THIS SWORD”
FOLLOWING THE WARNING of Koheles, the prophet Isaiah came and reproached the sages and their students, as they stumbled by failing to fulfill the conditions [required for the Jewish nation’s survival]. This is the sequence of Isaiah 42:18–25: Hear, O you who are deaf, and look, O you who are blind, so that you may see. Who is blind but My servant? or deaf, as My messenger that I send? Who is as blind as he who is wholehearted, and blind as the Lord’s servant? Though you see many things, you guard not, though he opens the ears, he hears not. The Lord desired, for His righteousness’s sake, to make the teaching great and glorious. But this is a people robbed and spoiled, their chosen ones are swollen, and they are hidden in prison-houses. They are marked as prey, and there is no savior; they are plunder and none says, “Restore.” Who among you will listen to this? Who will heed? They hear from the rear. Who gave up Jacob as plunder, and Israel to the robbers? Did not the Lord direct so? He against Whom we have sinned, and in Whose ways they would not walk; neither did they listen to His Torah. Therefore, He poured upon him the fury of His anger and the strength of battle; and it set him on fire round about and he did not notice; and it burned him, and he paid no attention.",
+ "The theme of this section [of Isaiah] is as follows: It is known that the righteous King Hezekiah, together with the prophet Isaiah, devoted their lives to increasing Torah among Israel. This is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin 94a: Hezekiah “planted a sword by the door of the schoolhouse and proclaimed, ‘He who will not study the Torah shall be pierced with the sword.’” This is not referring to the study of the received laws that they possessed; rather, he [Hezekiah] enhanced the Torah by [influencing Israel] to analyze and penetrate deeply [to find] novel laws such that it resulted in a Shulhan Aruch [“set table”], laws for practice. This is stated further there [in Sanhedrin]: “They searched from Dan to Beer Sheva and no ignoramus was to be found; from Gabbas to Antipris, and no boy, girl, man or woman was found who was not thoroughly versed in the laws of ritual purity and impurity.”",
+ "This matter is perplexing, for how could Hezekiah have the heart to decree, “He who will not study the Torah shall be pierced by this sword?” However, the reason is that it was known that in his days Sanheriv would destroy the land and conquer many Jewish communities up to Jerusalem. Israel’s main [strategy] for battle was through the sound of Torah, as it states in Tractate Makkos 10a, which comments, “‘Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem.’ In other words, what caused our feet to stand in battle so they would not stumble? It was the gates of Jerusalem that were filled with Torah.”",
+ "It also states in the Midrash Rabbah on the Torah passage of Toldos, parasha 65, No one arose in the world who was as wise as Balaam the son of Beor and Abnimos of Guadara. The nations of the world came to them to inquire, “Tell us whether we can defeat this nation.” They replied, “Walk near their synagogues and their study halls. If you should find small children with voices uplifted there, you will not be able to defeat them. For so were they promised by their Father when he said to them, ‘The voice is the voice of Jacob, and the hands are the hands of Esau.’” When the voice of Jacob is found within the sanctuaries, the hands of Esau will have no power if not, the hands of Esau will have power, and you will defeat them.’”",
+ "Therefore, it always happened that when Israel went out to battle they would designate those with the proper attitude and aptitude for Torah and prayer, so that they would go out among the soldiers in the tents of the field where they would sharpen the edges of their swords with the sound of Torah. As it states in Tractate Megillah 4a, [Joshua was chastised by an angel on the night before the battle of Ai for neglecting the study of Torah]. “Immediately in response the verse states: ‘Joshua lodged that night… in the valley.’…This teaches that [Joshua] penetrated the Torah law deeply.” This verse clearly pertains to the time that Joshua was in need of advice and a strategy for engaging in the battle of Ai, and [Joshua’s conversation with the angel] pertained to the need for [success] in battle so as to sharpen the fortification provided by the sword of Israel.",
+ "This is also the intent of Moshe’s blessing to Zevulun: “Rejoice, O Zevulun, in your excursions” (to wage battle in the fields) “and Issachar in your tents” (within encampments, in which they are engrossed in the Torah). “The tribes will assemble at the mountain” (for battle, and whoever is standing on the mountain is near victory, as is known from many sources); “there they will slaughter offerings of righteousness,” (as they bring a thanksgiving offering for their victory); “for by the riches of the sea they will be nourished” (from their enemies who reached them by sea, bringing abundance from the sea) “and by the treasures concealed in the sand” (what they obtain from their own inheritance, or this may refer to what the idol worshipers hid in the sand near the seashore when they arrived to wage war).",
+ "In Hezekiah’s time, the power of the Torah was sought out as necessary for success in battle against Sanheriv, for he saw that the yoke of Sanheriv would not be destroyed by a well-sharpened sword or the intensity of battle, but rather by the special sword of Israel (as cited above from Tractate Sanhedrin). [Scripture states]: “The yoke shall be destroyed by reason of oil,” meaning that the yoke of Sanheriv would be destroyed by the oil of Hezekiah, which burned inside the various synagogues and study halls. Therefore, since there was a need to succeed in war, it would be feasible for Hezekiah to decree [that those who refused to study would be killed], just as a king would order his entire nation to take up the sword, as necessary in wartime. This will be explained in greater length, as God wills, in my compilation Rinah shel Torah.",
+ "Let us now return to the discussion of the theme of the reproach of Isaiah. When those two righteous ones [King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah] decreed upon the cities of Judah that they should enhance the Torah in great multitudes, and deepen and magnify the power of the Torah with the application of pilpul, many cities did not obey their command and were therefore overrun [by Sanheriv]. That is why when Isaiah came to reproach [Judah] about this, he introduced his reproach with the words: “Hear, O you who are deaf,” etc.",
+ "To clarify the reason for his criticism, [let us] use a parable of a king who realizes that the war has reached a critical juncture. The king directs the officers of the army to make new weapons that [seem to be] cumbersome to fight with. Because of the king’s directive, the officers of the army are astonished, since it is common sense that in time of battle one is supposed to simplify the soldiers’ task as much as possible. However, they realized that the king’s perception is without limit and [thus] understood the king’s wisdom. Against the will [of their soldiers], with intense diligence, they would accustom themselves and their hands to the extent that they would be well-trained [in the operation] of this wondrous weapon. For [the officers realized] that the benefit from this [training] would be that their opponents would not [have the same capability] with their weapons against this tool of war. Immediately, they became diligently involved in this task in an exceptional manner, following the king’s directive and thus succeeding in battle. Yet there was one officer who did not fully understand the directive, and [though] he constructed new weapons, he did not strive to train them [the troops] well [in their use]. As a result, when they entered battle, [the solders] being unaccustomed to the new weapons, used the older weapons and were defeated [by the opponent] thus being spoils [of war]. When the king’s wrath was directed against that officer, he retorted that it was due to the negligence of the king’s directive that he lost his army, for he had directed them to make new weapons that were cumbersome. The king angrily replied that this was not true, and since he had failed to comprehend the king’s words, he [the officer] was to blame for [his army] being plundered.",
+ "Now with whom should the king be angry? Not with the soldiers, for they [are not expected] to understand the king’s intention. Rather, [the king’s anger] is either directed against the general, who because of his level of intelligence [and expertise] is expected to comprehend the king’s word, or against [the elite solder], the man of valor who attends personally to the king and is thus rebuked by him many times to understand his intent and intimations.",
+ "So it was during the days of King Hezekiah, during oppressive times for him and Israel, he commanded that the Torah be enhanced and that pilpul and analysis be strengthened. This matter was difficult for many leaders of various communities to carry out fully, for it is common sense that during a time of siege it is better to keep to a bare minimum [the instructions people have] to acquire, and have them focus on the decided halachah, so that each one will meditate upon them individually and independently. Therefore, whom should the prophet Isaiah rebuke? The giants of Israel.",
+ "He [Isaiah] said: “Hear, O you who are deaf, and look, O you who are blind, so that you may see” (in other words: look [contemplate] in order to understand and achieve erudition); “Who is blind but My servant?” ([This refers to] the one who has eyes to see [understand] yet does not look [attempt to comprehend]. It is because of this that I call him “blind.” This does not apply to the one who is incapable of “seeing”). “Or deaf as My messenger that I send?” (He can hear but did not listen, and for this reason is called deaf. I would not insult the one who is incapable of listening. [Isaiah is now going to define who those with the ability to “seek” are]): “Who is as blind as he who is whole hearted?” (This is one who is in the category of a tzaddik [righteous one], who upon sinning is punished immediately, as stated: “The Lord is your Guardian, the Lord is your shade at your right hand.” God promises the tzaddik that He will protect him from sin, so that the sin will not negate the earlier promise [of continuous protection] stated earlier in that Psalm. [The Psalm] explains earlier how he [the tzaddik] will be protected from sin: “The Lord is your shade at your right hand.” Unlike others, though the Holy One blessed be He accompanies them like a shadow, following them wherever they go – whether for good or ill, most people experience the shade, [the consequences of their acts] after some time, and because of this they do not understand why a particular punishment was meted out to them, so that they can be more careful [in the future]. However, the tzaddik is promised that the “shade will be at his right hand”; if he acts improperly, he will receive punishment without delay, and this [is the intent] of the verse, as stated at the end of the third chapter of Tractate Yoma. Pertaining to such a person, he says, “Who is blind as he who is wholehearted,” for the Holy One, blessed be He, has punished him many times for his unintentional errors, for he is righteous and His servant, and therefore he should have seen [the truth], and yet he does not).",
+ "“And [who is as] blind as the Lord’s servant?” (This is a giant of his generation, who governs Israel in lofty and exalted affairs, and because of his wisdom he should have seen and yet did not see). “Though you see many things, you guard not” (for he has insight to crucial and invaluable matters, many of which he wanted to admonish the people, but he did not take heed to keep guard of them [of impressing on the people] their importance). “Though he opens the ears, he hears not” (the messengers of the Holy One, blessed be He, the prophets of Isaiah’s time, were sent among the various communities in order to stimulate and strengthen in whatever areas required vigor; to increase instruction and pilpul so that they could be saved from the yoke of Sanheriv. And yet they did not listen, and [such a person] is similar to one who is deaf).",
+ "[Following these introductory remarks], Isaiah begins the main body of his reproach: “The Lord desired, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the teaching great and glorious.” (It is certainly clear that at the time of Isaiah, many other prophets received prophecy from God to increase the Torah in quantity and quality; to sharpen the sword of Torah through deep penetration and teaching. The reason that we possess no record of their writings is because matters irrelevant to the later generations were included in much of their prophecy, [similar] to what is stated in the first chapter of Tractate Megillah. In reality, earlier in chapter 32, Isaiah chastises the prophets “tottering in judgment,” because they used minimal oversight and analysis and because they did not want to listen, as explained earlier. Pertaining to this Isaiah states that it was “for His righteousness’s sake” that He has taught you the way to be saved from the sword of Sanheriv). “But this is a people robbed and plundered” (where “robbed” refers to one who is not taken captive himself, but whose possessions are taken as plunder, whereas “plundered” refers to who is actually taken captive). “For their chosen ones are swollen”; (the reason [that such a fate] has befallen them is because the special ones of Israel are in a position to wage the battle of Torah with the assistance of their students, as advised [by Koheles]. However, they did not do so, and their wisdom and analysis remained within them, as one stricken with a swollen throat, where his air remains inside and cannot be exhaled [i.e., he cannot talk]. Thus the chosen ones have become too lazy to toil with the students in order to clarify the matters that are within their capacity for breath [i.e., his potential to teach]). “They are hidden in prison-houses”: (they did not go to the study halls to supervise the students so that they should study the Torah diligently, rather they sat by themselves and studied in isolation, as if they lived in prison). “They are marked as prey, and there is no savior” (as a result, this evil has befallen some of the communities, their possessions becoming spoil, with none to save them). “For [they are] plunder and none says, ‘Restore them’” (they have been taken captive and no one can protest by saying, “Restore them”). “Who among you will listen to this? Who will heed? They hear from the rear.” ([That is, they do not listen attentively]. Who among the giants of Israel will listen to this reproach that I have uttered, acting as if they were hidden in the prison-houses, uninvolved in promoting diligent study by the students – “they [the giants of Israel] hear from the rear.” For Isaiah stated that [these calamities befell] because the special ones acted as though they had swollen throats, not uttering words of Torah to their students, continuing [to remain in isolation] like one in prison, by not going to the study halls at all. Yet they, [the giants of Israel] say the opposite, that they are forced to remain in the “prison-houses,” for they cannot burden the students with such difficult labor – apply pilpul and deep analysis at a time of crisis. Therefore, even they have reached such a level that every special one [acts as if he] possesses a swollen throat, such that there is no longer found a single [student] before whom a scholar can communicate the deep analysis of the halachah residing within him). “Who gave up Jacob as plunder” (the multitudes were taken captive due to the lack of the merit of the students’ “voice of Jacob”) “and Israel to the robbers?” (Although the giants of Israel possessed merit [of Torah study] sufficient to save themselves (as I wrote in chapter 9), nevertheless their possessions became plunder [of war]).",
+ "Did not the Lord [direct so]? (For even if they [the giants of Israel] did not direct that the Torah be enhanced and strengthened by sharpness of study, [they could at least have charged them] to study diligently what they had received, and [many] would [be able to] supervise them. Had they come to the study hall to supervise the students, [this would have led to interaction between the students], so that they would tell them what was in their minds rather than act as though their throats were swollen. However, [the giants of Israel insist] that though the Holy One, blessed be He, has charged them to sharpen the sword of Israel, it is impossible today [to achieve victory in this manner] by imposing [such study] on the students.",
+ "This [attitude of the giants of Israel] resulted in “He against whom we have sinned” (this is the cause for having sinned against Him, for we are lax in establishing the word of God) “and in whose ways they would not walk” (pertaining to the way He exhorted and taught the strategy for being saved from Sanheriv); “neither did they listen to His Torah.” (They ignored the many places where the Torah declares the greatness of the power of the sword of Torah); “Therefore He poured upon him the fury of His anger” (such that many communities were overrun by Sanheriv) “and the strength of battle” (many stood to fight and did not succeed due to the intensity of the battle). “It set him on fire round about, and he did not notice” (for they heard at first that the villages surrounding the city were already destroyed and burned by Sanheriv’s army, and yet they did not learn any lessons from this for what they should be careful). “And it burned him, and he paid no attention.” (Even when the punishment arrives, he pays no attention for the future [and does not understand] that this is a punishment from Heaven. As it states in Avos, “If you neglect the [study of] Torah, you will have many excuses to neglect it,” meaning that he will find many [other] matters to [make him] neglect it, and he will not be strengthened any further in this, [i.e., the study of Torah])."
+ ],
+ [
+ "THE NETZIV OFFERS A PRAYER
THE LORD HAS provided me the opportunity to utter a blessing [of thanks] for the completion [of this work], to explain and elaborate the intent of Rav Ahai Gaon of blessed memory [concerning] many topics, [some of which are] straightforward while others are very difficult. In most instances I also gave the opinions of the Rishonim of the subsequent generations, precious jewels. I extracted, like wine, their opinions that resided within the grapes constructed of their terse and guarded words. By using these opinions, matters of halachic decision became perfected. For this is the purpose of all who toil in the Torah, that the hukim and mishpatim shall be preserved [by teaching them to others], and it is for this reason that I frequently elaborated so as to clarify and communicate the opinions of the various authorities.",
+ "I [by publishing this work] come here to pay the debt that I view myself as obligated to discharge. I state today that in most cases I took great care to explain [the concepts in this book] to student and colleague in the great academy where the Lord has graciously allowed me to lecture. They [of this yeshiva] possess the power to engage in the battle of Torah, soldiers who prevail [over erroneous arguments]. Numerous times, I [took care] not to rely on my own analysis and understanding, [for I did not fear risking that my conclusions] be shattered. Heaven forbid, that the truth of the Torah should be [restrained] as captives; [let] the Will [of God] be spoken. Many times I was [assisted] by the mouths [of my colleagues and students expressing] explanations, and I expanded [beyond that which they] stated so as to produce [halachic discussions] in purity.",
+ "However, it should not be stated that nizdaken ha-din, that the judgment is unsolvable, or that it has been wisely established, [that the matters I discuss should not be revisited] either because of strangeness [of the subject], or because it is pure [without error]. [I do not state that my writings are free of error], especially in regard to the first volume [of Ha’amek She’elah], where I was a tiron [novice] as an author. ([For proof that tiron means a novice], see how it is used in Bereishis Rabbah, parashah 1).",
+ "I constantly pray to the God of Purity that He should teach us His truth, His Torah, so that [we may] increase His teachings and substance. This is my longing in this transitory world: to benefit from the light emanating from the Face of the Living God, May He be blessed in the World of Perfection, the yearning of all [humankind]. Behold, I am the one laden with service, [for] all my desire and salvation are with her, [the Torah]."
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ "Petach HaEmek": {
+ "Part I": [],
+ "Part II": [
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [
+ "",
+ "",
+ "THE IMPORTANCE OF CHARITY AND THE SUPPORT OF TORAH SCHOLARS
Translator’s note: As noted in the Introduction, the Netziv wrote a second preface to his commentary Ha’amek She’elah entitled Pesah Ha’amek, in which he discusses in depth the history of R. Ahai Gaon and his work, the She’iltos. I have included here a translation of two chapters of Pesah Ha’amek that pertain to the mitzvah of charity and supporting Talmud scholars. The Netziv used these two chapters to express his appreciation of those who enabled him to complete this work and those who supported Yeshivas Etz Hayyim.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CHARITY
Translator’s note: In this chapter the Netziv will be inferring from the laws of zomemim (people who conspire in order to give false testimony in court) the extent to which one is rewarded for assisting others in performing mitzvos. Deut. 19:16–21 states that such people must be punished with the same consequences that they had planned for their intended victim. This reciprocal punishment applies whether the testimony involves capital punishment or monetary payments. The law of reciprocal punishment only applies when the witnesses have been discredited through hazamah, in which a second set of witnesses testifies that the first set of witnesses could not have seen the incident regarding which they testified because they were somewhere else at the time.
I WOULD LIKE to provide an incentive for those who support others in the performance of mitzvos, by proving that their assistance is equal to the one who performs the mitzvah himself, so that they may find the heart to perform [this mitzvah] with much joy and generosity.",
+ "It is taught in the Mishnah in the first chapter of Tractate Makkos: [Scripture states]: “By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the one who deserves to die be put to death.” If testimony may be established by two witnesses, why does the Torah [also] specify three [witnesses]? [This was done in order] to draw an analogy between three and two [witnesses]. Just as it is obvious that three witnesses can discredit two through hazamah, two witnesses can also discredit three through hazamah. Where in Scripture [do we learn] that [two witnesses can discredit through hazamah even a number as great] as one hundred witnesses? The Torah therefore states ‘witnesses.’”",
+ "R. Shimeon says, “Just as two witnesses are not executed unless both have been found to be conspiring witnesses, so too three witnesses are not executed unless all three are established as conspiring witnesses. Where in Scripture [do we learn that this rule applies even if a group of witnesses is composed] of one hundred witnesses? The Torah therefore states ‘witnesses.’”",
+ "R. Akiva says, “The third witness is not stated so that we should deal more leniently [with the extra witness]. Rather, [this is done so] that we should deal more stringently with him, and make his [the third witness’s] punishment the same as theirs [the other two witnesses]. If this is how the Torah punished one who was merely an accomplice to transgressors, [by treating him] like the transgressors themselves, how much more so will He reward one who lends his aid to those performing a mitzvah [by treating him] like those who actually perform the mitzvah. And just as with [a group of] two witnesses, if one of [the witnesses] was found to have been a relative or disqualified, their testimony is invalid, [since only one witness remains], so too with [a group of] three. If one of them was found to be a relative or a disqualified witness, their testimony [i.e., the testimony of the entire group] is invalid. Where in Scripture do we learn [that even one witness of a set can disqualify an entire group consisting of] one hundred? The Torah therefore states ‘witnesses.’”",
+ "Rashi, explaining the reasoning of R. Akiva, states: There would be no need [for the Torah] to teach us the [law stated by the Tanna Kamma that two witnesses can discredit even a hundred], for by logic alone we would know that two can discredit three by hazamah, for two [witnesses] are valid for all [forms of] testimony. [In addition], by logic alone we would know that the [witnesses] are not discredited through hazamah [to receive reciprocal punishment] until the entire set is discredited. For all the witnesses, [regardless of the number,] are treated as one, as Scripture states: “If the witnesses should turn out to be false witnesses,” [and the word meaning “witnesses” is written in the singular, ed, “a witness”]. [Rather, ‘three witness’ is stated] so that we should deal more stringently with him, [the third witness]. One should not argue that since without him [the third witness], the testimony would still have been established, [and therefore] we would not apply the law of hazamah. [Thus] Scripture teaches us that this [third witness] is also considered as those who have certified this matter [by testimony].",
+ "I have not merited understanding [Rashi’s explanation]. Because two witnesses are valid for [all forms] of testimony, would we know that the power of three witnesses is not greater than the power of two? Behold, regarding the field of umedanah, estimations in monetary law, even though an estimation of two people is sufficient, nevertheless, since we follow the estimations and [if] three others come and estimate that it is not [as the previous two had opined], we listen to [the second group instead,] as stated in Tractate Yoma 83a. Rather, regarding testimony, it must be the reason [that three witnesses are not stronger than two], is because the verse compares two witnesses to three.",
+ "In addition, I find what Rashi writes difficult, that it would be obvious [that] three [witnesses] are not punished with death until all are disqualified with hazamah, since three witnesses are considered as one [set] of testimony. [One could also use this logic instead of] using R. Akiva’s exegesis from the verse that if we find that one of the witnesses is a relative or disqualified, [it invalidates the entire group of witnesses]; it should also be obvious that the same logic regarding the three witnesses would be comparable to two [because all of the witnesses are considered as one set]! This exegesis [of a single witness invalidating an entire group of three] is also R. Akiva’s, as is evident from Tractate Sanhedrin 9a, which states, “R. Yosi and Rabbi differ in applying the opinion of R. Akiva.”",
+ "I am aware of a way to answer and clarify Rashi’s explanation. However, if it were it not for his explanation, it would appear that in reality [R. Akiva’s opinion should be explained as follows]: There are two different verses pertaining to this [comparison of two witnesses to three]. One is from the parasha pertaining to idol worship, “By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the condemned person be put to death,” and the other pertains to conspiring witnesses, “By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a matter be established.” These two verses complement one another in [determining] what may be derived. R. Akiva derives from the verse mentioning the phrase “be put to death” that if one of the witnesses was found to be a relative or disqualified, it invalidates an entire group. Yet from the verse containing the phrase regarding “shall a matter be established,” the Gemara derives that Scripture is speaking only of those who establish the facts of the matter.",
+ "Though the Tanna Kamma derives the law regarding conspiring witnesses [that two witnesses can invalidate three] from the verse that contains the phrase “be put to death,” he also [needs to] derive from the verse that contains the phrase “shall a matter be established” [that only those who will be testifying are considered as set of witnesses], words not written in the verse that contains the phrase “be put to death.” R. Akiva argues that one is forced to accept that the verse containing the phrase “be put to death” is not coming to derive these [laws of hazamah, that two witnesses can invalidate three], for this is already inferred from the verse containing the phrase “shall a matter be established.” Rather, why is “three” stated in the parasha pertaining to idol worship, in the “be put to death verse?” “So that we should deal more stringently with him and make his [the third witness’s] sentence the same as theirs,” etc.",
+ "Now, from the verse that contains the phrase “shall a matter be established” [alone], which deals with monetary matters, we would not know that the law [of reciprocal punishment] applies to capital punishment [to the extent] that the [third] conspiring witness is also killed since he is [merely] supporting the testimony [of the other two]. It is logical that [reciprocal punishment] applies in monetary cases, for if the three witnesses are discovered to be conspiring witnesses, the payment penalty is divided [equally among them] into three parts. Therefore, we find that the third witness assists in the payment of the penalty resulting from the reciprocal punishment, just as he assisted them in the testimony; thus the verse, “You shall do to him as he conspired to do to his fellow,” is applicable to him. For since he was a factor in the strengthening of the two witnesses’ testimony, he shares in the payment [penalty], so that he should also pay a portion and thus alleviate a portion of what they should pay.",
+ "However, pertaining to capital punishment, even though he wanted to assist [the other two witnesses] with their testimony, it would not enter one’s mind that he should also die if the members of [the entire group] were found to be conspiring witnesses, for he does not assist them [in any way] with his death. All he wanted to do was to assist [them], to strengthen their testimony, and yet we apply more than “what he conspired to do to his fellow, is done to him” – he is killed. He does not assist them [the other two witnesses], with his death and he is killed only because of his own sin that he performed by himself. Behold, we learn from this verse that the punishment for one joining others in committing sin is the same as if he had committed the sin entirely by himself.",
+ "R. Akiva also inferred that just as when one of two witnesses is found to have been a relative or disqualified their testimony is invalid, [the same applies to three: if one of them was found to be a relative or a disqualified witness, the entire group’s testimony is invalid]. This cannot be inferred from the verse containing the phrase “shall a matter be established,” for one may argue that even when two are testifying and one of the witnesses is disqualified, the second witness is still valid as far as being able to require the accused to take an oath, a law applicable to a single witness. One could therefore argue similarly that when there are three witnesses, if one of the witnesses is disqualified, the testimony of the remaining two witnesses is valid. Therefore, there is the need for the verse that contains the phrase “the condemned person be put to death.” Certainly in capital cases, if one of the two witnesses was found to be a relative or disqualified, the [effect] of the second witness is nullified, so also with [a group of] three witnesses, even though two witnesses remain, their testimony is rendered invalid. From [this verse] we infer [that the same rule is applicable] to all other testimonies in the Torah, even pertaining to monetary cases.",
+ "Returning to the subject [at hand], R. Akiva understood from the manner in which those who assist others [in sin] are punished, that he who supports others [in sinning] is considered as if he had committed that sin himself even though he does not lessen the punishment of the other witnesses at all – his punishment is harsh. R. Akiva extended this concept to those who assist others in performing mitzvos. It goes without saying that if someone’s assistance lessens the amount of work performed by the principal, it should result in decreasing the amount of the principal’s reward, for “according to one’s effort is his reward.” Certainly the one who assists should receive a portion of the reward [proportional] to the amount of assistance that he rendered to the principal. However, if the principal performs a mitzvah on his own, not laying aside any of his burden, when his friend comes to assist him in performing this task, I would not imagine that the one who participates would receive a reward equal to the one who performs the mitzvah by himself. It is this that [R. Akiva’s] kal va-homer teaches us: one who joins [others in performing the mitzvah] receives a reward as if he performed the mitzvah himself, even without reducing the amount of reward that the others receive.",
+ "Similarly, those who support others, enhancing the Torah with their money, even though they do not lessen by one iota the toil of those engaged in waging the battle of Torah – nevertheless, since they join them in this mitzvah, they are equal [in the reward reserved for the scholar’s] toil and pain.",
+ "It is written in the parasha of Ki Savo: “Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of the Torah to perform them.” The Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Sotah and the Vayikra Rabbah on the parasha of Kedoshim states that the converse is also [true]: “Blessed be the one who upholds the words of the Torah.” There it explains that “one who has not studied or taught himself, etc., but caused others to study, is included within this blessing.”",
+ "(Netziv’s addendum – I will now be able to explain the [following] verses in I Samuel, chapter 30: Like the share of the one who goes down to do battle, so is the share of the one who stays with the [soldiers’] equipment; they shall share alike. It was from that day u-ma’alah (onward), that he [David] established a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day. The phrase “Like the share of the one who goes down to do battle, so is the share of the one who stays with the [soldiers’] equipment” does not read well. It would have been better to state, “As one who goes down to do battle so is one who stays with the [soldier’s] equipment; they shall share alike.” Also, the word u-ma’alah is used for “onward” [which really means “and above”]. It would have better to use the word ve-halah [“onward”], (a [note on this strange wording] is already provided in Bereshis Rabbah, parasha 43). In addition, it is unclear how “that he made a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day” relates to the simple understanding in this particular context.",
+ "Rather, it appears that another matter is being alluded to, one unrelated to the context of the parasha, as I wrote in Part 2, of the prophetic style. What the verses are alluding to is the battle of Torah, and so it is referred to in Scripture as seen from what the Sages wrote [pertaining to the verses]: “Behold the couch of Solomon, sixty mighty men round about it…. They all handle the sword, skilled in warfare.” Also see the Sifrei on Ha’azinu, explaining the verse “craftsmen, the gate sentries, one thousand, all mighty men, warriors,” [as referring to the battle of Torah].",
+ "It is known that it is impossible to fight the battle of Torah without the support of those who provide supplies. This is comparable to those who guard the equipment [required] for a war involving hand-to-hand combat. [This verse] would not be needed to teach us how a good reward is provided in this world to those who support others with kindness in this world, [as we already know] of the reward of those who are charitable: that they eat the fruit [that is, they receive the reward] in this world. Rather, our sages of blessed memory taught us in Tractate Pesahim 53, “Whoever puts merchandise into the Torah scholars’ purses merits to sit in the heavenly academy, as Scripture states, ‘For to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money.’ “Behold, we see that he receives reward together with the possessors of Torah.",
+ "According to this [line of reasoning], the reward of the one who stays with the equipment [i.e., the supporters of those who wage the battle of Torah] is greater than the one who actually studies, for [the supporter] receives a reward both for being charitable and for [being considered] as studying Torah. Therefore, the proper interpretation [of the verse in Samuel] is that the share of reward for the one who is immersed in the battle [of Torah] is the same as for the one who sits with the equipment [provides support]. This one according to his toil, and this one according to his kindness; together they shall receive the [reward]. “For that day and beyond,” meaning [for that moment of supporting Torah study], is more lofty than those involved in hand-to-hand combat – the battle of Torah. And “he made it a hok [statute] and a mishpat [ordinance]” – this rule [of receiving a greater reward is when one supports those who produce] hok and mishpat, resulting from the battle of Torah. [In other words, pilpul is applied to formulate rules, represented by hok, and to use those rules to derive laws of practice, as represented by mishpat] – end of Netziv’s addendum).",
+ "Truly, if the supporters [of Torah] would only realize the greatness produced by their acts, they would find the heart to perform them with more joy and generosity, enhancing their blessing even more.",
+ "This is stated in the Midrash [Rabbah] on the Book of Ruth: R. Yitzhak ben Merion said: “Scripture teaches us that if a person performs a mitzvah, he should perform it with a full heart. If Reuven had known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, ‘Reuven heard and saved him [Joseph] from their hand,’ he would have carried him on his shoulders and brought him to his father. And if Aharon had known that that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, ‘Behold, he [Aharon] is going out to meet you [Moshe], and when he sees you he will rejoice in his heart,’ he [Aharon] would have gone out to greet him with drums and cymbals. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He would record of him, ‘He handed [Ruth] parched grain, and she ate and was satisfied and had some left over,’ he would have fed her fattened calves. R. Kohen and R. Yehoshua of Sichnin said in the name of R. Levi, “In the past, when a person performed a mitzvah, the prophets would record it. However, now when a person performs a mitzvah, who will record it? Eliyahu will record it, and it will be sealed by the hands of the Messiah and the Holy One, blessed be He. This is what Scripture states: ‘Then those who fear the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and those who give thought to His Name.’”",
+ "May each and every one of His nation be blessed. May they experience His World during their lifetime, and may the Lord rest upon them, becoming their splendid power, as befitting one who is laden with great service, blessed [with His] love."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "Part III": [
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [
+ "",
+ "THE SUPPORTERS OF TORAH STUDY ARE REWARDED WITH THE ABILITY TO COMPREHEND THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE HEAVENLY ACADEMY AND BY PROVIDING TORAH INSIGHTS IN THIS WORLD
IN THE SECOND SECTION of Pesah Ha’amek, I gave an explanation of a mishnah in the first chapter of Tractate Makkos. I would now like to add that in addition to those who participate with others in fulfilling mitzvos, there are yet more benefits provided to those who strengthen and enhance the Torah among Israel. First I would like to cite what our sages stated in Tractate Pesahim 53b: R. Yohanan said: “Whoever puts merchandise into the purses of Torah scholars merits to sit in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: ‘For to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money.’”",
+ "Similarly, the Jerusalem Talmud, in Tractate Sotah, chapter 7, states: R. Hana and R. Yirmiyah stated in the name of R. Hiyya, “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will build shelters for the possessors of mitzvos together with the possessors of Torah. What is the reason? As it says, ‘For to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money,’ and [Scripture also] states, ‘It is a tree of life to those who grasp it, and its supporters are praiseworthy.’” With some variation, this is also expressed in the Midrash Rabbah on the passage of Kedoshim.",
+ "At first blush, one can ask a strong question: why do we need a special proof for this mitzvah of strengthening the Torah more than any other mitzvah that would be included in the rule derived by R. Akiva in the above-mentioned mishnah?",
+ "However, it is relevant to know that tzel (“shade”) and huppah (“canopy”) refer to honor, as similar language is used in Isaiah 4: “For more than any honor shall be a canopy, and a booth for shade in the day-time [to protect one] from the heat.” The meaning is that even though two different people can perform the same mitzvah in an equal manner and receive the same reward in the World of Rewards (Gan Eden), nevertheless, their honor is dissimilar. For one’s honor is dependent on the totality of his actions and his conduct in the World of Living, which essentially is the attire that he will wear in the Heavenly World. Just as it is shameful for a man who is distinguished to sit in a lowly seat and wear ordinary clothing, so does shame envelop the face of ordinary men who sit in esteemed places and wear formal attire, receiving honor for a transitory act that it is incompatible with his character. This is what is written in chapter 2 of Habakkuk, when speaking of Nebuchadnezzar, “You are filled with shame instead of glory.” This means that because of their fear of Nebuchadnezzar, they honored him more than was acceptable to his soul and this is why there was “shame instead of glory.” It is written in chapter 3 of Proverbs, “The wise shall inherit honor, but as for the fools, they carry away shame.” This means that the wise inherit honor, for it is appropriate and acceptable to them. However, when honor arrives for the foolish it brings them shame, for those who sit at the gates [in the marketplace] speak of how unworthy they are to receive that honor. Similar to the honor for vanities in this world is the honor [to be received from] God in the World to Come – in other words, it is unacceptable to one unless it matches his general strength [of achievements]. This is stated in Tractate Bava Basra 75a, [that in the World to Come, God will make everyone a canopy corresponding to what they deserve], and “each one will be burned because of the canopy of his friend.” Each one will perceive himself as being unworthy of this honor, to benefit from the light emanating from the Face of the Living King in a manner equal to his fellow. Behold, the Kingdom of the Firmament is like the earthly kingdom: just as we see how the king grants honor to a man of valor who deserves the reward of receiving a title of officer of the army or leader of battle, so it may be said that they are the bearers of his kingdom and upon them depends the kingdom’s strength and splendor. It is because of this that he gives them citations of power and splendor, proportional to how each one has excelled in battle. Such is the kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which uplifts those who fight the battle of Torah. It is for this reason that the [Torah] is referred to as a sword, as stated in Tractate Shabbos 60 regarding the verse, “Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, your glory and your majesty” – that the simple meaning of this verse pertains to the study of Torah. Just as His Kingdom, may He be blessed, is uplifted through those who meditate on [the Torah], so she [the Torah] provides strength and glory to those [who study her], as it is written, “Strength and glory are her clothing,” – the glory of God is reserved particularly for the Talmud scholar. This is stated in Tractate Bava Basra 8b, “What does Scripture say of the rabbis? Ravina answered: ‘Those who love Him are like the sun when he goes forth in his might.’ “The sun represents honor,” as Psalms states, “A sun and a shield is the Lord God. The Lord bestows favor and glory; He withholds no goodness from those who walk in perfect innocence.” This means that Divine Providence is comparable to the sun, as it bestows favor and glory similar to the way the sun illuminates a [particular] thing [causing it] to be [viewed] more favorably than any other, even though [the two things] may be truly similar. See Part 1, chapter 14, of Kadmas Ha’amek for an explanation of this verse.",
+ "With this explanation, we can now understand [the Sages’] above-mentioned statement in Pesahim: [“Whoever puts merchandise into the purses of Torah scholars merits to sit in the heavenly academy, as it is said: ‘To sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money.’”] [This statement] teaches us the greatness of the honor for those who enable [others to study] Torah, for they receive the honor of the Talmudic sages themselves. It is therefore proper that [the sages] cited a proof from the verse, “To sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money,” for this verse was quoted by the Jerusalem Talmud, cited previously, along with the verse, “It is a tree of life to those who grasp it, and its supporters are meushar” (praiseworthy). The connotation of ishur [praiseworthy] is the receipt of praise from others. (Netziv’s addendum – One can now answer the question I raised above – what does R. Yohanan add when he describes the reward of those who support Torah? The [above-mentioned mishnah in] Tractate Makkos [already] teaches that those who support others who perform mitzvos receive the same reward as those who perform the mitzvah itself.",
+ "However, this question can be answered according to what we have explained. One first needs to realize that even though it is impossible to conceive [what] the reward in the World to Come is – as Scripture states, “The eye has never seen it,” and so on – nevertheless, we can still compare it to a prize awarded by a kingdom to those deserving commendation. Behold, there are two types of rewards dispensed by a kingdom: One is awarded to those who excel in governmental affairs. To such a person the king gives a gift such as money and the like; this does not involve any type of glory at all. The second type [of reward], however, is [reserved for] the one who serves with his sword, performing acts of valor in battle – the king promotes such a person to general, and this is a more exemplary honor.",
+ "It is similar with the rewards for performing the mitzvos. Though it may bring pleasure, [it] lacks the glory of sitting in the heavenly academy. This does not apply to the Talmudic scholar who sits in the heavenly academy. Now, regarding [the reward for] performing the mitzvos, it is obvious that every person is able to accomplish this; similar to how every person can receive a reward for serving a king of flesh and blood. [One might think] that this would not be so with the reward [reserved] for the Talmudic scholar who studies in the heavenly academy, for certainly not everyone is worthy to receive [this honor], just as it would be impossible for every man of valor to be awarded [with a promotion] to the position of general.",
+ "Therefore, from our mishnah [in Tractate Makkos] we would only know of the reward [reserved] for those who assist others to perform mitzvos. It is unlike the [reward for the] supporters of Torah. We would not know that [they could receive the reward of glory], for [even] if it were possible for them to sit in the Heavenly Court, they would not understand the discussions, and it would thus be “shame instead of glory.” This is why R. Yohanan teaches that he will be able to sit in the “shade” of wisdom and will receive the power to comprehend the [Heavenly Court’s] discussions. – end of Netziv’s addendum.)",
+ "Translator’s note: The Netziv will be citing a proof from the Talmudic discussions of Todos of Rome regarding how one is rewarded in this world when one supports Torah study. Tractate Pesahim states that Todos, against rabbinical decree, instructed his community to eat roasted meat on Pesah night. The Talmud then questions why the rabbis did not excommunicate him.
One may add that we can infer from the above mentioned Tractate Pesahim, that the future Godly honor one will attain in the World to Come, i.e., to sit in the shade and canopy of the Talmudic scholar and to sit in the Heavenly Court, is partially reflected in this world [as well]. Tractate Pesahim [on 53b], inquires: “Was Todos of Rome a great man, or was he a powerful and violent man?” It derives that [he was a great man based] on a proof from a baraisa: This teaching as well did Todos of Rome expound: “What did Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah see that caused them to throw themselves into the fiery furnace for the sanctification of God’s name? They applied to themselves a kal va-homer from the [plague] of the frogs [in Egypt]. Pertaining to the frogs, which are not commanded to sanctify God’s name, it is written, ‘The river shall swarm with frogs and they shall ascend and come into your place… and into your ovens and into your kneading bowls.’ When are kneading bowls next to an oven? I would say at the moment that the oven is hot. So we, who are being commanded to fulfill the mitzvah of sanctifying God’s name, [should be willing to throw ourselves into the flames].’ R. Yosi ben Avin said, “Todos would put merchandise into the purses of Talmudic scholars, for R. Yohanan said: ‘Whoever puts merchandise into the purses of Talmudic scholars merits to sit in the heavenly academy, as Scripture states: “To sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money.’”",
+ "This [Talmudic statement] appears incomprehensible. The Gemara proved that [the Rabbis refrained from excommunicating Todos] not [because he was] a violent and powerful man, but because he was a great man. He taught exegesis in public, so it would be appropriate to prove that he [possessed qualities beyond] one who was [merely] wealthy and a philanthropist. For what right does a wealthy person have to teach exegesis in public, as it does not relate to his power in wisdom? Rather, one must say, [just as one who supports the Torah] has the merit to sit in the heavenly academy and can understand their discussions and thus not sit there in embarrassment, so also, even in this world, he receives help from Heaven to originate and apply exegesis in certain matters. [Just] like a Talmudic scholar [who, because of his toil, receives assistance from Heaven to analyze and derive halacha], so at times does the one [who supports the scholars] receive Heavenly support to apply exegesis in his moment [of opportunity as determined by God]; [not because of his] toil, [but] rather [due to his acts of kindness], resulting in Heavenly support to achieve honor and joy through the utterances of his mouth.",
+ "This is the parable written [in Proverbs], “She makes linen garments and sells them, and gives girdles to the merchant.” This parable is referring to one who possesses equipment to weave large and small linen garments (“linen garments” refer to large garments, whereas “girdles” refer to small ones), even the small ones are sold for their full value. When [a merchant] acquires much merchandise at its market value, it is common practice that in [appreciation] of this purchase, the manufacturer will give [the merchant] a girdle as a gift. This is the understanding of this parable, as it is written, “She makes linen garments and sells them,” meaning, the [larger linen garments] are never received as a gift, whereas, [she] “gives girdles to the merchant” since he has purchased much. It is well known that Tractate Yevamos 63b states that the Torah is compared to a valorous woman [and thus the woman described in Proverbs as making linens and girdles is representative of the Torah]. This parable is to be understood [to be addressing] two types of novelties in the Torah. One [type, represented by the linens], is an extensive matter encompassing deep topics in halachah, whereas there is another matter, [represented by the girdles], being of minimal scope, like understanding a particular verse or topic as the issue arises. Behold, even minimal matters do not come to man other than as a payment for his toil [in Torah study in other areas]. Such are the commodities of Torah, as it states in Shemos Rabbah, parasha 28, “[The verse], ‘You have received gifts among men,’ [teaches us] that it [the Torah] was given to him [Moshe] for a price. [The Proverbs parable is stating], he who toils greatly in [the study] of a matter in halachah, is like a great merchant in [the goods of] the Torah, and the Torah thus gives him [insights] into minimal matters without the need to toil; this is a gift provided with the assistance of God. (This is the merit and assistance that is also achieved by the one who places merchandise in the purse of the Talmud scholar and sits in the shade of the Torah).",
+ "Along these same lines, R. Yosi ben Avin stated, “Todos would put merchandise into the purses of Talmud scholars.” [Since he performed this mitzvah,] Divine assistance rested upon him, enabling him to reach [the level] of applying exegesis to the verse appropriate to the subject that presented itself at that time.",
+ "I would like to add, (being no matter not alluded to in the Torah of Moshe), this [concept is alluded] in the explanation of the verse in the parasha of Shemini, “Moshe said, ‘This is the davar [thing] that God has commanded you to do; the glory of God will then appear to you.’” The general understanding of the verse calls for further explanation – the congregation had already fulfilled Moshe’s directive, [as the previous verse states]: “They took what Moshe had commanded to the front of the Tent of Meeting; and the entire congregation approached and stood before the Lord.” The only remaining item [to be done] was Aharon’s act [of the sin-offering calf], so what did Moshe add by telling them “to perform”? (The Toras Kohanim has already addressed this question with lengthy exegesis, and I have, with God’s will, expounded on this [verse] in my compilation Ha’amek Davar.) Tractate Yoma 5b states that we infer from this verse that even the reading of the parasha of the miluim [inaugural service] is essential, for “this is the davar (matter)” is explained to mean “this is the dibbur (speech).” However, the meaning of Moshe telling them la’asos, “to perform” remains unclear. [This may be answered by applying the definition of la’asos, as described in Chapter 8, to mean “analyze deeply” to enhance the Torah]. Moshe stated to those who stood and waited, anticipating the revelation of God’s glory through the sacrifices that they were told to bring: if they “analyze” His dibbur, one with toil and another by supporting [those who analyze the Torah], then the glory of the Lord will appear to everyone. Even without the agency of the sacrifices they will grasp the glory of the Lord, each one according to his degree [of performance]. Although there is much more that one may learn through additional explanation and exegesis, it is reserved for my above-mentioned compilation as decreed by God, blessed be He."
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ "": []
+ },
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009",
+ "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002702472"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "העמק שאלה על שאילתות דרב אחאי גאון",
+ "categories": [
+ "Halakhah",
+ "Commentary"
+ ],
+ "schema": {
+ "heTitle": "העמק שאלה על שאילתות דרב אחאי גאון",
+ "enTitle": "Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon",
+ "key": "Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon",
+ "nodes": [
+ {
+ "heTitle": "קדמת העמק",
+ "enTitle": "Kidmat HaEmek",
+ "nodes": [
+ {
+ "heTitle": "קדמת הראשון",
+ "enTitle": "Part I"
+ },
+ {
+ "heTitle": "קדמת השני",
+ "enTitle": "Part II"
+ },
+ {
+ "heTitle": "קדמת השלישי",
+ "enTitle": "Part III"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "heTitle": "פתח העמק",
+ "enTitle": "Petach HaEmek",
+ "nodes": [
+ {
+ "heTitle": "פתח הראשון",
+ "enTitle": "Part I"
+ },
+ {
+ "heTitle": "פתח השני",
+ "enTitle": "Part II"
+ },
+ {
+ "heTitle": "פתח השלישי",
+ "enTitle": "Part III"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "heTitle": "",
+ "enTitle": ""
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file