A talk with HaRav Michel Zilber, rosh yeshivas Zvihl and
Yeshivas Tiferes Yisroel in Jerusalem, about the approach to
learning aggodoh, subsequent to the publication of his
work Bayom Derech dealing with topics in aggodoh
which were delivered in public addresses by the author
every Shabbos.
It seems that in recent years, there have appeared a
disproportionate amount of works dealing with the
aggodoh in the Torah.
The truth is quite the opposite. All the great figures in
every generation who wrote works on halochoh, also
wrote works on aggodoh. The author of the Responsa of
Maharit also wrote a work of choice droshos called
Tzofnas Pa'anei'ach. R' Eliyohu ben Chaim wrote
Hanossein Imrei Shefer. The Mabit wrote Beis
Elokim. There was a time when no differentiation existed
between halochoh, aggodoh, drush and
Kabboloh.
This refers to a period hundreds of years ago.
No, that is how it was until recent generations. The Chasam
Sofer compiled his own Droshos Hachasam Sofer, as did
the Tzlach, the Pri Megodim, the Nesivos, and apparently, R'
Akiva Eiger also innovated in drush. What greater and
better example can be found than that of the Vilna Gaon, of
whom it was said that his greatness in the esoteric branch of
Torah was even greater than in the revealed. I don't know who
said it, since I cannot conceive anyone who presumed to judge
or gauge his greatness, but this was in a generation where
the excellence and perfection of the Gra was both in the
revealed portions and the concealed portions at the same
time.
In the responsa of R' Eliyohu Mizrachi, the author writes, "I
must be brief here since I am in the midst of writing my
great work of illuminating the Rashi commentary." This was
the Mizrachi's chief work — to explain the words of
Rashi.
Who is greater than the Maharsho, who wrote Chiddushei
Halochos alongside his Chiddushei Aggodos? The
author of Ponim Meiros has a work on Chumash
called Kosnos Ohr. This was the practice of all the
great figures in history. We don't always know about their
homiletic writings but when they go off on a tangent in a
responsa in halochoh to deal with aggodoh, we
are suddenly exposed to a whole new world of
aggodoh.
The Alshich Hakodosh was a master darshan and is
known even better precisely for this aspect of his knowledge,
even though he also wrote a work of responsa, Maharam
Alshich. The Baal Hahaflo'oh authored Ponim
Yofos, and the Beis Halevi did similarly. And that is how
it is in our generation.
Why, then, are the works on aggodoh much less
known?
I will preface my words with an important base rule which
appears in the droshos of the Maharit (Tzofnas
Pa'anei'ach p. 153): He writes that he heard a homily
from the Ari Hakodosh in which he told of the bnei
haneviim who asked Elisha, "Did you know that today
Hashem took your master away [from your head]?" He replied,
"I knew that too; be silent." The Ari asked why they thought
they knew while he didn't. Elisha was much closer to Eliyohu
and if anyone would know that Eliyohu went up to Heaven in a
storm, surely he would know it first.
The Ari replied that one can derive a rule from here that
when a person passes away, the vitality of his soul begins
its departure from the ends of the extremities first. Only
afterwards does it recede from the rest of the organs until
it finally departs from the heart, last.
This is the meaning: Elisha was closely bound to Eliyohu,
heart and soul. The bnei haneviim were only attached
to and nurtured by him from other parts of Eliyohu. When they
felt the recession of their vitality, they informed Elisha
what they were experiencing, and asked him if he felt the
same since he was intertwined with Eliyohu's heart, the very
last place from whence the vitality seeps away. He told them
that he did, indeed, feel the absence. "I know. Be
silent."
According to this principle, I say an innovation which, in my
eyes, is obvious and simple: When the Jewish people was
`healthy,' it had the capacity to delve into all the parts of
the Torah: halochoh, aggodoh, drush, nigleh, nistor
— in every chamber of the Torah. But even after the
Jewish people has become weakened, Hashem continues to guard
over the `heart,' which is study of the revealed Torah and of
halochoh — so that they may know how to conduct
themselves.
In the course of generations, our Torah leaders felt that
their main, Divine-mandated mission was to preserve the
heart, and they therefore devoted themselves to that part of
the Torah, that is, the revealed portion and halochoh
lema'aseh, the practical application of the Torah code of
laws. The body of Klal Yisroel required this focus of
study since this is the best form of preserving and
protecting the heart. This is why the expertise of our Torah
scholars of former generations in the aspects of
aggodoh and Kabboloh is less known.
One of the four chambers of Torah study, of Pardes, is
the third: drush, or homiletics. But this is not at
all what we semantically refer to nowadays as drush,
which we, today, ascribe to the part of aggodoh. This
is a borrowed and misplaced phrase.
In maseches Shabbos 30a, it tells of someone who came
to R' Tanchum with a halachic question. Before answering, R'
Tanchum began saying divrei aggodoh. Rashi explains
there that this was the custom, to begin with aggodoh.
In Midrash R' Tanchuma, the order is reversed. There
it says that R' Tanchum began discoursing in halochoh
which was followed by aggodoh.
In Sanhedrin 38b, we find that R' Meir divided up his
addresses into three parts: halochoh, aggadata and
parables, for this is how one gains the attention of the
audience: the easier, more palatable aggodoh serve to
draw their interest so that they will want to hear the more
difficult subject of halochoh.
There are several ways of learning aggodoh. The author
of Mishneh Lemelech also wrote Proshas
Derochim, which is a work of drush, except that he
dealt with the aggodoh in the style of
halochoh. We find this also in the homiletics of the
Maharit and the homiletics of the Ranach. They built their
presentation in the same way one approaches a construction of
revealed Torah. (See in Mishneh Lemelech Chapter III a
responsa in which he quotes from the droshos of the
Maharit on matters of halochoh! R' Akiva Eiger also
refers the scholar in several places to look something up in
works of droshos.)
We are dealing with halachic subjects but those works were
written on the weekly portions and the sermons were given in
public. How do we know? First of all, because they are called
droshos and second, because in the summer portions,
the discourses were accompanied by mishnayos from
Pirkei Ovos; it was the practice then to include those
in the long summer Shabbosim.
As we have explained, the earlier generations approached
aggodoh in the same way they studied
halochoh.
I once saw stated by an ancient sage whose name I cannot
recall that Pharaoh himself spoke utter nonsense, but the
Torah had to quote what concurred with the halochoh
since everything the Torah says is true. What he said as a
wicked sinner or as a fool is not mentioned. But if the Torah
does quote him as saying something, know that there is such
an opinion in halochoh.
It makes no difference whatsoever what Pharaoh (and others
like him) thought when they said what they said. The Torah
presented their words in that manner and henceforth, it
became part of Torah. When a Jew studies what Pharaoh said,
he is accruing the selfsame mitzvah of Torah study as if he
learned the verse, "Shema Yisroel." There is no
difference.
We find in Sotah 36b that Yosef told Pharaoh that his
father, "forswore me saying . . . " Pharaoh then told him to
go and ask a chochom to uproot that oath. The Rosh
writes in Nedorim (perek 9, os 2), "And were it not
for that law, it would not have been determined thus in
Shas." The Torah is talking there about
aggodoh, while the Rosh determines that if it were not
the halochoh, the gemora would not have
mentioned it.
From here, we learn how to relate to aggodoh. One can
even rule halachically accordingly and as such, one should
study it with the same seriousness and thoroughness as he
does halochoh, and if one does not do so, how can he
ask questions or resolve problems?
In subsequent generations, the study of aggodoh took
on new nuances via the schools of Mussar and Chassidus, with
the purpose of bringing a person closer to avodas
Hashem. In all aspects of G-dly service, one must apply
the following rule: Do not relate to the saying but to the
sayer!
Maran HaRav Shach zt'l used to say that if he were to
read the plain Chumash text in a droshoh,
people would laugh at him for he is not innovating anything.
But the truth is that whenever Maran — with all of his
greatness and many years of toil in Torah — used to
recite verses from Bereishis, one could verily feel
that here was a Jew who truly believed in the Creator. If so,
one need not have listened to the quote but suffice in
relating to the sayer. The Chofetz Chaim also used to utter
very simple thoughts, but the one who said them was, after
all, the Chofetz Chaim.
End of Part I
