A talk with HaRav Michel Zilber, rosh yeshivas Zevihl and
Yeshivas Tiferes Yisroel in Jerusalem, about the approach to
learning Aggadeta, subsequent to the publication of his work,
Bayom Derech last year, dealing with topics in aggodoh
which were delivered in public addresses by the author every
Shabbos.
Last week he noted that there are several approaches to
the study of aggodoh, one of which is that of the
earlier generations who approached aggodoh in the same
way they studied halochoh.
Part II
The School of Mussar
An additional approach to the study of aggodoh is that
of the baalei mussar throughout the generations. They
annotated the teachings of Chazal with their own
mussar- oriented comments whose purpose was to extract
the essential message from their words. R' Yisroel Salanter
zy'a was a master in halochoh. In fact, the
Chofetz Chaim traveled to him to verify the halochoh
in the laws of loshon hora. The former, however, is
famous as a giant in mussar because he invested all of
his powers in this, convinced that it was necessary for the
salvation of the Jewish people. Truly, aggodoh
incorporates a stratum of mussar thinking.
The School of Pshat
There is an additional way to study aggodoh, and that
is through pshat, the simple textual meaning. This is
essentially the work of rabbenu the Maharsho, an
approach which is wholly according to pshat. "The holy
Maharsho" expounds the simple meaning in novella of
aggodos in the same way he learns pshat in
novella of halochoh. And it is this approach, this
manner of studying aggodoh, that we must establish,
inculcate and promote.
But even in the Maharsho's chidushei aggodoh, there
are many commentaries which are profound and esoteric, which
seemed to have been written with Divine intuition.
And they truly were! In the Divrei Chaim responsa
there is a halachic response regarding a certain
shochet who claimed that the Ohr HaChaim Hakodosh's
commentary was not written with ruach hakodesh. The
Divrei Chaim ordered this shochet dismissed
from his duties. He writes there that one must be very
cautious regarding what one says about the Rishonim,
for we have it by tradition that everything written by all
the sages up till the Maharsho, inclusive, was written with
divine inspiration!
We will expand somewhat upon this point which gives us a
proper perspective on the words of our masters. I heard an
amazing vort from HaRav Chaim Kreiswirth zt'l:
A certain halochoh is quoted in Avodoh Zora 40a
whose source is from "tilsa krai." Rashi explains that
this refers to three great sages upon whom one can rely as if
they were a written source [in the Torah]. What does this
really mean?
R' Chaim explained: When a person asks a rov a halachic
question, the latter tells him what is stated in the
Mishnah Berurah. One can refer directly to the
Mishnah Berurah to see where this law originates. The
Mishnah Berurah will refer the person to the Mogen
Avrohom who, in turn, will send him to the Beis
Yosef, and from there, to the Rashbo, eventually reaching
all the way back to the source in the gemora, mishnah
and finally, to the very verse in the Torah. This is the last
stop: one does not question the text, asking why the
halochoh is so. This is what the gemora means
when it says that one asks three sages whose authority is
beyond question; one simply relies on them absolutely.
When we hear something said in the name of the Gra, we need
not and do not ask upon what it is based. If one is fortunate
enough, he will understand how the Gaon derived that
statement. If not, he simply accepts it as is, without
asking. This implicit acceptance must apply to all the great
sages of every generation. I am accustomed to saying that for
me, the Chofetz Chaim is Chazal!
There is one dictum of Chazal which the Chofetz Chaim quotes
in his Ma'amar Hatevunah. No one knows the source of
the dictum, and I ask: what difference does it make? Just as
I don't question Chazal as to where their source is or how
they know a given thing, so would I ask the Chofetz Chaim
where he derived that knowledge? One simply does not ask
these things of those who are links in the chain of the
Mesorah.
This is the answer to the statement that in the Maharsho,
there are some things that appear as if they were said with
Ruach Hakodesh. They were! It was verily stated with
Divine inspiration, and his words are truly the correct
pshat in the gemora.
The Gematriyos
The Ibn Ezra attacks the exercise of gematriyos, that
is, the numerical symbolism of words and acronyms. He says
that these are mere arithmetic acrobatics and that one can
devise one for anything — and its opposite, as well.
The true test of a gematria is the person standing
behind it. When Chazal or the Maharsho, the Arizal, the Gra
or the Baal Shem Tov stated a gematria, it was true
and valid. But if I were to innovate one, it would have no
significance whatsoever.
Maran the Steipler ztvk'l innovated gematriyos
in his work, Bircas Peretz, which he produced on
Friday nights when the house was plunged in darkness. It
should be noted that he did not innovate principles on the
basis of his gematriyos, but rather built
gematriyos for principles that already existed. There
is a rule that if the foundation is true, then whatever one
adds on to it is just a good crumb of Torah.
R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt'l said a gematria
on the verse in Yeshaya (1:27), "Zion shall be
redeemed through justice, and its returners through charity."
He worked it out that the first three words, "Zion
bemishpot tipodeh" numerically equals Talmud
Yerushalmi, and the following two words, "Veshovehoh
bitzdokoh" equals Talmud Bavli.
When the Maharil Diskin heard this, he said, "Such a
gematria could only have been said through Divine
inspiration." What does this mean? R' Yosef Chaim presented a
basic principle that can be used as a basis for action! The
Divine inspiration here is not that the numbers happen to
work out arithmetically but that the underlying principle of
the saying is true!
How are we supposed to relate to innovations that were
said derech melitzah, as figures of speech?
Again, it all depends on who is backing the saying. The
Chasam Sofer also writes things bederech haloztoh,
since this manner of speaking is also included in the Torah,
but when he does it, it is altogether legitimate since it
stems from the Chasam Sofer's greatness in Torah.
In Shnos Eliyohu, the Gaon says that every single word
in the Torah is a mitzvah unto itself. I once heard that
Maran HaRav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt'l asked if this
statement of the Gra also applied to things like the responsa
in Dvar Avrohom, for example. He answered himself: If
we know that the Dvar Avrohom wrote the work and we know that
he weighed each word before putting it down in writing, then
each word is verily Torah. The Chasam Sofer measured every
single word so that when he wrote something in `a lighter, or
more poetic vein,' that too was pure Torah!
Chazal sometimes exaggerate (guzmo). Is there any
rule indicating when their words are meant literally and when
only figuratively?
There is no hard and fast rule governing that. We can only
know on the basis of what our Sages said. We cannot come and
say, "This seems to me an exaggeration or figure of speech,"
for we see that even where the gemora states
explicitly that something was said as an exaggeration, along
comes the Gaon claiming that it is not a hyperbole as we
would at first understand it.
For example: Chazal say that the poroches was dipped
by three hundred kohanim and they say specifically
that this is a guzmo. Still, the Gra explains that out
of reverence and love for this holy thing, all of the
kohanim wished to partake of the mitzvah. If we figure
the perimeter of the poroches all around, we find 600
tefochim, or handsbreath, which is exactly enough for
300 kohanim to grasp! So it can, indeed, be taken
literally, in a sense!
Why, then, does the gemora call it an exaggeration?
Because there were not always 300 kohanim present;
sometimes there were less. But we see that even the number
300 was not an arbitrary or imaginative figure; even
exaggeration in the Torah has its order and logic, for
nothing in the Torah is without definite meaning and intent.
It is all part of the truth of our holy Torah, and this
principle has become somewhat eroded . . .
Regarding the Study of Aggodoh in our Times
It is not correct to say that regarding aggodoh,
whoever wishes to interpret it, let him come and do so as he
wills, because one cannot accurately construe the words of
Chazal without toiling over them.
When a person studies a topic in gemora and a question
arises in his mind, and he is told that the Ramban has
already posed that question, he immediately goes to look it
up there in order to see what the Ramban answered. He will
not dare presume to suggest his own answer before seeing what
the Ramban has said.
But when that same person studies Chumash and a
question arises in his mind which the Ramban deals with, he
might allow himself the liberty not to look it up in the
Ramban and to devise his own answer . . . This approach to
aggodoh is gravely at fault. There seems to exist a
misguided liberty in this branch of Torah to produce one's
own answers, even if it contradicts twenty other sayings of
Chazal.
In order not to contradict the teachings of Chazal, one
must first know all of them . . .
True. This requires extensive study of the midroshim.
Whoever is not capable of answering to these two tasks of
covering the gemora as well as studying the
aggodos is better off simply studying the
gemora with Rashi-Tosfos. In the introduction
to Bayom Derech, I explain the exalted value of
studying Torah intensively, concentrating on gemora,
Rashi, Tosafos, Rishonim, through great toil, exertion
and concentration until one merits a true grasp that allows
him to understand and to asukei shemaiteso alibo
dehilchoso which is, after all, the true goal, the
objective of Hashem's will in creating this world!
When I am asked about the study of aggodoh, I say that
it does not come easily. There is no simple formula to
understanding it. There are no shortcuts. Point blank. In
order to know how to approach and study it, one must study
it, invest much toil and exertion. But if a person truly
dedicates himself to Torah study in general, he will see that
he has time for aggodoh as well. He must simply
apportion his time systematically. And if he finds that he
has no time because he is thoroughly immersed in
gemora and Tosafos, let him pursue that and be
content!
If a person does not want to be a ba'al aggodoh, that
is fine. But on Shabbos many people do want to study
aggodoh, so they must do so in a regular, organized
way. Whoever has no particular interest in it does not have
to learn it. But to twist his mind within the study of
aggodoh and to contrive explanations — that is
forbidden. One does not approach it by sitting at the table
and getting fantastic inspirations without effort —
that is not aggodoh!
If a person is not fluent in the teachings of Chazal, is
he forbidden to discourse in aggodoh?
I have been asked this very question by one of the leading
sages of mussar in our generation, but in a different
way: Chazal in Horayos 13b and elsewhere expound on
the verse, "Who shall speak of the mightiness of Hashem,
shall voice all of His praises . . . " as follows: One who
does not know the entire Torah ("all of His praises") is not
fit to teach and to expound on His mightiness in public. The
question becomes all the stronger in light of the words of
the Chazon Ish in Emunah uVitochon (in the omission in
Chapter Three of paragraphs which were not printed in the
original work but were transcribed from his original
manuscript), as follows:
"Aggodoh is part of the Torah which was transmitted to
us down through the generations, from Moshe to Yehoshua, from
Yehoshua to the Elders and so on, as is stated in Pirkei
Ovos. In order to be a baal aggodoh, it is
mandatory to be fluent in the text of Tanach, in all
of the aggodos which appear in the gemora, and
very thoroughly so. One must be systematically expert in the
Midrash, and only after that can one begin to expound
upon their meaning and resolutions, in the very same manner
that it is unthinkable for one to rule halachically without
having acquired full expertise in that subject."
The Zohar in Parshas Bolok 207b states: "Truly,
the secrets of the Torah are exalted, and unfathomable to
mortals, therefore, one cannot take foundational principles
until he has heard something and knows it thoroughly."
The Ohr HaChaim says that many wished to infer from here that
a person cannot innovate in Torah on his own; he may only
repeat what he heard from his master. But I learn the very
opposite from that text: One must not introduce principles,
akadama; it does not say lechadsha, to
innovate. After a person has been taught the main principles
by way of introduction, as a firm basis, then he may —
and it is even a mitzvah — to innovate in Torah."
He was referring to the mystic secrets of the Torah, the
Chochmas Ho'emes, but we can also apply this to the
study of aggodoh, that one should not establish basic
principles unless he is someone who can "pronounce all of His
praises," that is, he knows all of them.
How important is the obligation of the baal aggodoh
not to innovate a principle on his own if he is not
thoroughly fluent in Tanach and all the aggodos
in the gemora and in the midrash. But it is
permissible to explain them according to true basic
principles that were already laid down by previous Torah
sages and it is to this that we can apply the teaching of the
Talmud Yerushalmi, Brochos, which says: "All chatter
is bad; but chatter in Torah is good."
The rule which emerges is: if the groundwork is solid and one
wishes only to add to it, fine. Otherwise one must remain
silent.
A Good Piece of Advice
Dozens of avreichim have adapted a good practice which
serves them well: it is not necessary to complete the entire
midrash on the parsha each Shabbos. One can
study it partially, and cover part of it, week by week,
throughout the year, and in the following year, concentrate
upon the parts he has not yet studied. In this way, one can
finish studying the entire midrash in the span of two
or three years. Whoever completes it, has been greatly
enriched.
This rule applies to the study of Ramban, Rashbam, Sforno and
the Ohr HaChaim, as well. One can cover until sheini,
for example, in one year, and carry on with shlishi,
revii in the following year, and so on.
Does one remember what one has learned from year to
year?
It makes no difference. The material a person covers
accumulates in him.
His son, R' Avrohom Shlomo, adds (with permission): "One
should cover a great deal of material so that the twenty
percent of it that he retains — will be a big
(absolute) amount . . . "
