Life Lessons and Appreciating Our Meforshim

    4

    By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    In the great yeshivos of Europe, Eretz Yisroel and America, the advanced Yeshiva student would deliver something called a “chaburah” in which the talmid presents a chidush that would answer a number of problems.  And yet, unfortunately, rare is the Yeshiva graduate today who continues in this mehalech.  As teachers we try to imbue our talmidim and talmidos with as much Torah knowledge as we can.  We do have to ask ourselves, however, how many of our talmidim and talmidos leave with a life long love of meforshim and deriving life lessons from them?  Often, the case is that after memorizing so many meforshim, a young person does not want to look at another one after he or she finishes high school and yeshiva or seminary – unless he or she enters chinuch herself.

    It does not have to be this way.

    When the Netziv had successfully published his sefer he made a Seudas Hodaah.  Allegedly, when he was asked why it was so important to him he responded that when he was a young child his family had tried and tried to get him into Torah study, but he was a bit of a precocious young man.  While there is good reason to doubt the veracity of the story, he had allegedly overheard a conversation between his parents.  He had heard them air their frustrations about his lack of progress and finally conclude that they will apprentice him to the tailor.  He explained that from that point on he tried his best.  Had he not overheard that conversation, he would l’achar meah v’esrim have gone up to shamayim and they would have said to him: 

    “We are sorry, but you belong down there.”

    “But why? I was a tailor!  I said Tehillim regularly!”

    “You could have written the Netziv, and you didn’t.  What a lost opportunity!”

    Torah Discourses & True Torah Definition

    What is the exact definition of a Dvar Torah? We are surely aware of the Chazal that states shivim panim laTorah, there are seventy aspects or sides to Torah interpretation, but can a Dvar Torah ever be wrong? Does it depend upon who is saying the Dvar Torah? Is the definition of a Dvar Torah dependent solely upon the content? Is the content of a self-help book, or a psychology book considered Torah? What happens if we take four paragraphs out of a Dale Carnegie self-help book, attach a posuk to it that states the same idea: Is that Torah?

    Two Categories

    Before we begin let us distinguish between two differing elements of a Torah discourse. The first element is recitation of a Torah source. Assuming a proper translation and understanding, this of course is unequivocally considered true Torah. There may be an exception when contradictory sources are quoted, but generally speaking, this element is always true Torah. The second element of a discourse is the innovation aspect of things, the chidush.

    A Chiddush or innovation is what lies between the following two extremes: a] The insight is utterly and absolutely obvious and b] the insight is thoroughly wrong. The insight thus must neither be patently obvious nor intrinsically incorrect. It must be true, yet not obvious. Something that we shall soon see may be difficult to achieve.

    Two Ways Toward Torah

    We will attempt to delineate how to derive true Torah through two different methods of Torah discourse. Method number one is Drush. Method number two is called Muchrach pshat. Muchrach means that what is being expounded is logically and textually compelling. The new chiddush or insight that is being stated must fit into the sources and be the most logical solution to the problem.

    Conversely, there is a method of Torah discourse known as drush. Drush can be utilized to create beautiful and stunning Divrei Torah..On the other hand Divrei Torah based upon Drush can be insidious and filled with peril if it is incorrect.  Who can say drush? If its expounder is a recognized Torah authority whose exposure has been primarily and perhaps solely to Torah, then that sefer or individual can darshen with drush.

    Below we find a five step methodology to develop Divrei Torah based upon the principle of Muchrach pshat.

    1] Find a chazal (preferably a Sephorno, Ramban, Rashi or Mid rash in that order) that appears to contain an insight (chiddush) in a mussar thought, and read it very very carefully. Find out what it may be telling us. Sometimes it may tell us something directly, and sometimes indirectly. (At times the insight may be derived only from a two step process. The concept or idea that you will derive from the commentator may at times only be derived by answering a question that you may have. With the solution to this question in hand you now proceed to steps one through five.)

     It may be telling us the motivation of an action, the cause of an event, or it may be telling us the extent of a particular action or feeling that was pursued. The insight you wish to derive may even be secondary to the point that the chazal came to tell us. An aid in deciphering or discovering the insight is to repeat the chazal using different words. Do it orally making sure that you truly have absorbed what is being said.

    2] Analyze the Torah personalities that the commentator is discussing. Quite often there are more than one. Examine what we know of the person carefully. Did he or she excel in any area of personal conduct or trait that may have to do with this area? Focus on specific past events in his or her life. Was this person a tremendous tzaddik, or a terrible rasha? Examine the particular context in which the subject is participating. Was there any significant event or matter that the subject experienced immediately prior this? Focus on the aspects of the subject’s personality that may contrast the theme being developed.

    3] Now examine the words of the chazal in light of what we know of the subject and the context being discussed.  Are these words now a chiddush?  Is there an insight to be gained?

    4] Develop the insight, and draw a modern day application that would be useful to us. What can we gain from this insight? How can this chiddush serve to develop our avodas Hashem?

    5] Analyze the insight a few more times. Is it obvious? Is it perhaps wrong? Is there another manner in which to read the words of the chazal that would invalidate the insight? Is the application that was drawn correct? Perhaps it should be limited to only those cases that resemble this case in terms of…Do not be afraid to consult with other people.

    It is understood that we are but products of the ideas, thoughts, and notions that we have been exposed to throughout our lives. As a consequence our ability to compose bona fide unadulterated Divrei Torah is severely impeded by this handicap. Training yourself to read chazal in the above manner will allow you to a] stay away from the pitfalls of injecting incorrect perspectives, b] see new insights in the words of Chazal, and c] will assist in developing a life-long appreciation of Chazal.

    As an example, the following Rashi and Daas Z’kainim are instructive.   The Rashi explains that they did not put the two prisoners together. He explains the underlying difference between the two, but he does not explain why that difference should make for a difference.  Once we have in hand the most logical explanation for the difference in behavior and plug that back into the entire equation – we have a true Torah insight.  Add that to the Daas Z’kainim’s understanding and we have a bigger insight.  Try it.

    :

     

    ויקרא פרק כד

    (י) וַיֵּצֵא֙ בֶּן־אִשָּׁ֣ה יִשְׂרְאֵלִ֔ית וְהוּא֙ בֶּן־אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיִּנָּצוּ֙ בַּֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה בֶּ֚ן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִ֔ית וְאִ֖ישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִֽי:

    (יא) וַ֠יִּקֹּב בֶּן־הָֽאִשָּׁ֨ה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִ֤ית אֶת־הַשֵּׁם֙ וַיְקַלֵּ֔ל וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וְשֵׁ֥ם אִמּ֛וֹ שְׁלֹמִ֥ית בַּת־דִּבְרִ֖י לְמַטֵּה־דָֽן:

    (יב) וַיַּנִּיחֻ֖הוּ בַּמִּשְׁמָ֑ר לִפְרֹ֥שׁ לָהֶ֖ם עַל־פִּ֥י יְקֹוָֽק:

    רש”י ויקרא פרק כד

    (יב) ויניחהו – לבדו, ולא הניחו מקושש עמו, ששניהם היו בפרק אחד. ויודעים היוי שהמקושש במיתה, שנאמר (שמות לא יד) מחלליה מות יומת אבל לא פורש להם באיזו מיתה, לכך נאמר (במדבר טו לד) כי לא פורש מה יעשה לו. אבל במקלל הוא אומר לפרוש להם, שלא היו יודעים אם חייב מיתה אם לאו:

    דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות ויקרא פרק כד פסוק יב

    (יב) לפרוש להם על פי ה’. לפרוש משמע לפרש הכל שלא היו יודעין אם היה חייב סקילה מק”ו דמקלל אביו ואמו דכתיב בהו אביו ואמו קלל דמיו בו או שמא אינו דין שיהא נדון במיתת ב”ד כדי שלא יהא לו כפרה לפי שענשו גדול כדאמרינן גבי מעביר בנו ובתו באש איש כי יתן מזרעו ודרשינן מזרעו ולא כל זרעו מכאן אמרו המעביר כל זרעו פטור והאי פטור לאו פטור ממש קאמר דא”כ מצינו חוטא נשכר אלא ר”ל פוטרין אותו ממית’ ב”ד כדי שלא יתכפר בכך לכך הוצרך לומר לפרוש להם על פי ה’:

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group

    4 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Lang
    Lang
    1 month ago

    If they didn’t know then it’s not a good Hasro’oh