 These and These Are The Words of the Living God: Shortly after the death of Joshua an incident occurred which led to a disastrous civil war in which the tribe of Binyomin was almost annihilated. It started
with a man and his concubine. She was negligent in her treatment of him, he got extremely angry at her and she ran away to her father’s home.
The Gemara (Talmud) asks what it was that got the “husband” so upset. There is a difference of opinion in the Gemara between Rav Evyosor and Rav Yonoson. One holds that he found a fly in his food. The other held that she was not careful regarding something of danger to him. Rav Evyosor once met Eliyahu Hanavi (Elijah the Prophet). Rav Evyosor asked him, “What is Hashem ‘doing’ at this moment?” “He is ‘studying’ regarding the incident of Pilegesh (concubine) of Givah.” “What does He say (regarding the above differences of opinion)?” “He says, ‘Evyosor My son says thusly and Yonoson My son says thusly.’” “G-d forbid, there can be no doubt in Heaven (how can Hashem, so to speak, quote both opinions)?” “Eilu V’Eilu divrei Elokim Chaim (Both these and those are the words of the Living G-d – they are both true). The husband first found the fly, got upset but let it pass. When he found the dangerous element, the combination convinced him that she was callous regarding him and he got extremely angry at her.”
Aggadah and Halachah
This Gemara is speaking regarding an Aggadah. In Eruvin 13b the Gemara states the same rule regarding Halachah. In the above case in Gittin it was indeed possible for both opinions to be true. However, do we say the rule of Eilu V’Eilu in cases where it would not seem possible for both to be true. For example “A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know of Yosef (and all he did for Egypt’s benefit).” “Rav and Shmuel debate. One says a new king literally and one says it was the same king as in the days of Yosef but he made ‘new’ edicts against the Jews.” It would seem that only one opinion would be correct, but impossible for both to be correct.
Again, “The king of Egypt died.” Some say he actually died. However the Medrash Rabah states that he didn’t actually die but became a leper which is considered like death. Did he then actually die or not?
Again, the Mechilta states, “The waters (after the splitting of the sea) returned and covered … even Pharaoh these are the words of Rabi Yehudah … (so he died). Rabi Nechemiah says except for Pharaoh … (so he lived) …”
And in the Tanchuma “Hashem said (to Pharaoh) ‘Wicked one, you prided yourself regarding the water, therefore you will die in the water …’” (so he died). However, in the Yalkut, “Hashem saved Pharaoh from amongst the dead … and he went and became king of Ninveh (in the times of Yonah) …” (so he lived). In all of the above disputes, and in fact in most disputes, the truth, it would seem, can be only one way or the other. How then can we say regarding them, “These and those are the words of the Living G-d”?
The Oak Table
The Michtav M’Eliyahu brings the Tikunei Zohar (see there also for the words of the Gra) “that pertaining to divrei (matters) Agadah or Kabalah there is no possibility of dispute because both (all) views are different true aspects, each one in its own particular aspect. Dispute is only possible in Halachah and even there only regarding which action to follow but even in Halachah also, in the actual intrinsic understanding, there is no dispute.
An Analogy
Scene 1
An analogy – one is sitting at a large, massive oak table. Someone asks him if the table is solid. “You betchum – it’s solid like a rock.” “Does it have movement?” “If you get five strong men, they can probably move it a few feet at a time.”
Scene 2
An atomic physicist is asked the same questions? “Solid? No way. It’s mostly space. Movement? In constant movement. The electrons are constantly moving around the neutrons, etc.
Two diametrically opposing opinions about the same table, both true. What is the “halachah”? It depends. If your sha’aloh (question) is whether it is a good idea for you to smash your fist into it, it would be advisable not to do so. If, however, your question is whether to bombard it with atoms from another element as an experiment, the “psak” would be that it is permissible.
The following are some understandings.
Different Worlds
See Ohr Gedalyahu in the name of the Sfas Emes. As is known, there are four ways to learn the Torah – Pshat, Remez, Drush, Sod – whose acronym is Pardes (orchard). Pshat is the basic meaning. Remez is a hint to something deeper. Drush has rules how to extrapolate different meanings from the verses. Sod deals with the esoteric – Kabalah. There are also four different worlds existing at the same time. They are known by the acronym Abi’a. The highest world is Atzilus. The second, lower world is Bri’ah – creation. The third world is Yetzirah – formation. The fourth world, the one in which we consciously find ourselves, is Asi’ah – the world of doing, of action, fulfilling our mission. The Sfas Emes states that each of the four ways of learning Torah corresponds in the main to the various four worlds, e.g. Pshat corresponds to our world of Asi’ah.
Seventy Understandings of the Torah
Similarly, see the Pachad Yitzchok, “Since Hashem looked into the Torah and created the world, therefore, all the seventy ways of understanding the Torah have a corresponding seventy worlds parallel to them. Hence, every understanding of the Torah reveals a corresponding world that is attuned to that understanding of the Torah. Therefore, what one learns in Torah through Pshat (plain meaning) confers a happening of Pshat in the world of Pshat … and what one learns b’Remez signifies a happening of Remez in the world of Remez and so it is in all the seventy facets of Torah … just like every world is a singular entity, in the same way the revealing of that world’s knowledge is unique to it alone … the way of knowledge through Pshat and the way of knowledge through Remez (Drush, Sod, etc.) all come from separate worlds … this is the foundation regarding all the ways in which Torah is learned.”
Variables
The Ohr Gedalyahu gives us an important rule in regard to drush – it can be a variable. “Eisav’s task in his life was to correct Adam’s sin by which good and evil were comingled and confused. He was, therefore, imbued, even as a fetus, with all kinds of evil inclinations. At the same time, he was given tremendous powers to overcome them. When he chose to join the evil forces rather than beat them, his task was taken over by Yaakov” (perhaps at the time of the selling of the first birthright). The Ohr Gedalyahu asks, how can you say that Eisav could have been a tzadik when the Gemara darshens (drosho) the verse “…B’Yitzchok, through Isaac (literally, in Isaac) will offspring be considered yours.” “In Isaac, but not all of Isaac.” Eisav will not be considered your offspring. This was said many years before Eisav was born. How can you then say that Eisav could have also been considered a son of Yitzchok? He answers that a drosho is not a closed case – it can be darshened otherwise also. He gives a possibility of how the pasuk could be darshened otherwise. This does not mean, chas v’shalom, that a drosho is a free for all. There are definite parameters how to darshen. However, within the parameters, there is room for different and opposing drashos. At the end, we know which drosho was correct based on the actions of the person involved.
The Maharal
Likewise the Maharal in Gur Aryeh asks that the Gemara learns out from Exodus 6:1 (see Rashi there), “Now you will see.” The Gemara infers from the word “now” that Moshe would see what happens to Pharaoh but not what would happen to the thirty-one kings is Israel. He would not enter Israel. The Maharal asks that Moshe was not allowed to enter Israel because of the “waters of strife” and not because of the previous episode. He answers in the same vein – something which is learned from an inference can be changed. However, once it is stated explicitly in the Torah it cannot be changed. Exodus 6:1 is an inference. Numbers 20:12 is explicit.
In Closing
Just as in lomdus there are thirteen principles that can be used to learn Torah, so in Aggadeta there are principles and parameters. As long as one is within these parameters, his drosho or other form of learning is within eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim and is true. Whether it is historically correct – perhaps yes, perhaps otherwise. However, even if otherwise, it has its place. To go back to where we started – is it possible that Pharaoh, who benefitted so much from Yosef, received a brachah from Yaakov and allowed the Jews to stay in his country in time of need, would turn against them in savagery , enslave them and attempt to kill their children? The answer is yes – it is droshable. If it wasn’t the original Pharaoh, there have been others who, when the political winds shifted, have turned from friend to bitter enemy. It is within the parameters of drush and therefore emes – it happened whether then or at another time. In the same way, anything that falls within the parameters of drush or the other parameters of Torah can or will happen, whether in the specific context that it was darshened or in a different context, or they are true in different worlds, as before. It is emes. The oak table is both rock hard and yet mostly space depending on different issues. Eilu V’Eilu Divrei Elokim Chaim.
Now you can have a share of this Torah learning!
Become a partner of “THE TORAH CONNECTION”
through sponsoring an issue, and you will have a share
in this limud hatorah reaching hundreds of people weekly.
In honor of a spouse’s birthday, to merit a refuah shlaima,
or for a loved ones yahrtzeit there is no greater gift
than the gift of Torah - the gift of eternity.
Patron $400
Diamond Sponsor $200
Sponsor $100
Please respond to:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
or 410 358-4675
Thank You
Tax Deductible – Bais E
See Judges chp. 19-21 as to how the whole episode developed. What is puzzling in the episode is why indeed the courts of Binyomin refused to deal with the issue.
See Ramban Genesis 19:8 how this incident differs from the seemingly similar episode in Sodom.
Seeing that the outcome was so disastrous, there must be something to be learned from its beginnings.
Eliyahu Hanavi did not die (see II Kings 2:11) and was met by many people at various times.
The parts of the Talmud which seem story-like but are extremely deep and often cannot be understood the way they seem to read. (See for example Ramchal Ma’amar al Hahagodos and Maharal B’er Hagolah and elsewhere.)
Or in the case of Halachah (above Eruvin) where it would seem only one side can be correct.
Sotah 11a. He acted as if he didn’t know Yosef.
Ramban; Da’as Zekeinim; Chizkuni, all ibid.
Why Pharaoh, of all people, should have merited to live and how he was able to be king of Ninveh in the time of Yonah, which happened hundreds of years later, is beyond the scope of this ma’amar.
In explanation, see the Chidah in Midbar Kadaimus Ma’areches 40 s’if 33, “…Some say in explanation that light is not recognizable except through darkness and in the same way truth can only be gauged through that which is false and so on. Therefore, even the opposing opinions help greatly to discern the truth (even though they are not true). See also Rav Tzadok Tzidkas Hatzadik ose 115. And some say that even the opposing opinions are actually true also in slightly different aspects with slightly different discernments between the various aspects. Therefore, those opinions which are not paskened in this halachah are nevertheless true in a different aspect.” The example which comes to mind is what is brought in sefarim that in the future the halachah will, indeed, be like Bais Shamai.
Book 3 p. 353; Book 2 p. 245
Regarding different drashos (interpretations) of the same pasuk (verse), see Kuntrus B’inyanei Chanukah L’Horav Karlenstein p. 16 in the name of the Maharal that there is a connection between the drashos.
See Michtav M’Eliyahu Book 1 p. 308-9 for some interesting explanations using this understanding. One example – when Yaakov and Eliezer had kefitzas haderech what happened to the other people traveling on the road?
Pesach, Ma’amar 52 ose 3-4. His words explain a Maharal, Gevuros chp. 17.
This concept is found in Chazal – that Hashem, as it were, created the Torah first and used it as a “blueprint” to create the world. Now, Hashem doesn’t need a blueprint, especially since He Himself made the blueprint. I recently saw from Horav Shach zt”l that this and similar expressions (such as “Hashem created many worlds but didn’t ‘like’ how they came out until He created this one” – Hashem doesn’t need to learn by trial and error) mean that this is how He wants us to “create” our world – through planning (blueprint) and trial and error, etc. He, therefore, set these rules as part of the world.
Also a Chazal that there are seventy ways of understanding the Torah.
How the seventy worlds correspond to the four worlds of the Sfas Emes, I’m not sure. Perhaps they are “sub categories.”
With this can be understood a question that many have asked. The Gemara in the last chapter of Sanhedrin (Perek Hachelek) learns out the concept of life after death from many verses. All of them are through Remez or Drush. The question is asked why is there no specific pasuk – derech Pshat – which states it. The answer is that the future world cannot be understood derech Pshat because it is a higher world. Ayin lo ro’asah Elokim zulasecha (No eye has ever seen it – not even the prophets – except Hashem.) Therefore, it cannot be given over derech Pshat.
With this concept we can understand a perplexing Gemara (Talmud) in Taanis 5b. “Rav Yitzchok said to Rav Nachman, so said Rabi Yochonon, ‘Our father Yaakov did not die.’ Asked Rav Nachman, ‘Is it then for nothing that the eulogizers eulogized and the embalmers embalmed and the buriers buried? (See Genesis 49:33-50:13). How can you say that Yaakov did not die?’ Answered Rav Yitzchok, ‘Mikra ani doresh (I darshen a pasuk) (Jeremiah 30:10). The pasuk compares Yaakov to his children. Just like his children are alive, so he also is alive.’” Rav Nachman doesn’t ask any more and is satisfied with the answer.
The world asks the question – but how is Rav Nachman’s question answered – did they then eulogize, embalm and bury for nothing? The answer is that indeed, in the world of Pshat Yaakov died. But Rav Yitzchok had said, “I darshen a pasuk.” Indeed in the world of drash he was still alive. Two different worlds. Two different existences. (See Rashi there for a different answer.)
See Otzros Ramchal Parshas Vayishlach p. 29; Kinas Hashem Tzvokos B’ginzei Ramchal 111.
See “Rabi Yishmael Omair” introduction to Sifra – said after the korbanos at Shacharis (morning prayers).
With this we can understand a Rambam (Maimonides) somewhat differently than it is usually understood. See Rambam Hilchos Melochim chp. 12 Halachah 2, “All these things (regarding Moshiach and the end of days) no one knows how it will be until it indeed happens. These things are hidden by the prophets. Also the chachomim (the sages) do not have a tradition regarding these except according to the determination of the pesukim. Therefore, they have disputes regarding these matters.” That is to say, these matters were not spelled out but given through inferences, droshos and remazim within their given parameters. Therefore, all of them are within the realm of possibility – the concept of “these and those.” However, what is outside the parameters of drush, etc., cannot be. Chazal are telling us through their droshos, the realm of the possible. Yet as before, these can be variables due to freedom of choice and other factors. Therefore, what will actually be is impossible to know.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Subscribe
