Note:

For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)

Showing posts with label DIVREI TORAH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DIVREI TORAH. Show all posts

1.11.2007

DIVREI TORAH-----ain mikra yotzeh midei peshuto

MODERATOR Posted - 22 April 2005 17:14


There is a need to clarify some common misconceptions regarding how this rule works:

The Gemora in Shabbos 63a discusses the laws of carrying a sword and bows etc outside on Shabbos.

R"E says they are considered clothing, as per Tehillim 45, "Gird your sword".

R"K says that posuk is not a source because it is an allegory for Torah scholars and it is referring to Divrei Torah, not literal weaponry.

R"E responded "A posuk never is removed from its simple meaning" (ain mikra yotzeh midei peshuto), and it is definitely referring to a simple warrior as well.

R"K said, despite all my years of learning I never knew that a posuk is not removed from its poshut explanation until now.

Anaf Yosef on the spot, and Chasam Sofer (Drush for Shabbos Hagadol vol. 2 p.253b) explain that chas v’sholom to think that R"E never knew the simple rule of ain mikrah yotzeh midei peshuto, which even school children know.

Rather, what R"E discovered here is that even when a posuk is clearly allegorical, such as the case here, where it makes no sense at all that the Torah literally is praising a warrior, and the posuk is a moshol, still, even in such a case, the peshuto shel mikrah is correct.

The fact that Chazal say a posuk is allegorical does not mean that the literal meaning is untrue - it just means that the Torah's main message is the moshol, but the nimshal it uses, is correct as well.

Therefore, even though the posuk is talking about divrei Torah and not swords and bows, still, we can derive a halachic conclusion about swords and bows form the literal wording of the posuk (Chasam Sofer adds a suggestion that the posuk is referring in its literal sense to Moshiach who will literally be a warrior, even though the posuk is clearly a moshol for divrei torah).

You find this also in Sukkah (35a) where the Gemora says "Pri Etz Hadar" means an Esrog, since it returns to dwell on its tree ("hadar bilano)" from year to year, and yet the halachah is that an esrog has to be beautiful because of the straightforward meaning of the word "hadar" - both the peshuto shel mikrah and the drush are correct, and the posuk tells us both things - the pshat and the drush. Both are true, and not mutually exclusive.

However, we do find that in exceptional places Chazal completely nullify the peshuto shel mikrah and replace it with a drush explanation, such as Yevamos 24a (regarding the posuk vhaya habechor asher talaid yakum), "says Rava even though in the entire torah ain mikra yotze midei peshuto, here the gezeiras shava completely removed the posuk from its peshat". Only the drasha is correct here - not the pashtus.

This implies everywhere else, the literal meaning is correct as well. (But see Yevamos 11b, regarding "asher hutmah" referring to machzir gerushaso.)

The rule is that we need torah shebal peh to explain what the pesukim mean - whatever Chazal say the main pshat is, it is.

But as a rule the literal meaning of the posuk also must be correct and have some message.

So therefore, even when Chazal tell us that "ayin tachas ayin" does not mean literally an eye for an eye, as the ibn Ezra quotes Rav Sadiah Gaon - how can this posuk be literal?

What happens if the perpetrator has no eyes?

What do we do with him then? - still, he says "the rule is, we cannot explain the mitzvos in the torah fully unless we rely on Chazal’s explanations, for just as we have accepted torah she'biksav, we have also accepted torah she'bal peh. There is no difference between them.

He then explains that ayin tachas ayin has a message in its literal form as well, that is, the person who knocked the other's eye out deserves to have his eye put out, if not for the Torah's mandate of payment.

The ibn Ezra says the same thing regarding other non-literal punishments as well, see ibn Ezra Devarim 25:12.

Even though Chazal say a posuk is allegorical, as a rule, the literal meaning of the posuk stands as well in some manner. Ain mikrah yotzeh midei peshuto.

To see this rule used extensively, get a hold of the commentary of the Mahari Karah (not "Karo"; Karah - with a kamatz), which is largely based on this principle.

DIVREI TORAH-----lomdus of migo

Lamdan Wannabe Posted - 10 June 2002 3:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mod, what does "miggo zechus hataanah mean"? My Rebbi tells me that the believability goes from one taanah to the next just because it's there. I have no idea what this means, and I can't seem to get the explanation into my head.

Can you help?


MODERATOR Posted - 10 June 2002 3:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two versions of Zechus Hataanah: Reb Shimon's and Reb Elchonon's.

Reb Shimon (Bava Metziah #5) says that whoever has a Miggo becomes muchzak on the item in question. This is simply because muchzak means whoever is more in control of the item in question. Since someone has a miggos, it means that if he merely says the right words - makes the right claim - the item becomes his. He kinda has it "in the palm of his hand", as it were. Therefore, he becomes muchzak.

But this cannot be what Reb Elchonon (Kovetz Shiurim II:3,4) means. Not only is this clear from his words, but Reb Elchonon says that even witnesses can have a Zechus HaTaanah. And if ZH"T means you become Muchzak, that cannot apply to witnesses, but only to a litigant.

It sounds from the way you describe your Rebbi's explanation that he was indeed talking about Reb Elchonon's ZH"T. Your Rebbi' words are basically those of Reb Elchonon.

Don’t worry that you can’t get it into your head - at the surface, it indeed makes no sense. You are right - why should believability fly from one claim to the next? In a nutshell, the problem with ZH"T is this:

If it does not clarify anything for us in terms of what really happened here (i.e. it is not "mevarer" anything), then why in the world are we giving someone the money in question based on Miggo - we have no reason to believe that the money is his!!

There are only 2 reasons that Bais Din would give money to someone in a Din Torah: 1) We assume that the money belongs to him, and 2) The Torah says so. There is no other way in the world to win a Din Torah. Giving money to someone that we have no idea is his, without any Posuk in the Torah to tell us to do so, is simple Gezeilah.

So how can a person win with Miggo?

The problem is, Miggo, to Reb Elchonon, is NOT a Mevarer, nor is there any Posuk to learn out Miggo. So what's left? Some "zechus"? What’s the heter to give away someone’s money to someone else because of some "zechus"???

Reb Elchonon himself (KS Bava Basra 153) says that Ain Odom Pereyah Btoch Zemano must be either a mevarer or a posuk - there is no third alternative.

Yet Miggo is neither.

I heard in the name of Rav Elya Yirkanski shlita, Rosh Yeshiva in Mir, Brooklyn, who was a student of Reb Elchonon in Baranovitch, that the students there indeed asked this to Reb Elchonon - that the whole idea makes no apparent sense. Reb Elchonon supposedly answered that if Miggo is a Zechus Hataanah, it must be a Halachah L'Moshe Misinai!

If that’s the case, then we have no problem, because Migoo is a Gezeiras Hakasuv, and doesn’t have to make sense.

Reb Elchonon was not the first one to say this. The Bais Yaakov in Kesuvos does indeed say that Miggo may be a Halachah L'Moshe Misinai.

I once asked Rav Elya Yirkonsly to confirm this. Unfortunately, he told me that his memory is not what it used to be, and he cannot confirm nor deny the story. It could be, he said, or could be not.

I will assume, then, that the person who told me he heard this from him years ago was correct.

But in any case, the Bais Yaakov does say Miggo can be Halachah L'Moshe Misinai, and that’s what works here.

Once we have Halachah L'Moshe Misinai, then believability can indeed fly around from claim to claim without any sevara. Just like Chazakah is not a svara but it works since we have a Posuk for it, same thing applies to Miggo.


Abcyr Posted - 24 September 2002 20:16


Why does it have to be a halocha le'moshe misinai; why not derabonon?

Can't beis din mafkir people's property?

If Rabonon made an omeid hadas (based upon their analysis of average psychology) that such types of claims are mostly true, they can make a d'rabonon to take away money from one and give to another.

This can be similar to the phenomenon of gilgul shvuah.

Or am I wrong?


MODERATOR Posted - 24 September 2002 20:24


Can’t be. Miggo works even when there is no psychological Umdenah, such as when the litigants do not even know they could have entered a better claim (like Nichsei Yesomim). The whole idea of Zechus Hataaneh was created in order to explain how Miggo can work even when there is no logic to it. The Rabbonim have no reason to create such a mechanism. It makes no sense.

The only possibility is a Gezeiras Hakasuv, and in the absence of any posuk to derive Miggo, it can only be Halachah L’Moshe misinai.


Rachack Posted - 01 October 2003 8:47


I wonder if my Rebbe takes his shuiruim from this website... :)


Adir Posted - 08 October 2003 10:17


Miggo zh"t or muchzakos is very famous raid: those same Reb Shmuels and Reb Elchonons, respectively are brought down whenever in Shas there is a miggo sugya, so chances are your Rebbe didn't get in from this website. ;)


MODERATOR Posted - 08 October 2003 10:22


Except that nowhere do any of those seforim explain that Reb Elchonon held that Miggo was Halachah L'Moshe MiSinai. That's straight mipi hashemuah, from a Talmid of Reb Elchonon. It's really ikar choser min hasefer, but without it, Zechus Hattanah - Reb Elchonon's version at lest - has no pshat.

Incidentally, when Reb Elchonon was mechadesh this yesod, it was considered an extremely great chidush in the Yeshivos. And it was pretty much the exclusive trademark of Baranovich.

I heard once from Reb Schneur Kotler ZTL, who learned in Kaminetz by Reb Boruch Ber ZTL, that when the student from Baranovitch came to Kaminetz (Baranovitz had younger students, kind of like a High School; Kaminetz was for older students), "all they used to speak about all day was zechus hata'anah."

12.06.2006

DIVREI TORAH-----a chanukah message

MODERATOR Posted - 13 December 2004 9:49


This one is dedicated to all the frumteeners out there who know how to ask questions, and also to Rabbi Daniel Mechanic and Project Chazon, which is dedicated to answering teenagers’ questions. Reb Danny, if you’re reading this, enjoy!


We say Al hanisim on Chanukah and on Purim. Yet even though the two tefilos covey the same idea, the Bnei Yisaschar points out that there are some differences in the way they are worded:


1) On Chanukah, we refer to Matisyahu as “Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol”, whereas on Purim we refer to Mordechai simply as “Mordechi”. No “ben yair ben shimi etc.” Why do we mention Matisyahu father and not Mordechai’s?

2) On Chanukah, we mention that the Yavanim waged war “al amcha yisroel”. On Purim, we do not mention “al amcha yisroel.” Instead we simply say that Haman wanted to destroy “es kol hayehudim.”

3) We’ll add to the Bnei Yissachar’s observations a very strange thing that the Meforshim point out about Chanukah: It is nowhere to be found in all of the Mishna. There is one mention of a Menorah that accidentally causes fire damage, but as a Yom Tov, Chanukah is utterly omitted from the entire body of the Mishna. That needs an explanation.


The history books – Josephus and Megilas Chashmonayim – tell us that the beginning of the shmad against the Jews was not perpetrated by the Syrian-Greeks. It began by Jews – the Tzedukim. They were the ones who started to try to make the Jews “forget the Torah and violate the laws of G-d’s will”. They were in fact the ones who recruited the Syrian-Greeks into the fray. But the war began not between Jew and gentile, but between Jew and Jew – between the Jews and the Tzedukim.


The Tzedukim believed only in Torah shebiksav, not Torah shebal peh. The difference, of course, between Torah shebiksav and Torah shebal peh, is that Torah shebiksav only gives us bottom-line instructions. There are not hava aminas in Torah shbiksav, no mina hani milis, no lama li kra svara hu, no reconciliation of contradictions, no machlokesim – no shakleh vetaryeh – no questions; just instructions.


I am now going to borrow a “vort” from Rav Leib Chasman ZTL in his Ohr Yahel. He says that when Yaakov was fighting with the malach, the sar shel esav, and asked the evil malach its name, the malach answered, “Why are you asking my name?” lomoh ze tishal leshmi? Why was the malach so reluctant to tell his name?


Rav Leib Chasman answers that the Malach did in fact tell his name. His name was “lamah ze tishal leshmi!” His name was “Why are you asking such questions?” (see the Ohr Yahel who uses this for his approach. We are going to borrow it for ours.)

We should also ask why on the other hand did Yaakov care so much to know the Malach’s name? The answer is because Yaakov wanted to know what “Yisroel” means. He knew that he was granted that new, glorious name Yisroel” because he defeated this malach. So he wanted to know what the essence – the name, since the essence of a malach is its name – of the malach was that you have to defeat in order to be called Yisroel. What power is it that you have to defeat in order to be called Yisroel? What hurdle does one have to overcome in order to merit the great name Yisroel?


Who are you, Malach, that by beating you, one is called Yisroel?

And the malach answered, “The obstacle that you have to defeat in order to be called Yisroel is lamah ze tishal – the Satan that says “why are you asking questions” is what has to be defeated in order to be called Yisroel.


Jews ask questions. We proactively seek the truth. We love questions, because aim habayshan lomed – without question you cannot learn anything. We are not scared of questions the way other religions are. We do not blindly accept what we are told, by society, by the newspapers, by anyone! In schools of other religions, when a student stumps his Galach with a question, he is reprimanded for asking. In Yeshiva, when a student stumps his Rebbi with a hard kashya, he is a hero! Questions bring out the truth, and when the truth is brought out we rejoice.

The Tzedukim did not believe in a Torah that asks question and raises difficulties. The held that Torah is simply blind instruction without understanding.

The Tzedukim believed that there is no such thing as understanding the whys and wherefores of Torah. The believed that questions should no be asked. They did not believe in the “Zurich iyun”s of Reb Akiva Eiger; of the chidushim of the Ketzos, of the milchamtah shel Torah that constitutes the Bris between Klall Yisroel and Hashem - the Torah She BalPeh.. Their Hashkafah did violence to the very name “Yisroel”, which we merited because we do REFUSE to say “lamah ze tishal”.

There is a machlokes about this, but there are those who say that the Yohanan Kohen Gadol who was the father of Matisyahu was the infamous Yochanan Kohen Gadol who became a Tzaduki. His son, Matisyahu, was the leading fighter against his father’s Hashkafos. Imagine, then, had Matisyahu accepted his father’s teachings on blind faith without asking Kushyos -- we never would have had a Chanukah miracle! But Matisyahu did not blindly accept his father’s teachings.. He asked: If there is no such thing as Torah shebal peh, then how in the world does Pesach fall out in chodesh ha’aviv, the spring month, when every year the lunar calendar loses 11 days against the seasonal solar calendar, and so before you turn around Pesach comes out in the middle of the winter!

He asked, if all we have is Torah shebiksav, please tell me, father, how do we fulfill “vhayu letotafos bain aynechah”? What are “totafos” what does the word mean?

How do we fulfill velakachtem lachem pri etz hadar”? What is a Pri Etz Hadar? A cherry? A kiwi?


Please tell me, father, why does the Torah tell us to celebrate a holiday on the first day of the 7th month, a “day of blowing” is what it tells us to make. WHAT IN THE WORLD IS A DAY OF BLOWING? WHAT DOES THIS HOLDAY CELEBRATE??


No. Matisyahu proactively sought the truth and found it. He did not blindly accept his fathers heretical Hashkofos. He defeated his father’s attitude of Lamah zeh tishal!


The reason we refer to Matisyahu not merely as Matisyahu but Matisyahu ben Yochanan is because the fact that he was the son of Yochanan is part of the Chanukah story; part of the victory of Yisroel over the heresy of Lamah ze tishal. It is part and parcel of the Chanukah victory.

And that is why on Chanukah we refer to the shmad as an attack “al amcha Yisroel .. It was an attack waged specifically against those who were worthy of that great and glorious title, “Yisroel”, those who refuse to say “lamah zeh tishal!”


Chanukah is introduced by Chazal in a very unusual manner. Chazal don’t say “On the night of the 25th we light candles”, the way it does for Pesach, or even, “Chanukah is the Yom Tov that celebrates etc.” Instead, Chazal ask – “Mai Chanukah?” What is Chanukah?. And in response to this rhetorical question the Gemora explains the holiday. Chanukah is introduced not like the other holidays are introduced – by way of instruction – but rather with a question. because the very essence of Chanukah is asking the question. Mai Chanukah - “the question of a wise man is half the answer” – Chanukah is indeed the celebration of the downfall of “lamah zeh tishal”.


The reason Chanukah is not in Mishnayos is because Mishnayos, though part of Torah shebal peh, is the instructive part of Torah shebal peh. The structure of Chazal’s teachings in the Oral Torah is to first give us the laws in the Mishap then to analyze them, in the Gemora. Chazal saw fit to leave Chanukah to the part of Torah she balpeh that asks and answers; that analyses; that reconciles contradictions and contains hava aminas and maskonos. Because that is what Chanukah is all about.


When you light the Menorah on Chanukah, you should know that the Ohr that emanates form the Menorah represents the enlightenment that you all gain by asking questions. And by getting answers to those questions. Lo habayshan lomed. If you want to be zocheh to the glorious title of Yisroel, you must ask and seek and find Torah.


Through our asking and answering and studying and learning and seeking may we all be zocheh together to the glorious and magnificent title of Amchah Yisroel!

Frumteeners-- keep those questions coming! You’re doing great!


lay19 Posted - 13 December 2004 20:05


I really liked it!! but I have a question about it...

"The reason Chanukah is not in Mishnayos is because Mishnayos, though part of Torah shebal peh, is the instructive part of Torah shebal peh. The structure of Chazal’s teachings in the Oral Torah is to first give us the laws in the Mishap then to analyze them, in the Gemora. Chazal saw fit to leave Chanukah to the part of Torah she balpeh that asks and answers; that analyses; that reconciles contradictions and contains hava aminas and maskonos. Because that is what Chanukah is all about."

I’m not sure if I understood correctly, but are you saying that it’s left out of the Mishna only b/c that’s the instructive pt, and it fits better in the Gemora...?? but isn’t it left out of the Mishna b/c that’s just s/t R' Yehuda Hanassi left out of it? he didn’t know that a Gemora would later be written- did he? did he davka leave it out of the Mishna b/c that’s the instructive pt and the whole thing about Chanukah is questions...?

im not sure if my question makes sense- if it does, great. if not, I guess u don’t have to answer it b/c I don’t really know how to phrase it!!!

happy rest of Chanukah!!!


MODERATOR Posted - 13 December 2004 20:13


Your question makes a lot of sense. The answer is that even in the days of the Mishna there was always "Gemora". "Gemora" means the asking and answering questions about the Mishna. And that they always did, of course, even before the official "Gemora" was made. In fact, the Mishnaic literature mentions "Gemora" several times (Mesechte Kalah 3; Mesechte Soferim 16; Avos D'Reb Nosson 14 and 17). It's just that it was formalized in an official format later on.