Transcript

The mitzvah of Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim to a large extent is a mitzvah of transmitting Masorah. V'higadta L'vincha. The Rav, Zecher Tzaddik Livracha, used to say that the reason Chazal introduced that the primary text and vehicle for Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim should be the Parsha of Arami Oveid Avi whereas seemingly it would have been a better choice as it were to say that we should learn the Parshiyos in Sefer Shemos which are much more detailed and the truth is the way Chazal Darshen the Pesukim of Arami Oveid Avi is just by correlating them with the Pesukim from Sefer Shemos anyway. So why did Chazal take the Parsha of Arami Oveid Avi? So the Rav used to say that Adaraba Hi Hanoshenet that because in the Parsha of Arami Oveid Avi we need the Torah Shebal Peh, we need the Masorah to elicit from the Pesukim the Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim. That's Bedavka why Chazal wanted it in keeping again with this emphasis on Masorah in the context of מצוות סיפור יציאת מצרים. So apropos of that I wanted to discuss a few Devarim Peshutim and I apologize in advance for taking your time on Devarim Peshutim but sometimes maybe it's a good idea to Chazor Devarim Peshutim. Maybe let's first and again not comprehensively, not exhaustively, but at least to try to make a few points discuss to whom we turn to apply and interpret our Masorah. To whom do we direct questions and who in turn can provide us with the answers that we need to questions? So I think first we need to classify different types of questions. Some Shaylos that we have don't really require Psak in response. Sometimes, right, I think I hope I'm not projecting my ignorance onto others but sometimes we have Shaylos which are really Meforash Dinim in Shulchan Aruch. That's a Se'if that for whatever reason justified or otherwise that we're not familiar with that we don't know and the person to whom such an inquiry can be directed and who can responsibly respond doesn't have to be a Ba'al Hora'ah, doesn't have to be a Moreh Hora'ah, he just has to have that information that we're lacking. In that sense it's not really a Psak. I think maybe a better description of the answer is it's providing, it's sharing information rather than it is some kind of Psak, an act of Hora'ah Mitzad the one who's responding. In Shulchan Aruch you see this category reflected in Reish Mem Beis in Yoreh Deah when the Shulchan Aruch is discussing the

מורה הלכה בפני רבו. לא מקרי הוראה אלא בדבר שיש בו חידוש לשואל אבל בהוראה ידועה שהיא פשוטה לכל כגון נותן טעם לפגם או לבטל איסור בששים וכיוצא באלו מותר.

The person responding is sharing information, it's not really a Chal Sheim Hora'ah. Similarly the Mechaber continues:

יש מי שכתב שכל הכתוב בספרים מפסקי הגאונים יכול להורות בימי רבו רק לא יורה דבר מלבו ולא יסמוך על ראיותיו לדמות מילתא למילתא מעצמו.

That if it's something that requires a person to be Medameh Milsa Lemilsa that's already Nichnas Begeder Hora'ah. When it isn't something which is dealt with Meforash in Shulchan Aruch. mefurash in the poskim and there's a clear consensus. But it's a new question, it's a different question you have explicitly, and you have to be medameh milsa l'milsa, so then the person responding is engaging in horoh. But if the question doesn't require that, no, it's something in hilchos shabbos, it's something in issur v'heter, in hilchos nidah, whatever the area is, which is mefurash. But ella mai, this person is learned and I'm not, so I'm asking him a shailoh. But he's not, he's not acting as a baal horoh in answering. And he doesn't necessarily have to consider himself a baal horoh to answer in those in those cases. Similarly, there can be a machlokes haposkim, but again, if there's a clear minhag hamakom in terms of when there is such a machlokes haposkim, whom one follows, so again the person responding to the shailoh isn't really being machriya and isn't in that sense being moreh horoh and in that sense doesn't need to be able to like Rabbi Akiva Eger look in the mirror and tell himself that he's higia l'horoh, that he's a baal horoh. But let's say for argument's sake that generally the mahalach is if there's a difference between the Mishnah Berurah and the Chazon Ish that the rov minyan u'vinyan follows the Mishnah Berurah. So a person who would be passing along that information, it wouldn't be that he's taking on his own shoulders to be machriya between the Mishnah Berurah and the Chazon Ish, but he'd be sharing what is an accepted practice in in that place. As the Gemara says that there were mekomos where במקומו של רבי אליעזר they used to follow Rabbi Eliezer's psakim and במקומו של רבי יוסי הגלילי they followed they followed his psakim. So there too, to again, to there's not too much interpretation going on, it's more just application and even that is more just sharing of information. So a person just has to be learned enough to have the information that's needed, that's being sought. When, however, the question, as the Shulchan Aruch describes, requires being מדמה מילתא למילתא מעצמו, just one last point in this in terms of being mefurash, so there is a famous Maharsha in Sotah. There's not so many Maharshas in Chiddushei Aggados which are so nogea l'maaseh, but there is a famous Maharsha in the Chiddushei Aggados in Sotah where the Maharsha says to open a Shulchan Aruch and pasken a shailoh is like being like the Gemara says that you can't be moreh mitoch hamishnah, b'yemei ha'amoraim you can't be moreh mitoch hamishnah because just because you know a mishnah doesn't mean you know all the taamim and all the explanation and therefore that you'll be able to correctly apply it. So the Maharsha said the same thing about someone who opens a Shulchan Aruch and then the Pischei Teshuva has his famous addendum to that. He says bameh devarim amurim before you had all the nosei keilim on Shulchan Aruch. He says but now that you have a Shach and a Taz and a Magen Avraham and you have all the gedolei haposkim the nosei keilim on Shulchan Aruch, so he doesn't think the Maharsha would say that anymore and that too is begeder having a mefurash'en din in in front of you and therefore the person sharing that information doesn't have to be a moreh horoh. When, however, the question goes beyond that and the question requires to be מדמה מילתא למילתא מעצמו, to bring rayos, to be moreh davar milibo, so then already like the Gemara says in different places in Avodah Zarah and elsewhere, so then a person has to be higia l'horoh in order to be able to be moreh on such questions. We're not going to discuss what the precise definition of higia l'horoh is, but just the following. There is a famous, famous, the sons of Rabbi Akiva Eger quote from their father in the hakdama to his teshuvos that Rabbi Akiva Eger was mesupak whether or not he was higia l'horoh. Rabbi Akiva Eger wasn't sure whether or not he should. you know, a couple hundred years later, a little less, in the hakdama to Igros Moshe that the definition of higia lehoraa depends on the generation. And the fact that Rebbe Akiva Eiger held that it was a safek whether he was higia lehoraa or lo higia lehoraa doesn't preclude someone in a later generation from recognizing that he has been higia lehoraa. But the point remains, even Rav Moshe feels necessary to address the question. So whatever the exact and precise definition is, but those two marei mekomos certainly indicate where the precise definition lies. Even amongst chachamim who enjoy that very special status of being higia lehoraa, so here if you take a look in the edition of Shulchan Aruch which has the Otzar Meforshim in the bottom, you look in the beginning of reish mem beis in Yoreh Deah, the Maharshal in Chullin. Maharshal in Chullin says the following:

אפילו חכם מופלג הסומך על הוראתו להקל אפילו בהוראה שקיבל להיתר היכא שיש חילוק בין הנידון והוראה.

And so this is A, he's a chacham muflag. Number two, he's relying on a kabbalah that he has from presumably an even greater chacham muflag from the previous generation. But the shaila in front of him is not exactly a carbon copy of the shaila about which he has a kabbalah. There is some midameh milsa lemilsa going on here. So the Maharshal writes that ואית ליה רבה למשאל ולא שאל נזוף בידי שמים. Is 'greater' the translation? lemishal to inquire, velo shaal, nazuf bidei shamayim. So even chachamim shehigiu lehoraa feel an achrayus to consult. And that's true in shailos again which require not just information but require horaa. Lichora within those shailos there's a subcategory when a question arises as to whether something which appears to be changed or maybe in reality is changed is mandated. There are certain practices, institutions, hanhagos that Klal Yisrael has for thousands of years, thousands of years, uninterrupted, always been done a certain way. And then the question arises, well maybe in light of social change, maybe in light of other factors, so maybe, maybe something is supposed to change in the application of halacha. So the question is not automatically to be ruled out of order. Such a question, it's not that the question itself is automatically out of order. There are, albeit very very very very few instances, but there are some famous instances of either change or what appears to be change. And because of that, it's not that the question itself is automatically out of order. I mean, I'm looking in the Shulchan Aruch and I'm reading Torah Shebe'al Peh from the Shulchan Aruch. So that lichora represents change. It represents change. So we can't honestly say that nothing ever changes in virtually every... Segment of Klal Yisrael, the approach to Chinuch Habonos is different than it was once upon a time. Than it was for a long time. That also would seem to be change. Again, there's very very very few examples of that. Very very few examples of that, but there are examples. What's sort of the justification, the underlying justification, any change? How is there any change? זאת התורה לא תהא מוחלפת. So l'choira the categories are one of two, either of two. The Gemara in Gittin in talking about the example of תורה שבעל פה מתוך הכתב quotes עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך. So that would seem to be one category or one type of justification, again, for those rare examples of where we have of change: עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך. And the other is when it appears to be change on a phenomenological level, but on a deeper level, so it's not really change. And that's basically what the Chofetz Chaim in Edus said in terms of Chinuch Habonos, it's that it's not change, but that within the halacha, it always was the case that the application of the halacha was intended in certain types of circumstances and not in other types of circumstances. And in that case, again, it's sort of phenomenologically, sociologically, it appears to be a change, but on a deeper conceptual halachic level, it's not a change. So then the question is, so how do you know what's what? So how does a person know what is that rare case which qualifies for an עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך? And how does a person know what that rare case is where what seems to be change and, again, from the vantage point of a sociologist, there is change? A sociologist of religion will describe it as change, but a Talmid Chacham will tell you that it's not change. So how do you know what's what? So the more important question, that's a question in Talmud Torah, an interesting question, a good question, an important question, but the more important point and perspective is to realize that certainly those shailas, l'choira our masorah is not only do those shailas require someone who's higia l'hora'ah in the highest and fullest sense of the word, but even more than that, whatever the precise definition of higia l'hora'ah is and, again, we didn't fill in the details on that. Lav davka that every person who's higia l'hora'ah is one of the Gedolei Hador. There's certainly room to be higia l'hora'ah without necessarily being one of the Gedolei Hador, one of the outstanding Chachmei HaMasorah of the generation. When one's talking about again what seems to be change, so here it's just so unequivocally the case that one isn't qualified to an opinion. Any Jew leshem Talmud Torah can try to understand and should try to understand. It's part of Talmud Torah to understand why the Rav thought that taking a mechitzah out of a shul is yehareig v'al ya'avor, but adopted the approach that he did to Chinuch Habonos. Avada, that's part of mitzvah Talmud Torah, part of mitzvah Talmud Torah to understand so how did he know to react this way in that situation and to react as he did in the other situation? But it's even more important than that is to realize that the credentials and the qualifications... The qualifications for having an opinion halacha l'maise is one which is reserved again for the Gdolei Hador. As it traditionally again has been in such questions which involve again what certainly on a superficial phenomenological level involve change. And that's a very, very important yesod. A person doesn't have to have the slightest familiarity with the particulars of any issue, but if a person just knows the following, if a person knows that Klal Yisrael for 4,000 years has been doing something a certain way and someone or someones who don't meet the standard of eligibility to have an opinion to say that things now should be done differently, so one doesn't have to know anything about the particulars of the sugya to know that it's wrong. And to know that with conviction. Again, that doesn't preclude wanting to understand why it's wrong, but it should be understood that that inquiry is a level of Talmud Torah. The same way we want to understand, okay, what's pshat in this din in Shulchan Aruch? So we're not asking is it the din? No, the din is the din is as it says in Shulchan Aruch. So it's Talmud Torah. I should understand, so what's pshat in this din? Where does it come from? How did the how did the mechaber come to that conclusion? So that's an important again dvorim pshutim but important to review. One other general perspective on masora that maybe once we're talking about it that we should review. Again, obviously we now learn Torah she'baal peh mitoch haksav. Obviously the mesira of Torah she'baal peh is not purely baal peh anymore. That having been said, it's a mistake to think that there is no more of an oral masora that exists. The fact that we sit with our gemaras, our rambams, and our shulchan aruchs and piled high, it doesn't mean that everything has now been converted into ksav and that a person can access the entire masora just mitoch haksav. It doesn't mean that in well over 99% of cases mistama, doesn't mean that if a person has no contact with rabbeim, with gdolim of earlier generations, that he's going to be able to imbibe the masora completely. It's interesting in this context just to note, I think the Tosfos Yom Tov points out that even when Rabbeinu Hakadosh organized and oversaw the writing and the composition, compilation of shisha sidrei mishna, he bedafke did it in such a way that the mishna as a written text needed oral elaboration. Right? There's so many mishnayos that the Artscroll mishna went on sale over 200 years before the Artscroll gemara went on sale, right? Rabbeinu Hakadosh wrote down mishnayos but Ravina and Rav Ashi, their gemara wasn't written down for a couple of hundred years later. So how in the world were you supposed to figure out what all the mishnayos meant? All the חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני and what all the mishnayos meant? You could really sit down in a room with a shisha sidrei mishna and figure it out? So the Tosfos Yom Tov says abade you couldn't. That Rabbeinu Hakadosh even with his עת לעשות להשם הפרו תורתך. He meant that this written record, again, it would help people, again, it would help prevent the shichacha, but not that, not that now it could be fully understood on its own. That's what the Tosafos Yom Tov says, that, that b'mei ha'amoraim the Mishna was something again, if a person only had access to the Torah she-ba'al peh that had been written then, it was a sefer chasum v'sasum. And it was only with again what remained oral that it could be understood. The Rishonim talk about, okay but you say but now we have, we have the Gemara, ein hachi nami, ein hachi nami. The Rishonim talk about, you find this lashon in the Ramban and others, about how the Geonim is כל דבריהם דברי קבלה. That even when things were written down in the Gemara, there was still kabbalos that the Geonim had that weren't written down, that weren't written down. Aye, but now, now we have the, the Teshuvos HaGeonim, so if you go, so doesn't it still follow that if you have enough of a budget at the sefarim sale that you can get everything? So the point is that at every stage, not everything has been distilled into, into writing. Again, not only as a davar pashut that, that most people can't develop a derech limud, to say nothing of a derech hachayim, it's one thing to hear and read a description, it's another thing to see living examples in, in all areas of Halacha and Torah. There's just eino domeh, eino domeh what can be seen, what can be learned, what can be understood, what can be conveyed by actual real life exposure as opposed to just again absorbing whatever can be, what pen can commit to paper. Most of the Chachmei HaMasorah, I'm not sure that one can honestly say it about all of them, but certainly the overwhelming majority of Chachmei HaMasorah themselves stood in a tradition. Rashi says in a couple of places lo shamati, right? You have a few places where Rashi will write lo shamati. The clear inference being, as we know, that Rashi's peirush on Gemara didn't come in a vacuum, didn't come in a vacuum. Rashi had a tradition. The Rambam writes about rabosai, the Rambam clearly again, all his greatness and originality and creativity, within, within a certain, within a certain tradition. And that's true again for rubba d'rubba. Were there occasional sort of Avraham Avinus? Right? Chazal say אברהם אבינו מקיים כל התורה כולה עד שלא ניתנה, that the shtei klayos were, were and Avraham Avinu was able to discover it from within. So were there sort of Avraham Avinus amongst the Chachmei HaMasorah who weren't necessarily mikabel from a rebbi? There probably are isolated examples. Okay, but Avraham Avinus, just like there aren't all that many Avraham Avinus walking around on the street, there aren't so many of those either. So it's important to understand in terms of knowing how to react to, to a shtickel Gemara, to know what can be literal, what can't be literal, what's clear, what's unclear in terms of intent, not all these things are written down. There's so much which remains a masorah ba'al peh ad hayom hazeh. As much as is written down, as much as is written down, it's not at all the case that everything is there. As much as is written down, as much as is written down, it's not at all the case that everything is there. I just maybe conclude with one anecdote which illustrates one part of what we're talking about, not the totality but just one part, and obviously there's much more to be said on the subject. At Rav Nissan Alpert's levaya, so one of the maspidim was Rav Reuven Feinstein, and I believe that it was he who told the following story: that I'm not sure exactly when this happened, sometime in the '50s, maybe the early '60s, I'm not sure. There was a phone call into the payphone in the beis medrash in MTJ, and Rav Aharon Kotler was looking for Rav Moshe. And Rav Moshe wasn't there. And he had a pressing shaileh, a shaileh which was relevant to the klal that he wanted to discuss with him. And they didn't know where he was. So he asked, well, who's in the beis medrash? He asked whoever answered the phone, who's in the beis medrash? So they mentioned to him that, I don't know who else was there at the time, but Rabbi Alpert was a very big masmid, so not surprisingly, he was there. So as yibadel l'chaim, as Reuven told this story, so Rav Aharon Kotler said, so ask him to come to the phone, because he'll know what his Rebbe would say. So there's so much again in terms of not only in paskening a shaileh, in living, in reacting, there's so much that remains be'al peh, and that's only gained and acquired through again, through observation, through interaction, and with the eis la'asos and with everything that's written down, and again and basically al pi the Tosafos Yom Tov it was Chazal's intention that it should be that way, not only that you can't get everything on paper, but it was their intention that it should be that way because it's so much more again, you can transmit so much more panim el panim than you can m'toch haksav, but a significant component and dimension of the masorah remains be'al peh and it's a very important awareness that we should have.