In sections Hey and Vav, the Rav explains that the Ish HaHalakha approaches the world with an a priori perspective. See, first he gives us a sense for what that means from the history of Western thought, what those categories mean within section Hey, again if you're using this edition it's page 26, otherwise it's two paragraphs into section Hey. הנה יודעים אנו שליש הדעת זיקה כפולה למציאות. The cognitive man has a double, I don't know, relationship approach, a dual relationship approach to reality. Gam gisha aposteryorit, empiric, right? An empirical a posteriori, ve-gam gisha aprioryit. Right? A priori means before, and the opposite Latin term means after. So what does that mean? ואין דבר זה צריך לפני ולפנים כי כל המחלוקת בין הרציונליסטים והאמפיריסטים סבבה סך הכל הבעיה הזו. כשיש הדעת מסתכל באמיתותו של דבר פליטה זו מסמלת שני כיוונים בזיקת האדם ההוויה כשיש הדעת מסתכל בעולמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ותוהה על קנקנה הרי הוא בא לידי שתי החלטות שונות.
Aleph: לקפוץ לתוך תוכה של המציאות להציץ בה ולהסתכל בדמות דיוקנה כדי לחדור אל מהותה וצביונה. איש הדעת ניגש אז לעולם בלי תוכניות שהתווה למו מראש בלי שום הכנה רבתי ומגשש הוא באפלה משתומם ומתפלא מריבוי התופעות והתוהו ובוהו השבים בתחום המציאות עד שהוא נתקל בהישנות תדירה של המקרים באותו הסדר שהרגיש בו מקודם ומתוך כך הוא בא לידי יצירת עקרונות וקביעת חוקים המאירים לו את דרכו בהוויה.
So the empirical approach, the a posteriori approach is that you begin with nothing, you go to the world and then you begin with observation, with empirical observation. So you see that, and at first, so everything when you just immerse yourself in the phenomenal reality of the world, so at first everything is just disconnected, just a multitude of things happening. And then eventually, again, lav davka this, you know, not every individual does this, but in terms of how human knowledge develops, so patterns are noted. Initially one doesn't know, right? The Gemara describes how the first day, when Adam HaRishon, when shkiyah happened and night came, so Adam HaRishon thought that because of his chet, the world is coming to an end. And the world being plunged into darkness is a result of my cheit, and until you observe the pattern, you don't know what to make of anything. Okay, so then collectively we've been around enough, you know mankind has been around enough, so we see the sunrise every morning in the East and it sets every night in the West. We notice patterns and then we try to figure out what the principles are which explain those patterns, but we begin with empirical observation and then again just look to and never go beyond that in terms of just looking to then come up with the explanations for what we empirically observe. עד שהוא נתקל בהישנות תדירית, right? He sees the constant repetition של המקרים באותו סדר in the same pattern she'hirgish bo mikodem. ומתוך כך הוא בא, and from that he comes liydei yetzirat ekronot, he comes up with principles, ukviat chukim, and formulates laws המאירים לו את דרכו בהוויה. And then eventually, so then we can, we can predict what time Shkiya is going to be after, after enough empirical observation, so then we can predict. Beis, so that's one approach to the world. כדי לנצח את המסתורין שבהוויה הוא בונה לו עולם אידיאלי מסודר וקבוע ברור ומלובן כשמלה. צר לו יצירה אידיאלית אפריורית שדעתו נוחה הימנה. יצירה זו אינה גורמת לו חדישת דעת, אין היא מתחמקת הימנו.
There's an idiom from Ketubot from the second Perek, from the second Perek, ואין היא מכסה את פניה בהינומא, like the yotzes be'hinuma. ואין היא מכסה את פניה בהינומא. יודע הוא אותה ונהנה ממנה הנאה מרובה.
Right? The empirical approach, so initially everything is mysterious until again after there's enough observation which allows one to construct, to recognize a pattern and then to construct an explanation, a theory, a law, etc. The second approach, the second approach certainly is prompted by the world we live in, but it then constructs an ideal world. As the Rav in the next paragraph explains, let's say in, let's say in geometry, so you learn that if, if you have two lines that are perpendicular to each other, so the angles that are formed are 90 degree angles. And similarly if you have two lines that are parallel and then you have a line that bisects both of those two, a line that bisects both of those two, so it's going to create the same angles as it hits each of those two parallel lines. So in the real world, two lines are never perfectly perpendicular. Like if you could have, you know, some tools, measurement capacity to the most minute degree, so no two lines are perfectly perpendicular and no two lines are perfectly parallel. But in geometry, so when you study geometry, you're studying an ideal world. You're not, when you're, when you're told, you know, that these two lines, you know, in the math book, are perpendicular and they form 90 degree angles, so that's not something which is doesn't exist in reality. And in that sense it isn't extrapolated from reality, but it's an ideal world. And then we use that ideal construct to approach our real world. Gisha zo, skipping to the next paragraph, is the approach of the. היא תת-הגישה של המתמטיקה ומדעי הטבע המתמטיים, mathematical physical sciences. גולת הכותרת של התרבות, the crowning achievement of culture. And the Rav loved everything, but he felt that the two most substantive branches of knowledge were philosophy and within science physics and physics is mathematical as opposed to let's say much more so than biology, chemistry and so forth. גישה זו היא אפריורית וגם אידיאלית. כלומר ההכרה היא קונסטרוקציה חוקית שהכרחיותן נובע מעצמם וממהותם ואינה זקוקה בנוגע לאמיתותה להגבלה דייקנית בתחום הכרות הטבע הממשיים,
right? The beauty and the truth of geometry and geometric theorems and geometric proofs are not in the least bit diminished by the fact that when you go into the real world, again, if you could measure precisely enough, you'll never find two lines that are perfectly perpendicular or two lines that are perfectly parallel. That's not a kasha, it doesn't make anything less logical, less compelling, less true or less beautiful about everything that you learned in geometry. אין המשולש המוחש והמעשי שווה בדיוק למשולש האידיאלי של הגאומטריה.
It's not a perfect representation of the ideal, again, ideal in the sense of idea, right? Not so much in the sense of ideal as, you know, it's ideal to daven vasikin, ideal in the sense of derived from the word idea. You can, you know, you can and do apply these disciplines, right? There's applied mathematics also, not just theoretical mathematics, there's applied mathematics, but it begins as a world of ideas, right? And in that sense it's not something which is just distilled from, it's not an explanation of what you see in this world because you don't see a perfect triangle in this world, you don't see two lines that are perfectly perpendicular in this world. So that's what it means that it's an a priori approach. Again, the ideas like where did the idea of where did the ancient Greeks get the idea of talk about triangles, so obviously because they saw triangles in this world, so it's not a priori, you know, that if you keep a person blindfolded in a room and he never sees anything, you know, that he's going to talk to you about necessarily about triangles. But in terms of the definitions and the depictions and the structure, all of that is a priori. It exists as a world of ideas. So what do we do before we have those constructs and ideas? Before we learn them? Someone who, let's say, doesn't necessarily have all the ideas and philosophies of Yahadus, then what's he supposed to do when he approaches the world? So you remind me bli neder coming back to that. I don't think we'll get there today. You remind me please. So then in... Section vav. vav then says that ish ha-halacha כשהוא ניגש אל המציאות it's page 28. ish ha-halacha כשהוא ניגש אל המציאות when he approaches ha-metzius הרי הוא בא ושתורתו שנתנה לו מסיני בידו. אשרי מי שבא לכאן ותלמודו בידו. מזדקק הוא לעולם בחוקים קבועים וכללים מוצקים. תורה שלמה של הלכות ודינים מורה לו את הדרך המוליכה אל ההוויה.
ish ha-halacha מתקרב אל העולם כשהוא מצוין he's equipped b'maklo u-v'sarmilo. I think when the Mishna Rosh Hashanah when Rabban Gamliel orders Rabbi Yehoshua to when they have that dispute about the Kiddush ha-Chodesh so he orders Rabbi Yehoshua to come to him on Rabbi Yehoshua's Yom Kippur which wasn't Rabban Gamliel's Yom Kippur b'maklo u-v'sarmilo with his walking stick and his bundle. בחוקותיה בדיניה בקרו ומשפטיה ביחס א-פריורי. גישתה היא הגישה הפותחת ביצירה אידיאלית וחותמת.
It begins with an ideal construct v'chotemet then it concludes b'yetzira realit. משל למה הדבר דומה למתימטיקאי היוצר עולם אידיאלי ומשתמש בו לשם קביעת יחס בינו לבין העולם הריאלי כמו שנתבאר למעלה.
mahutah shel ha-halacha shekiblah I think it's supposed to be a mappik he. If there's no misprint here, again there's all the males. The Rav didn't write all those. I don't know what they put them all in for. קיבלה doesn't have a yud there. Just ignore those. Ignore all those yuds and ignore all those vavs if you want to retain your sanity. mahutah shel ha-halacha shekiblah but I think it's supposed to be a mappik he otherwise I don't understand how it reads. And the subject of shekiblah is the ish ha-halacha because otherwise if the subject is halacha it should be shenitkablah. So if it's shekiblah I think it's mappik he. mahutah the essence of halacha שקיבלה מאת הקדוש ברוך הוא היא יצירת עולם אידיאלי and then והכרת היחס השורר בינו למציאות על כל תופעותיה שורשיה ועיקריה.
To get somewhat of a sense of what the Rav is explaining he says the following. Human legal systems look at American law if you're familiar with other legal systems you can look at those as well. Human legal systems look at life and look at people's interactions and looks to see what needs to be regulated what needs to be legislated. People are going to be driving and to avoid crashes so we need a system of who has the right of way who doesn't have the right of way. Does the pedestrian have the right of way does the driver have the right of way does the person headed on the north-south axis have the right of way. So you look at life with all of its concrete situations, all the everything that needs to be regulated and legislated and then you try to do that effectively, equitably and that's how the legal system is designed. Halakhah isn't that way and this is so essential again emphasis to Talmud Torah it's so essential to the whole philosophy that the Rav is developing here in Ish HaHalakhah. Halakhah is not that way. Halakhah is again similar to משל למה הדבר דומה that the Rav gives the Moshal to geometry. Halakhah is an ideal world. Halakhah is a world of ideas. First and foremost Halakhah begins as a world of ideas. That's what it means that Halakhah where was that line? See Kishato b'ayin 6: גישתו היא גישה הפותחת ביצירה אידיאלית. It's a world of ideas. It's a world of ideas. It's a world of ideals. Then when you look at concrete reality you assess that in light of this world of ideas. That's what the Rav means again skipping to page 31 for a minute: וכשהרבה ממושגיה ההלכתיים אינם מקבילים אל התופעות הריאליות אין איש ההלכה מצטער ודואג כלל.
When you have halakhic concepts that don't parallel real phenomena, real occurrences, it doesn't in any way detract. The inner beauty, the logic, the truth of geometry doesn't depend upon whether or not in your life you're ever going to encounter two perpendicular lines. If a legal system is intended isn't an ideal system but is a pragmatic system then it's ludicrous to have things in the legal code which have no application or relevance. I don't know when American law doesn't talk so much about when you're walking down Main Street what happens if your horse runs this way and the other guy's horse runs that way? But people that's not how we get around nowadays and we don't ride horses to get around and we don't carry our burdens on the backs of donkeys. So our legal code doesn't talk about it because our legal code is something which is pragmatic. It's something which is built in response to and to address the real world as we know it and experience. But that's not what Halakhah is. That's not what Torah is. Torah is an ideal world. It's a world of ideas. When you're learning Torah you're in a world of ideas. Which is why when you learn Ben Sorer U'moreh it doesn't make a difference the fact that one view in Chazal says that בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות in no way does that detract from the from it being an integral and equally important and fundamental part of Torah, because Torah is first and foremost the world of ideas. That's what it means that again totafot biyetzira idealit. It doesn't make a difference in terms of geometry as an ideal discipline, again I'll what the word ideal means, as an ideal discipline, it doesn't make a difference whether or not there's a triangle in the world that corresponds to the Euclidean definition of a triangle. That's why the Rav also says, what's this line? One second. Let me read here a little bit on page 31. וכשהדברים מושגי ההלכה אינם מקבילים אל התופעות הריאליות, אין איש ההלכה מצטער כלל. מצבת נפשו היא לא הריאליזציה של ההלכה אלא הקונסטרוקציה האידיאלית שניתנה מסיני.
It's a world of ideas and Talmud Torah is to enter that world of ideas, to understand, to comprehend, to master that world of ideas. אם עיר הנדחת ובית מנוגע ובן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר. בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר. בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר. אין איש ההלכה מצטער כלל וכלל על העובדה שהרבה יצירות אידיאליות אינן מתגשמות כלל וכלל, כי מה הוא ההבדל אם עיר הנדחת ובית מנוגע ובן סורר ומורה היה או לא היו, עתידים או אינם עתידים להיות. יסוד היסודות ועמוד המחשבה,
again paraphrasing the Rambam's opening line in Mishneh Torah of course, יסוד היסודות ועמוד המחשבה ההלכתית המה לא ההוראה למעשה אלא קביעת הלכה עיונית.
And here the Rav has a remarkable observation, perspective that he provides. Lefichach hishtamtu, they avoided, lashon shemita, right? Shemita is to release. So hishtameit means to avoid. לפיכך השתמטו ועדיין משתמטים אישי ההלכה היותר גדולים מלכהן בכהונת רבנות בישראל ונספחים על העדה של יראי הוראה.
When Rav Chaim was appointed Rav of Brisk to succeed his father the Beis Halevi, so he brought Rav Simcha Zelig with him to serve as the Dayan. ועם ההכרח של הוראה, if necessity requires and necessity should not be disparaged, מכריחם לעבור על דעתם ולהורות הלכה למעשה, אין זו אלא תעודה זעירה ומצערה שאין אישי ההלכה מתמכרים אליה. כי ההלכה לא המעשה היצירה האידיאלית לא הריאלית מייצגות שאיפת בעל הלכה.
If one understood halakha again similar to lehavdil lehavdil human legal system, then halakha le-ma'aseh is that that is the essence. But if it's an ideal world, a world of ideas, so it's the pure ideas. It's not sort of the the case, the reality, which is more of which is the the ideal. Which is why איש ההלכה מפלפל בענייני קודשים וטהרות ומתעמק במושגיהם, דיניהם ותכונותיהם באותה רצינות שבה הוא חוקר ודורש דיני עגונה, טוען ונטען ומאכלות אסורות.
It's a misprint. ישיבת וולוז'ין הנהיגה לימוד התלמוד כסדר מברכות עד נידה בלי לדלג על מסכתות שאינן עוסקות בדברים הנהוגים בזמן הזה.
Zebachim and Menachos is as real in terms of Talmud Torah as Shabbos and Eiruvin because Halacha is a world of ideas. People wrongly think that the lines we just read here, that Mahshavto Nafsho on the top of thirty-one line six, היא לא הוויה עצאית של ההלכה אלא הקונסטרוקציה האידיאלית שניתנה מסיני.
So I think that the Rav sources it a little bit later towards the end of this section. Take a look, maybe we'll begin reading from the paragraph on thirty-four, Haseder. הסדר שהרמב"ם מדבר בו הוא המושג האידיאלי של ליל פסח ומצוותיו ואין רבנו הגדול משגיח במציאות המרה ואכזרית.
When the Rambam describes סדר עשיית מצוות אלו בליל חמישה עשר כך הוא, so the Rambam describes how the Seder is conducted bizman hamikdash and then he'll say uvizman hazeh we make the following adjustment, right? Bizman hazeh we do like this. But he doesn't begin by describing what we do bizman hazeh and then as a footnote say and but bizman hamikdash they did like this, no. Because it's the ideal which is the real Torah as it were and what we do is an anomaly, it's a fragmented and incomplete projection of Halacha. Merachefes lefanav, it hovers before him, דמות ירושלים בבניינה בית המקדש בשכלולה. The Onkelos on Vayechulu hashamayim va'aretz, right? So Vayechulu is ve'ishtachlalu, right? It was complete in the sense of perfected. כהנים בעבודתם וישראל בני חורין עוסקים במצוות הלילה. Amnam lerega'im, for there are moments when הוא נעור מתוך חלומו האידיאלי וחזונו הרומנטי ונתקל בגלות מלאת סיוטים ובלהות שיעבוד הגוף וניוון הרוח ומתחיל ואומר בזמן הזה אינו אומר בלילה זה כולו צלי שאין לנו קרבן פסח בזמן הזה אומר פסח שהיו אבותינו אוכלים בזמן שבית המקדש היה קיים ובזמן הזה מוסיף לברכה אשר גאלנו כעין השם אלוקינו בזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן.
After shemevarech hamotzi, so he doesn't eat matzah and maror together, he eats just matzah, ובזמן הזה לא אפיקומן אחר הפסח, בזמן הזה אוכל כזית מצה ואינו טועם אחריה כלום כלומר אין הזמן הזה אלא
anomaly, it's an anomaly, historical anomaly בתהלוך התגשמות ההלכה האידיאלית בעולם הריאלי וכאילו אין צורך להרחיב את הדיבור על שעה של סטייה חולפת.
This is in the footnote, right? The way we do things bizman hazeh, that's sort of in the footnote, that's in the parenthesis. ההלכה נשארה בכל תוקפה ואנו מקווים ומייחלים ליום גאולת ישראל כשהעולם האידיאלי ינצח את המציאות החיצונית.
When the ideal world will triumph over the secular reality. וכשאיש ההלכה עומד ומתפלל יהי רצון שתמלא פגימת הלבנה ולא יהיה בה שום מיעוט עם קידוש הלבנה הרי הוא מתכוון למילוי פגימת היצירה הריאלית המשתרעת לפניו שאינה מקבילה לדמות האיקונין האידיאלית של ההוויה.
And this especially this line seems to be at odds with what earlier on page thirty-one. Ga'agu'im lage'ulah, the yearning for ge'ulah, לביאת המשיח ולבנין בית עדי עד, yonkim, they're nurtured, they derive their nourishment me-hakesifim hatamirim vehane'elamim from the hidden longing of ish ha-halacha למימושה הצו והשלמה ומלאה של העולם האידיאלי בתוך טבעה של המציאות הממשית.
So here the Rav is clearly talking about the realization of halacha, not just that when you sit down with your Gemaras so you leave this world behind and you enter the world of ideas of halacha. But no, he's talking about how there's kisufim, נכסוף נכספת לבית אביך Lavan says to Yaakov Avinu, to long so intensely. האידיאל של איש ההלכה הוא השתעבדות המציאות לעולה של ההלכה.
So it's clear that there's no contradiction here. Within Torah, for Torah to be projected into this world again in its ideal form, again which would be the analogue to having two lines in this world which were perfectly perpendicular. For Torah to be projected to this world in its ideal state, so that means that ליל חמשה עשר בניסן, so we're all in Yerushalayim and we were all makriv earlier that afternoon a korban pesach and we eat korban pesach. Doesn't mean that there's a ben soreir u-moreh running around. It doesn't mean that there's an ir hanidachas that has to be burnt. When you're talking about those parts of those parts of Torah, the ben soreir u-moreh, you don't have to have a gazlan to have Torah projected. Of course, yes, of course, it's part of the ideal, given that the Torah, again, is a world of ideas, and it's that world of ideas which is ideal, so of course we want to see that projected into the world. That refers to the parts of Torah such as what a Seder looks like. But when the relevance of the fact that Torah is a world of ideas says that those realities in the world of ideas that have no corresponding reality in olam hazeh, such as a ben soreir u-moreh, that's irrelevant. It in no way detracts and it's also obviously not part of what we long for and what we yearn for. Oh, we should have a world with a ben soreir u-moreh. No, that's not what anyone's yearning for. But the fact that that Torah is this world of ideas and again which is then also ideal in its other sense, so that means that those parts of Torah which in the world of ideas lechatchila that they should be present, so ein hachi nami, so then the ish ha-halacha longs, I think somewhere here I forget where the Rav has the description of how Rav Chaim's Mussaf on Yom Kippur when he would say the Avodah, how Rav Chaim was in a different place. So of course there's longing for realization of and projection of the ideal world of halacha in those areas. But the fact that halacha is a world of ideas is why other parts of Torah such as ir hanidachas and ben soreir u-moreh don't have to ever correspond to any tangible reality. I'm sorry, did you want to ask? Already addressed it. I'm sorry? Already addressed it. All right, so bli neder we'll talk some more about this. Next week as well and sort of it's where you see this reflected in learning and just how indispensable this perspective really is.