THE LEGISLATION OF OSNIEL BEN KENAZ AND OF KING DAVID PROVIDED PERMANENCE TO THE TORAH AND TO ISRAEL’S MILITARY SUCCESSES THE TRIBE OF YEHUDA has legislated [in all areas of the Torah] consistently throughout history. [To begin with], in the generation of Joshua, when many laws received by Moshe at Sinai were forgotten, they were restored through the use of pilpul by Osniel the son of Kenaz, [the first of the Judges].¹ It is asserted in Tractate Temurah 16a that [Osniel the son of Kenaz] arrived at halachic decisions through deep analysis and pilpul. [This suggests that because of the depth and strength of his analysis], one was compelled to accept the decisions as being the laws that were [orally transmitted to Moshe at Sinai].²

footnotes: ¹ Osniel was from the tribe of Judah, as stated in I Chronicles 4:13. ² The Netziv explains that if the laws from Sinai were forgotten, how was it known that Osniel had restored them? He therefore explains that Osniel’s analysis was so powerful that his derivations were seen as equal to that which was received from Moshe at Sinai.

Translator’s note: In the next few paragraphs, the Netziv will be proving his explanation of Tractate Temurah by clarifying R. Elazar’s opinion in Tractate Yoma. In Tractate Yoma 80a, it is stated: “R. Elazar said: ‘If one has eaten forbidden fat in these times [when there is no Temple], he must note the quantity, because another rabbinical court may come and increase the measures.”³ [The Gemara continues that] R. Yohanan had stated that “standard measures and penalties are fixed by laws [communicated] to Moshe at Sinai.” A Baraisa is then quoted: “The minimum required for penalties are fixed by laws [communicated] to Moshe at Sinai. Others say: the Court of Ya’abetz [Osniel]⁴ 16a, Ya’abetz is another name for Osniel. Ya’abetz is a combination of the Hebrew initials of, “He advised and advanced the study of the Law.” fixed them.” The Gemara then asks: “But Scripture said: ‘Theseare the commandments,’⁵ i.e., only that which is contained in the Torah, which means that no prophet may introduce any new law from then on.” The Talmud answers, “They were forgotten and then [the court of Osniel] established them anew.”

footnotes: ³ R. Elazar suggested that if the Sanctuary were to be rebuilt and a new rabbinical court established, it might decide to increase the measures. Therefore, one who is aware of having eaten tallow should take the precaution of putting down the exact quantity so as to be sure that his transgression does not entail a sin offering in accord with the new enactment. ⁴ According to the Talmud in Temurah ⁵ Lev. 27:34.

Prima facieit appears that R. Elazar and R. Yohanan are not disagreeing as to whether these measures are from Moshe at Sinai. [However, one is compelled to conclude that they do disagree]. Otherwise, how, according to R. Elazar, can another rabbinical court come and increase the measures if [standard measures and penalties] were fixed by laws [communicated] to Moshe at Sinai? [If the measures were given at Sinai, everyone would agree that they cannot be changed by a subsequent court].⁶ 1:5. Further, it is clear from the Jerusalem Talmud in Tractate Pe’ah 1:1 and Tractate Hagigah 1:2 that R. Elazar and R. Yohanan do disagree on this matter. As [these tractates] note, R. Yohanan states that standard measures are fixed by laws [communicated] to Moshe at Sinai, while according to R. Hoshea, it was the sages who set the standard measures. [In Pe’ah and Hagigah], the Gemara states that R. Hoshea follows his opinion [expressed elsewhere], that one who eats forbidden foods must make a note of the quantity, because another rabbinical court may come and increase the measures. Behold, according to the opinion [that the measures] were received from Sinai, it is not possible to say that [another rabbinical court may come and increase the measures communicated to Moshe at Sinai]. It is therefore certain that R. Elazar and R. Yohanan are not in agreement, and that this disagreement reflects a tannaitic dispute as to whether the measures were given at Sinai. [As in the previously cited baraisa quoted in Yoma], the Tanna Kamma [who stated, that the minima which entail penalties are fixed by laws communicated to Moshe on Sinai, agrees] with R. Yohanan. On the other hand, [the opinion] of the “Others,” who stated that the Court of Ya’abetz established them, is expressing what was quoted previously from Tractate Temurah: “that they were restored through the use of pilpul.” Even though the laws regarding [measures] had previously been received from Moshe at Sinai, they were forgotten and it was necessary to reestablish them through argument and deep analysis. Because of this [determination of the court of Ya’abetz], R. Elazar was concerned that a later court might come and conclude through [strong] proofs that the measures given to Moshe at Sinai [differed from those of the court of Ya’abetz]. Nevertheless, as things turned out, the decisions of Ya’abetz are true for all time and have endured as the accepted halachah, [and considered as if they had been told to Moshe at Sinai].

footnotes: ⁶ A court is unable to nullify a previous court’s decision unless it is greater in wisdom and number. See Tractate Eduyos

Similarly, [the Tribe of Yehuda continued to excel in applying deep analysis, as expressed by what occurred] in the time of King Saul and King David. It states in Tractate Eruvin 53a: David revealed a collection of laws, while Saul did not. In reference to David, it is written: ‘Those who revere You shall see me [David] and rejoice.’⁷ That is, those who fear God will delight in the accuracy of David’s halachic decisions. In reference to Saul, who did not reveal a collection of laws, it is written in the Book of Samuel: “Wherever he turned, he would destroy them [his adversaries].”⁸ Deut. 33:11). An alternative translation is, “He would terrify and bewilder them.” Rashi explains [that the Gemara] is saying that Saul did not render decisions in accordance with the accepted halachah. [However, this interpretation] is difficult, for the verse cited [from the Book of Samuel] has reference to Saul’s military campaigns and victories.⁹, see note 8, the Netziv adds two additional difficulties: one, how can it be suggested that Saul would not render proper decisions and, two, what relationship do halachic decisions have to military battles?

footnotes: ⁷ Psalms 119:74. ⁸ I Sam. 14:47. I translated this verse according to the Targum and Rashi, with whom the Netziv agrees (See Harhev Davar, ⁹ In Harhev Davar

The proper understanding of this gemara is that concerning Saul, a descendant of Benjamin, it is written [concerning Benjamin], “He rests securely with him,”¹⁰ [meaning that God’s Divine Presence dwells forever with Benjamin because of the Holy Temple].¹¹ 12a, states that a portion of the Temple stood within the area of the tribe of Benjamin. According to one opinion, the holiest portion of the Temple, the Holy of Holies, was within Benjamin’s territory. Because of this, [Benjamin] was assured that he could render decisions as cases arose before him and [decide] as his eyes saw [fit] at that very moment, without deep analysis. [Therefore Saul] did not need to render decisions with powerful proofs such that his conclusions would be applicable for all times. The interpretation of the Gemara, which states that Saul did not reveal a collection of laws, is that he did not reveal his reasoning [for his decisions] to others, and as a result his decisions were not established for all times.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Deut. 33:12. ¹¹ See Rashi on that verse. In addition, Yoma

David,¹² however, [similarly] to how we described [Yehuda] in chapter 4, did not render decisions based on his own [individual] reasoning. Rather, he would toil greatly in applying pilpul in group study with other scholars. [This interpretation is further buttressed by] Rashi’s explanation of Eruvin, based on the statements in Tractate *Mo’ed Katan;*¹³ from the verse, “One who sat in the assembly,”¹⁴ [we learn that David engaged in group study, sitting on the ground before the scholars].¹⁵ is: “It is stated in Scripture ‘These are the names of David’s mighty men: who sat in the assembly… Adino the Etznite….’ What does this verse mean? R. Abbahu said, The verse actually states: ‘These are the names of David’s mighty deeds: he sat in a low position.’ When [David] sat in the academy, he did not sit upon mattresses and cushions but on the ground. As long as his teacher, Ira ha-Ya’iri was alive, Ira would teach the rabbis while seated upon cushions and mattresses. When [Ira] died, David would teach the rabbis, and he would sit on the ground. [The rabbis] said to him, ‘Let the Master sit upon cushions and mattresses,’ but he would not sit in an elevated position. ‘He is Adiono the Etznite’ – this implies that when [David] sat and engaged in Torah study, he bent himself like a worm. But when he went out to war, he straightened himself like wood.” It is also written [about David], “In the House of God we would walk in company,”¹⁶ [i.e., he took counsel with others]. This group interaction ensured that his rulings were established as immutable laws. It therefore follows that [David’s approach to Torah study] also benefited Israel in time of battle, for the sword of Israel is in the merit of applying pilpul to Torah.¹⁷ 63a states that the simple meaning of the verse in Psalms 45:4, “Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, your majesty and your splendor,” is that it refers to the Torah. See also Bereshis Rabbah 24 that explains Psalms 149:6, “A double-edged sword is in their hands,” as referring to the Torah. The reason the Torah is compared to a sword as opposed to any other weapon, is that a sword is has two parts, the sword itself and its sheath, which are respectively symbolic of the Oral and Written Law. In time of peace, the sheath is more significant than the sword, as it denotes the importance and power of the officer who wears it, while the sword itself is not as significant since it is not used. In times of war, however, the sword is greater than the sheath, since then the main purpose of the sheath is not to display its wearer’s status but to protect the sword, whose condition and sharpness are of the highest importance. When Israel is at peace and the Torah, which is composed of God’s holy names, is studied, the Torah functions as the sheath during times of peace that communicates the greatness of the Jewish nation. This idea is hinted at in Deut. 28:10, “Then all the peoples of the earth will see that the name of the Lord is proclaimed over you, and they will fear You.” However, when Israel is at war, the sword – the pilpul of Torah – needs to be sharpened, meaning that the survival and protection of the nation of Israel require the application of deep analysis of the Torah. This is clearly stated in Tractate Makkos 10a, on the verse, “Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem.”¹⁸ “Who caused our feet to remain standing in battle? It was when Israel [at the time of King David],¹⁹ was involved in the study of Torah, symbolized by the gates of Jerusalem.”

footnotes: ¹² David was a descendant of Judah. ¹³ 16b. ¹⁴ II Sam. 23:8. ¹⁵ The full discussion in Mo’ed Katan ¹⁶ Psalms 55:15. ¹⁷ The Netziv is saying that the strength of Torah study, which protects the Jewish people, is comparable to a sword. Tractate Shabbos ¹⁸ Psalms 122:2. ¹⁹ Some explain this verse as describing not what transpired in the time of King David, but as referring to the future Temple. The verse thus describes King David’s recipe for success in battle, which is to be deeply involved in the study of Torah – in other words, pilpul.

However, concerning Saul who was not involved in the pilpul of Torah, Scripture writes, “Wherever he would turn he would destroy them,” meaning that his successes were only temporary, [for, concerning Saul, the verse] did not state hitzliah, that he was successful.”²⁰ (Deut. 33:11) elaborates that the differences in tactics employed by David and Saul show that David’s successes were of a lasting nature, while Saul’s were only temporary. When Saul won a battle, he needed to destroy the inhabitants of that region so that his enemies would not be able to regroup. Saul lacked the ability to maintain a lasting presence in the locale in order to subjugate his enemies. But once David conquered an area, he would set up military posts, and this continuing presence meant there was no need to destroy the people of the conquered region. With God’s help, this has been elaborated on in my book Rinah shel Torah.

footnotes: ²⁰ The Netziv in Harhev Davar