BY RESOLVING THE APPARENT CONFLICT IN RAVA’S STATEMENTS, WE UNDERSTAND HOW THE MISAPPLICATION OF PILPUL CONTRIBUTES TO THE WORLD’S DESTRUCTION Translator’s note: Here the Netziv asserts that pilpul is an elixir of life, a method of Torah study that God directed the Jewish nation to employ in order to guarantee its survival in the various exiles. However, if this precious tool of pilpul is misapplied, it becomes an elixir of death. The Netziv’s proofs depend on the meaning of three words ─ hukim, mishpatim and la’asos. The word hukim is generally interpreted as counter-intuitive laws,¹ whereas the word mishpatim refers to the laws that have a discernible rationale,² 67b, as quoted by Rashi to Lev. 18:4. or laws that regulate conduct between persons – e.g., torts, contracts, etc.³ 87. The word la’asos is usually translated as either to make or to perform. Both here, and in many places in his commentary on the Torah,⁴, and what he writes in Ha’amek Davar and Harhev Davar on Lev. 18:5, Ex. 24:3, 4, and Deut. 6:1. the Netziv argues that the translations of these terms vary according to context. With regard to the word hukim, he concludes that it may also mean analysis or analytical rules, such as the thirteen hermeneutical principles of R. Yishmael. Similarly, the word mishpatim can also mean practical laws, or, alternatively, the application of analysis, namely, the methodology as to how to apply hukim so that it results in the derivation of practical laws,⁵ on Ex. 15:23. such as the ones in the Shulhan Aruch. The word la’asos and its various conjugations may be translated as ‘to perform’ or ‘to create,’ depending on the context. The Netziv asserts that if la’asos is translated in various statements as “create” or “enhance,”⁶, os 8, arguing that the word la’asos, depending on the context, may be translated as “to make,” “to enhance” or “to arrange” something that already exists. the difficulties discussed in chapter 6 pertaining to the interpretation of various Talmudic statements and the contradictions between the various statements of Rava are resolved by limiting the word to the application of analysis and pilpul to generate new laws. WE EXPLAINED in Part 1, chapters 7 and 8, that with the destruction [of the Temples] and the beginning of the exile, Isaiah [at the end of the First Temple period], and afterwards, the Men of the Great Assembly [led by Ezra during the Second Temple period], resolved to enhance the Torah and [use of] pilpul among Israel. This was the message of Malachi: [“Be mindful of the teaching of My servant Moshe, whom I charged at Horeb with hukim, laws, and mishpatim, rules, for Israel”].⁷ Malachi, [who is actually] Ezra,⁸ on Deut. 32:36. as stated in Tractate Megillah 15a,⁹ there is a disagreement between the sages who were of the opinion that Malachi and Ezra were two separate prophets, and R. Yehoshua ben Korhah, who stated that they were the same person. The Talmud concludes in accordance with R. Yehoshua. [is referred to as] a sofer, “enumerator,” of the Torah of Moshe,¹⁰ [scribe] expert in the Torah of Moshe.” See Targum, Ibn Ezra and Gersonides that sofer in this context means that Ezra enumerated and explained the details and sources of the laws contained within the Torah. for he counted the letters of the Torah and applied exegesis to them. It is written in Ezra 7:11 that “He counted¹¹ may also be translated as “enumerates.” the wordsof the commandments of God and his¹² statutes that [were commanded] to Israel.” Had the text stated, “He counted God’s commandments,” I would say that Ezra had counted the commandments, [which is in itself] a great wisdom, [as explained in Part 2]. However, the language used is, “He counted the wordsof the commandments,” implying that he counted the details of each and every mitzvah.

footnotes: ¹ E.g., the eating of pork and not wearing garments composed of wool and linen. ² See Tractate Yoma ³ See Tractate Bava Kamma ⁴ See the Netziv’s Introduction to Ha’amek Davar ⁵ See Ha’amek Davar ⁶ See the Netziv in his Introduction to Ha’amek Davar ⁷ Mal. 3:22. ⁸ Ezra understood that the purpose of the Jews returning to Israel and rebuilding the Temple was to prepare the Jewish nation for the approaching lengthy exile. See Ha’amek Davar ⁹ In Tractate Megillah ¹⁰ See Ezra 7:6, “Ezra came up from Babylon, a sofer ¹¹ The present tense in Hebrew is a participle and serves both as a verb and noun, therefore, sofer ¹² In the next paragraph the Netziv, will define the phrase “his statutes” as referring to Ezra, not God.

[We see elsewhere that the word sofer is defined as one who enumerates the details of the mitzvos]. As the Talmud explains [regarding the colleagues of Ya’abetz], “families of soferim, enumerators”¹³ [refers to the grouping or counting of the details of the various commandments]. See this interpretation in chapter 5 of the Jerusalem Talmud [in Tractate Shekalim].¹⁴ (enumerators)? Because they [grouped all the laws relating to specific topics, which] they then numbered [according to category]. This was explained in detail in Part 2, chapter 8. [Based on what is said in Ezra and the way a sofer is defined in Tractate Shekalim], we infer that Ezra was a “master of collections,” i.e., one who enumerated the details of the mitzvos. It also states in the Book of Ezra that “hukav, his statutes, which [were commanded] to Israel,” were originated by Ezra. [The term] hukav, his statutes, refers to Ezra [and not to God], meaning that he investigated [the Torah] deeply [from the word mehokek] and thus originated new laws, teaching Israel how to do the same. [We thus see that during the First and Second Temple periods, the leaders of Israel, mindful of the impending exiles, instructed Israel in the method of pilpul].

footnotes: ¹³ I Chron. 2:55. ¹⁴ [Regarding I Chron. 2:55, the Gemara asks], “Why [are the colleagues of Osniel] referred to as soferim

(Netziv’s addendum – [As a support for my interpretation of the word hukav as used in Malachi, see] the Mechilta on the Torah section of Beshalah:¹⁵ entitled Vayisa, Parashah 1. “‘You shall keep all hukav, his statutes’¹⁶ – these are the halachos, the laws.” In other words, [these are the practical laws] that are derived through deep examination and hakikas, analysis of the mind.¹⁷ is stating that hukav should be translated as “his statues” rather than “His statues,” since it refers to the scholar, not to God. The practical laws are derived from the hukim, which the Netziv believes are the thirteen hermeneutical rules that in turn are formulated through deep analysis. – end of Netziv’s addendum)

footnotes: ¹⁵ Section of Mechilta ¹⁶ Ex. 15:26. ¹⁷ The Mechilta

As I explained above pertaining to Tractate *Nedarim,*¹⁸ [the way to derive new laws] was mainly by application of pilpul to the Torah. The prophet Malachi warned Israel: “Be mindful of the Teaching of My servant Moshe, whom I charged at Horeb with hukim, laws, and mishpatim, rules, for all of Israel.”¹⁹ “Mindful of the [Teaching of My servant Moshe],” refers to the portion of the Torah that was given only to Moshe at Horeb, [i.e., the pilpul method]. Today it is incumbent upon all of Israel to use the pilpul system, and this is what is meant by linking hukim together with mishpatim. That is, it should not be a pilpul of vapor without a goal, but rather a method to comprehend the hukim and mishpatim [i.e., a practical result]. This is the wording of the Torah: “See, I have taught you hukim and mishpatim,” meaning, I [Moshe], have been directed to teach you statues and rules. Tractate Nedarim understands this verse as, “I have been commanded [in this method], and I am now teaching it to you. This is referring to pilpul be-alma, [i.e., deriving laws by analyzing the nuances of the letters and words in the Torah].²⁰ Hukim and mishpatim mean that the laws should be studied, le-hokek, to analyze the words deeply, so that one can derive mishpatim, [laws that are to be practiced] from them. This interpretation is supported by the above-mentioned *Mechilta,*²¹ and this is Malachi’s exhortation [to be “mindful of the teaching… with hukim, analysis, and mishpatim, rules of practice”].

footnotes: ¹⁸ 38a. ¹⁹ Mal. 3:22. ²⁰ See Chapter 6. ²¹ See Netziv’s first addendum in this chapter.

[Addendum 1 to Chapter 8]²² and mishpatim, resolves a question raised by Tosafos pertaining to an apparent conflict between Tractates Bava Kammaand Sanhedrin22 as to whether teaching the Torah to non-Jews is forbidden. THIS [EXPLANATION OF hukim and mishpatim] resolves a question raised by Tosafos in the fourth chapter of Tractate *Bava Kamma.*¹. What the Netziv cites is similar to the question of Tosafos, but Tosasfos does not cite Tractate Sanhedrin. [The difficulty is that Bava Kamma relates that the Sages] taught Torah to non-Jews, yet the Sages in Tractate Sanhedrin² inferred from the verse “It is the morashah [heritage] of the Congregation of Jacob”³ that [teaching the Torah to non-Jews is forbidden. The source of the latter rule] is that the word morasha may be read as me’orasah, betrothed; meaning that we are betrothed to the Torah, and a non-Jew who is immersed in the study of Torah is liable to the death penalty.⁴ Laws of Kings10:9. There is second opinion that it is read as morashah (heritage), meaning that the Torah is a heritage for us and not for them. In addition, Tractate Hagigah⁵ 13a. states that it is forbidden to teach a non-Jew Torah and inferred this law from the verse, “Such mishpatim they know not.”⁶

footnotes: ²² The Netziv in Addendum 1 to Chapter 5, using his explanation of hukim ¹ 38a. See Tosafos, s.v. Kar’u ve-shanu ve-shilshu ² Sanhedrin 59b. ³ Deut. 33:4. ⁴ Meaning he deserves to be punished by God. See Rambam in Mishneh Torah, ⁵ Hagigah ⁶ Psalms 147:20.

However, by defining [hukimandmishpatim] as above, no question remains. For certain, one is allowed to study established laws with [non-Jews]; it is only the Talmud, the pilpul of the Torah, that is forbidden. It is “the Torah that Moshe commanded us”⁷ [the pilpul] that is betrothed to Israel. This is stated by the verse: “He relates His words to Jacob, His hukim and mishpatim to Israel. He did not do this for any other nation; such mishpatim, they know them not.”⁸ “His words,” i.e., the Written Torah, “He relates” [communicated such that it enables the people to infer nuances from Scripture];⁹ on Lev. 18:5. The Hebrew word for “relate” is higid – which, according to the Mechilta on Yisro, means that God related the Torah in detail to the Israelites. “to Jacob,” the entire congregation of Jacob, [meaning that it was transferred exclusively to those who enter the congregation of Jacob];¹⁰ the Netziv cites Shemos Rabbah, parashah 30, regarding the convert Aquila (Onkelos), who told Caesar that he converted to Judaism so that he could understand the Torah well – as the Torah states: “He relates His words to Jacob.” “His hukim and mishpatim” – these are the [hukim], hermeneutical rules and methods of analysis [that result in the mishpatim, laws]; “He did not do so for any other nation” refers to “His words”; the [methodology which permits inferences of minutiae from] the Written Torah [were not made known to the other nations]. Even though they, [the nations of the world], know the Written Torah and [it was God’s] desire from the beginning that they should know the Written Torah, (for that is why the Torah was written in seventy languages, as stated in the seventh chapter of Tractate Sotah),¹¹ He did “relate” the Torah to them [as he had done for Israel]. The phrase “Such mishpatim, they know them not” does not exclude the hukim, the analytical rules¹²and mishpatim, they know them not.” [as the nations of the world] may study the hermeneutical rules [and understand them] at face value. However, they are unable to grasp the analysis such that they can apply them [to derive new mishpatim applicable] to daily life; thus, the Talmud was not made known to them.¹³ means to apply the hukim with the result of producing practical laws. In fact, this interpretation [of hukim and mishpatim] is clearly stated in the Jerusalem Talmud,¹⁴ 4:3. which is also cited by the Ran on Tractate Nedarim 37a, [while discussing the scope of the prohibition for compensating those who teach Torah, states:]

footnotes: ⁷ God first gave the pilpul method to Moshe and his descendants, and then Moshe generously gave it to all of Israel. ⁸ Psalms 147:19, 20. ⁹ These words were added based on the Netziv’s statements in Harhev Davar ¹⁰ In Harhev Davar, ¹¹ 35b. ¹² This is why the verse does not state, “Hukim ¹³ Mishpatim ¹⁴ Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Nedarim

One may argue that one is required even to teach Scripture and Targum¹⁵ gratuitously, therefore the Torah states: “[God commanded me at that time to teach you]hukim and mishpatim.”¹⁶ and mishpatim gratuitously, so you must teach the hukim and mishpatim gratuitously. You are to teach them hukim and mishpatim gratuitously, whereas you are not required to teach Scripture and Targum for free.

footnotes: ¹⁵ This is referring to Targum Onkelos, which gives the simple meaning of the verses. ¹⁶ Deut. 4:14. The Talmud interprets this verse as saying: Just as I, Moshe, taught you the hukim

We thus see that hukim and mishpatim refer to the Talmud. This [conclusion] is also strongly supported by the Sifrei on Deut. 12:1: “These are the statutes and judgments;” [the Sifrei says] that mishpatim refers to practical laws. Targum Onkelos also translates hukim in this verse as keyamayah, “that which is established,” [which means they are laws that are established by the rabbis].¹⁷ This is unlike the way hukim is translated by the Targum when used in the context of the verse “This is the hukas of the Passover offering”¹⁸ [which he translates as a decree.¹⁹: “counterintuitive laws.”] [Thus, the meaning of mishpatim and hukim varies depending on the context. Therefore, the reason that the sages, as stated in Bava Kamma, were able to teach Torah to two members of the Roman government is that they were only teaching the established laws of the Torah, whereas when Sanhedrin states that it is forbidden to teach non-Jews the Torah, it is referring to pilpul].

footnotes: ¹⁷ That is, “derived” by them and not “decrees.” ¹⁸ Ex. 21:43. ¹⁹ That is the usual translation of the word hukim

Now all of the previously cited [Biblical and Talmudic] statements are clear and can be resolved without any difficulty. [Returning to Tractate Yoma quoted in chapter 6: “The Torah writes zar, “alien,” which may also be read as zer, “crown.” If you are meritorious, the Torah becomes a crown for you; if you are not meritorious, it becomes alien to you”]. Clearly, the teachings that are referred to as zar, “alien,” are those that have already been received through tradition. Even though a person does not merit studying them for their own sake, nevertheless he [who has done so] has not sinned, though he does forget it, [which explains why it becomes zar, alien]. However, when Scripture states: “This is the law that Moshe presented before the Children of Israel,”²³ it is referring to the power of formulating novel concepts and applying pilpul.²⁴ If one does not merit to apply [pilpul] for its own sake, certainly it becomes for him an elixir of death. He has now formulated laws to be practiced – not in accordance with the truth, for he has formulated novel laws, not for the purpose of achieving the truth but [rather driven by] his will [and ulterior motives]. He has slanted pilpul to derive [incorrect] laws by stretching logic, and there is no greater evil than this.

footnotes: ²³ Deut. 4:44. ²⁴ An item that initially was only given to Moshe.

The Midrash Rabbah on Exodus, parasha 25, comments: [When the verse states], “His bread shall be given, his waters shall be trustworthy. Your eyes will behold a King in His beauty;”²⁵ [it is referring] to the Holy One, blessed be He, who commands those who study Torah. One should never say, “I heard” about anything that he did not hear. Never forbid others from doing that which you allow yourself. Let all the utterances that come from your mouth be reliable, as were those that came from Moshe, and I will make you behold His beauty face to face.

footnotes: ²⁵ Isa. 33:16–17.

“His bread shall be given” refers to what is received, i.e., learned from others. The meaning of the midrash is that regarding the given bread – the traditions that he says he received from his teachers – must be transmitted truthfully.²⁶ One must not say, “I heard [such and such]” about what he really did not hear. [The verse then continues] to exhort those who originate novel law, referred to by “his waters”; those [novelties] which he produces by himself “shall be trustworthy,” lacking any [influence from] his [personal] will. [If one relates correctly the traditions he received and originates properly novel law], “your eyes will behold a King in His beauty,” the Holy One, blessed be He, will reveal to him a “face” [a means]²⁷ may be translated as “face” or “manner of interpretation.” to determine the true Halachah. However, if he misapplies [pilpul], being influenced by his biases and personal desires, he incorrectly formulates Halachah, perverts the Halachah being taught to the masses, thus producing an elixir of death.

footnotes: ²⁶ The Midrash understands the phrase “His bread” to mean that God’s Torah must be transmitted truthfully. The word “trustworthy” also relates to the first part of the verse, “His bread.” Another possible source for this inference is that since the verse is written in the passive voice, the emphasis is placed on the bread (teaching) rather than on the person transmitting it. The bread (teaching) must remain pure and not become corrupted by anyone who handles it. ²⁷ The word panim

The previously cited aggada of Tractate Shabbos[63a]: “Those who go to the left hand [i.e., those who do not study the law for its own sake], ‘there are riches and honor,’ is referring to learning matters that have been received by others.²⁸, one receives lesser honor, but honor nonetheless. He is not causing others to sin. [Continuing to use this distinction of originating law vs. studying the received laws, we can] explain the previously cited [Tractate Shabbos 88b]:

footnotes: ²⁸ Since this Talmudic passage discusses laws that are received and not the application of pilpul

What is meant by “Hear, for I will speak princely things”?²⁹ Why are the words of the Torah compared to a prince? To tell you that just as a prince has power of life and death, so have the words of the Torah [the potentialities] of life and death. [Thus Rava said: “To those who go to the right hand [of the Torah], it is a medicine of life; to those who go to the left hand thereof, it is a deadly poison.]” He who originates new laws through the wisdom of analysis is comparable to a prince. Similar to a prince who directs others according to whatever crosses his mind, [even though it may not be ordered by the king],³⁰ so is the one who originates and produceslaws that have not yet been directed [by the King, i.e., God]. It is in this area that one has the potential to kill or to revive [the spiritually ill]. If, through the power of his analysis, he “goes to the left of the Torah” [not for its own sake] and produces laws that are not in accordance with the intended Halachah, then behold, he possesses the ability to kill.

footnotes: ²⁹ Prov. 8:6. ³⁰ A prince may order others to act against the king’s wishes, thus making them risk execution.

This is what Rava concluded in [the previously cited Yoma 72b]:³¹ was translated as “uses it skillfully.” “If he is uman bah” – upright and applies pilpul in an upright manner – “it is a medicine of life unto him.” We know the meaning of the word uman is “row,” [something that is straight], as [for example] in Tractate Peah4:5, it states: “One gives peah from each uman,” which is translated to mean that one gives peah from each row. Thus, for one who “is not uman bah” – in other words, one who does not apply pilpul to produce straight laws – “it is a deadly poison.” This interpretation aligns Rava’s [statement in Yoma] with the above mentioned statement of Rava [in Shabbos 88b], “For those who go to the right hand [of the Torah], it is a medicine of life; for those who go to its left hand, it is a deadly poison.”

footnotes: ³¹ See Chapter 6 where the phrase uman bah

Due to the merit of resolving the above mentioned explanations, we can also explain what is stated in Tractate Berachos 17a: A favorite saying of Rava was: “The goal of wisdom is repentance and good deeds, for a man should not study Torah and Mishnah and then rebel against his father and mother, his teacher and his superior in wisdom and rank. [This is what Scripture] says, ‘The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, good understanding to all oseihem – who perform them.’³² It does not say osim, ‘who perform’, but ‘oseihem,’ ‘who perform them,’ which implies that they perform them for their own sake and not for other motives. If one performs them for other motives, it were better that he had not been created.”

footnotes: ³² Psalms 111:10.

Rashi explains: The words, “for other motives” mean one who learns to “criticize and quarrel.” Rava in [Tractate Pesahim in the chapter entitled] Makom she-nahagu,³³ addresses a contradiction between two verses. One verse states, “For great until Heaven is Your kindness,”³⁴ and another verse cites, “For abovethe Heavens is Your kindness.”³⁵ Rava answers, “One verse is speaking of one who performs [a mitzvah] for its own sake, while the other verse is speaking of one who performs [a mitzvah] not for its own sake.” [Therefore, Rava in Pesahim] is referring to one who studies for the sake of receiving honor, [that is, untilHeaven, whereas in Berachos, Rava is speaking of one who studies in order to criticize and quarrel, thus being a person who should not have been created]. This interpretation seems [to be what is stated] in the Jerusalem Talmud. [This interpretation] is also provided by Tosafos there in Pesahim.³⁶.

footnotes: ³³ 50b. ³⁴ Psalms 57:11. ³⁵ Psalms 108:5. ³⁶ See Tosafos s.v. Ve-chan be-osem

However, in my humble opinion, it is difficult to explain “not for their own sake,” to mean “to criticize and quarrel” [for why did he not use those words explicitly?]. In addition, how could Rava [describe two extremes] – one who studies the Torah for its own sake and one who studies in order to criticize and quarrel? Would not [Rava] be skipping [the most common situation] ─ merely studying not for its own sake without a motive to criticize and quarrel?³⁷. [A further difficulty] is Rashi’s principal interpretation of one “who does not oseh, perform, for its own sake,” is to be translated as “one who does not study” does not fit well, as the Talmud should have stated osek, “involved in study,” [rather than oseh, “perform”]. True, the Talmud is quoting the words as stated in Scripture, but the question can be related to the Scriptural verse itself ─ if it is speaking of study, why does it employ the word, oseh, which denotes “performing?” [This question is strengthened] by the existence of another version of this talmudic statement [in Berachos 17a], where it notes, “Scripture did not state ‘good understanding to all who studythem,’ but ‘good understanding to all who performthem?’” [According to this version], Rashi’s interpretation [of the Talmud’s answer that the verse is referring to those who study in order to “criticize and quarrel”], does not really address the question [why the verse states “perform them” rather than “study them”]?

footnotes: ³⁷ Words have been added based on what the Netziv writes in Meromei Sadeh

If one wishes to [offer another] interpretation, that [according to this version] the Talmud is not referring to study, but to those who perform the mitzvos for their own sake [and Rava is stating that “if one performs them [the mitzvos] for other motives, it were better that he had not been created’], then one can ask why should it be if one performs the mitzvos not for their own sake, it is better that he had not been created? Is there not a well-known Talmudic statement that a person should be involved in the study of Torah and the performance of the mitzvos, even if he is not performing them for their own sake?³⁸ 50b. [Nor can Rashi’s interpretation be applied to this version to say that Rava is referring to one who performsthe mitzvos not for their own sake], for to say that one who performsmitzvos “to criticize and quarrel,” is not apt language.

footnotes: ³⁸ Pesahim

Rather, it appears that the proper interpretation of the Gemara explaining [Psalms 111:10] that proper study provides “good understanding to all oseihemis that it “provides a good understanding for those who produce them” – i.e., novel [laws and concepts] of the Torah. The Talmud, when explaining “If the verse had stated osim (perform) rather than oseihem (those who perform them),” should be interpreted this way: if the verse had written osim, “perform,” I would have explained the verse as referring to those who perform the mitzvos. However, since the verse stated oseihem [the word oseihem is not be translated as “perform them,” but as “produce them” – the verse is referring to one] who himself creates [the laws].

This is stated [by Rava] in Tractate Avodah Zarah 18:³⁹ At the beginning the Torah belongs only to the Holy One, blessed be He, but at the end it belongs to him [who studies it], for it is said, “But His desire is in the Torah of God, and in his [own] Torah he meditates day and night.”⁴⁰ [Meaning], it is as if the Torah is his, since he has produced [new laws] according to the will of the Holy One, blessed be He.’” For the Torah is at first referred to as “His desire,” and then as “he meditates” [and “meditates” means that he derives new laws].⁴¹ This [interpretation that la’asos and its derivatives can mean the creation of halachah is further supported] by what is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin 99b, [pertaining to one who teaches another’s son Torah: Scripture regards him as though he had created the words of the Torah, for it is written, “You will preserve the words of this beris [covenant], va-asisem – you will make – osam – them.’⁴² Do not read the last word of the verse as osam, “them,” but rather read it as atem, “yourselves.” See what I wrote in She’ilta 7:3 [that va-asisem is referring to the origination and establishment of halachah].⁴³ states that this verse refers to analyzing the Torah and protecting it. The Torah is preserved by teaching it to others and providing the students with the tools necessary to originate halachahon their own. Thus whatever halachahthe students originate it is as if it was created by the teacher. In the midrash on the Torah passage of *Be-hukosai,*⁴⁴ it states: “va-asisem,” and you will make them.’⁴⁵ If you guard the Torah I will consider it as if you had produced the commandments.”⁴⁶ is translated as “practicing the commandments,” the statement becomes repetitious, for if one guards the Torah, it is obvious that one is also practicing the commandments. Therefore, when Scripture states asisem, it means “you had created them.” However, when one originates a Halachah in sincerity, behold, he has created that law and this is the meaning of oseihem [in the verse: “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, good understanding to all oseihem, who make them.”⁴⁷ 17a. The fear of God helps ensure that good understanding is provided to those who originate laws in truth].

footnotes: ³⁹ I found it on 19a. ⁴⁰ Psalms 1:2. ⁴¹ Rashi explains “meditates” to mean the application of comparative logic and analysis. ⁴² Deut. 29:8. ⁴³ The She’iltos ⁴⁴ See Toras Kohanim and Midrash Tanhuma. ⁴⁵ Lev. 26:3. ⁴⁶ If the Toras Kohanim ⁴⁷ Psalms 111:10. See Berachos

[Addendum 2 to Chapter 8]⁴⁸ to originate law, to explain Tractate Shabbos 10a and the Ahavah rabbah prayer. TRACTATE SHABBOS 10A states: [“Moshe sat to judge the people, and the people stood by Moshe from the morning until evening.” Now, can you possibly think that Moshe sat and judged the entire day?] If so, when would his [Moshe’s], Torah na’ases, be done? Rather, any judge who renders a true judgment is considered by Scripture as if he became a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the act of Creation.” The Sheiltos¹ phrases this as, “When would hisTorah be studied and taught?” [We thus see that na’asesrefers to deep analysis in order to originate law]. This is the explanation of the words in the prayer [Ahava Rabbah], “Lishmor (to safeguard), la’asos (to make), u-lekayem (and to establish) all the words of your Torah’s teachings with love.” In other words: “safeguard” [by retaining] that which you have already learned; “make,” [derive] new laws, and “establish all the words of your Torah, etc.,” which means to establish the study of Torah throughout Israel. This is the inference of the Talmud [that la’asos means “to produce new laws”].

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The Netziv in Addendum 2 to Chapter 8 uses the definition of the word la’asos, ¹ She’ilta 51.

The Vayikra Rabbahon Kedoshim, parasha 28 states: [R. Huna and R. Yirmiyah said in the name of R. Hiya ben Abba]: “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will prepare a shade and canopies in the Garden of Eden for those who perform the precepts, accompanied by the students of the Torah.” And [R. Hiyya], has three texts to support him. (1) “For to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money”;⁴⁹ (2) “Fortunate is the man who oseh, creates this, and the son of man who strengthens her”;⁵⁰ (3) “She is a tree of life to those who strengthen her.”⁵¹

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Eccl. 7:12. ⁵⁰ Isa. 56:2. The word “strengthens” is also translated as “seizes.” ⁵¹ Prov. 3:18. The word “strengthens” is also translated here as “seizes.”

“Fortunate is the man who oseh, creates this,” refers to the Sages who oseh, “produce,” the Torah, as the word “this” refers to the Torah, [as seen from Num. 9:23], “And thisis the Torah that Moshe placed before the Children of Israel.” “And the son of man who strengthens her;” refers to he who supports those who study the Torah, so that they can produce [novel law]. [Such scholars can] deeply penetrate the Torah with their intellect, and study diligently with a clear mind, [since they do not have to worry how they will be able to support themselves]. We thus see that [the Midrash understands the word oseh] to be referring to those who possess the wisdom “to make” the Torah, i.e., those who originate novel law. See this [Midrash] discussed at greater length towards the end of chapter 10 [in this section].

[Returning to the previously cited Berachos 17a],⁵²’ [who perform them]. It does not say osim (‘who perform’) but oseihem (‘who perform them’), implying that they create them for their own sake and not for other motives. If one creates them for other reasons, it would be better had he not been created.” the other version which reads, “It does not say lomedeihem, ‘who study them,’ but ‘oseihem,’ ‘who perform them,’ which implies that they perform them for their own sake and not for other motives,” can now also be understood. The Talmud is saying that Scripture did not state lomedeihem, “who study them,” which implies studying that which has already been received, but ‘oseihem,’ “who create them,” meaning those who originate novel law. Pertaining to this, Rava concludes that [God provides good understanding] only to those who produce novel law for its own sake, and not to those who derive novel laws not for their own sake. If one produces law not for its own sake, for certain it would be better if he had not been created, as he inverts the words of the living God. In addition, this conclusion is derived from the verse, “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Heaven” – that is, the fear of Heaven should precede wisdom for [the fear of Heaven] provides good understanding for all who produce Halachah.

footnotes: ⁵² “‘The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; good understanding to all oseihem

On the other hand, those who study the received law without originating new laws, even when they are not performed for their own sake, even without the fear of Heaven – does not involve, Heaven forbid, any evil. This appears to be the interpretation of Tractate *Berachos.*⁵³ 17a should be translated as: “[Scripture] says, ‘The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, good understanding to all oseihem.’ It does not say osim, but ‘oseihem’ [from which we infer that it is to be translated as] ‘who make them,’ implying that they produce them [the laws] for their own sake and not for other motives. If one produces them for other motives, it would be better had he not been created.”

footnotes: ⁵³ Berachos

[Returning to] the baraisa of R. Ba’na’ah in Ta’anis 7a, [If one studies the Torah not for its own sake, it becomes a deadly poison for him, as Scripture states, ‘Lik’hi – my portion [teachings] – ya’arof [shall drop] like the rain.’⁵⁴ understands this word to be referring to Moshe. Ya’arof also denotes killing, as it states, ‘Ve-arefu – and they shall break the heifer’s neck.”⁵⁵ One can certainly explain, as did Tosafos, [that R. Bana’a] is speaking of a contentious person. However, one can suggest that he is also speaking of one who is involved in the sharp debates and creation of the Torah, similar to the way it was explained in the numerous above mentioned statements [of Rava]. That is, [R. Bana’a] understands the phrase “Lik’hi [my teachings] ya’arof [shall drop] like the rain” to refer to producing novel law. It is clear to me based on what I wrote in another location⁵⁶, Deut. 32:2, that lik’hi can also be translated as “my purchase,” referring to the deep analysis of halachahachieved through much toil. He bases this interpretation on Shemos Rabbah, Parashas Yisro, Parasha 28, stating that the Torah was given to Moshe “for a price;” the price being that Moshe neither ate, drank, nor slept for forty days. that “my portion” refers to Moshe’s portion, which we explained above [is the art of pilpul which originally was transmitted by God only to Moshe].

footnotes: ⁵⁴ Deut. 32:2. The word “my” is written in lower case, since, according to the Netziv, Tractate Ta’anis ⁵⁵ Deut. 21:4. ⁵⁶ The Netziv writes in Ha’amek Davar

The conclusion from all that we explained above is that one who is blessed by God [with the ability] to originate laws must be extremely careful to do so only for their own sake, preceded by the fear of Heaven.

In the Midrash Rabbah on Exodus, parasha 19, it states, It is written: “Let my heart be undivided in your hukim [statutes] in order that I may not be put to shame.”⁵⁷ David said: “Lord of the universe! When I occupy myself with Your statutes, let not the Tempter have power to influence me, as it says: ‘Teach me, God, Your way, that I may walk in Your truth; [unite my heart to revere Your Name].’”⁵⁸

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Psalms 119:80. ⁵⁸ Psalms 86:11.

)The Midrash is proving that one cannot explain the phrase “Let my heart be undivided” to mean that David was praying he perform the statutes absent of improper thoughts. We know from what David requested elsewhere, in similar language, [“Unite my heart”], as a prayer that God should “teach” him His ways; in other words, his learning [of the hukim,“analytical rules”] should enable him to achieve the truth.(

[The Midrash continues], “Prevent my evil inclination from leading me astray and embarrassing me before the righteous.” )It explains the last words of the verse, “in order that I may not be put to shame,” to mean that David was asking that he not be embarrassed before the righteous if he makes an error, since the evil inclination leads people astray in halachic matters due to personal motives).⁵⁹

footnotes: ⁵⁹ David was concerned that his error would reveal to the righteous how his Torah study was driven by selfish motives.

[The Midrash continues], “Moreover, if it [the evil inclination] misleads me, I will neglect the study of the Torah, and when I proclaim my learning before You and those lesser than I am, they will say to me: “It is not so.” As a result, I will be put to shame. I beseech You, therefore, to make my heart whole so that I may occupy myself with the Torah in integrity.’” (The Midrash explains that David was also requesting that he not be put to shame before the students. For if he would not originate new laws for their own sake, his personal motives would lead him astray. For when he comes to describe the formation of his novel laws and derivations before his students, they will recognize his error more than he, as they will be lacking [the same personal motives as David] that would “blind their eyes.” Since he [will have been influenced by personal gain], it will result in [him] becoming embarrassed, and this will restrain him from teaching them Torah [in the future]).

It is written in Proverbs 12:8, “A man is praised according to his intelligence; but he that is of a distorted understanding shall be despised.” According to the commentaries,⁶⁰ “shall be despised,” is connected to the phrase, “he that possesses a distorted understanding.” [However], according to this interpretation], the end of the verse is not parallel to the beginning of the verse, [since the beginning of the verse deals with a proportional nature, that a man is praised according to the level of his intelligence, and then it states that if he is of “distorted understanding he shall be despised,” which is not proportional].⁶¹ Rather, the verse’s proper interpretation is that “shall be despised” is connected to “according to his intelligence,” and this is how the verse should be translated: [“A man is praised according to his intelligence; but when combined with distorted understanding, he shall be despised.”]⁶² In other words, he who possesses a distorted understanding and distorts the law due to personal motives will be despised proportional to his intelligence. The greater one is [in intellect,] the more he can mislead others, for he brings down the strongholds [of the Torah] by trusting in his [superior] intellect.⁶³

footnotes: ⁶⁰ See Rashi ad. loc. ⁶¹ The Netziv is arguing that the manner in which this verse is being translated does not conform to the style of Proverbs, which employs parallelism. See Introduction to Proverbs by the Soncino Press, which summarizes the different forms of parallelism used in Proverbs: 1. Synonymous – the second clause repeating the thought of the first clause in different words. For example: “The evil bow before the good, and the wicked at the gates of the righteous” (14:19); 2. Antithetic – the second clause presents a contrast to the first. For example: “A merry heart is a good medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones” (17:22); 3. Synthetic – the second clause continues the thought of the first. For example: “It is the discretion of a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to pass over a transgression” (19:11); 4. Comparative – the point of the lesson is made clear by the use of comparison. For example: “As vinegar to the teeth and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them who send him” (10:26). ⁶² It is an aphorism written in the synthetic style. ⁶³ This last statement is a play on the words used in Prov. 21:22, “A wise man scales the city of the mighty and brings down the stronghold wherein it trusts.”