HaMaayan/The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Parashat Eikev Volume V, Number 41 (227) 23 Menachem-Av 5751/August 3, 1991 "Sheni D'Nechemata" Parasha Overview As Moshe's farewell address continues, this week's Parasha emphasizes repeatedly the conditional nature of all of the blessings that G-d has promised us through Moshe. This is stated at the Parasha's beginning - "It will happen in exchange for your acceptance of the Mitzvot" (Onkelos) - and at its end - "And it will come to pass if you will listen..." Similarly, we must never forget from whence all blessings come. The Torah warns, "Lest you eat and be satiated... and your heart become haughty and you forget Hashem your G-d." Rather, remember that "It is G-d who gives strength to do great deeds." ************************************ "And you will eat, and you will be satiated, and you shall bless Hashem your G-d..." (Devarim 8:10) In his work on Torah-derived table manners, the 14th century sage R' Bachya ben Asher writes: When one finishes eating he should remain at the table for some time, as Chazal said (Berachot 54b), "If one extends his meal his life will be extended." Why? Because the longer a person sits at the table, the greater the likelihood that a poor person will chance by and will be fed. In this vein, we find a verse (Yechezkel 41:22) where the words "altar" and "table" are used interchangeably, and Chazal explain that just as one's sins are atoned for upon the altar, so they are forgiven when one feeds the poor at his table. (So great is this Mitzvah, writes R' Bachya, that some people have their coffins built from wood of their table so that the boards can "testify" on their behalf before the Heavenly court.) One is obligated to say "Divrei Torah" (Torah thoughts) while sitting at the table. Chazal taught (Avot, ch.3) that if one eats at a table where Divrei Torah are said it is as if he has eaten at G-d's table, but if he eats at a table where no Divrei Torah are said it is as if he ate from sacrifices brought before idols. Why such harsh words? To teach man that he was not created in order to eat and to drink, but in order to study Torah. (Shulchan Shel Arbah) ********************************** "And you shall teach them to your sons, to speak about them..." (Devarim 11:9) Rashi writes: "'To speak about them' - From the time that your son knows how to speak, teach him Torah (for example, the verse, 'Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Israel'). The purpose of this is to accustom the child to devote his speech to Torah." Ramban interprets this verse similarly, asking, "What is the difference between the command in our verse and that found in last week's Parasha, "And you shall repeat them to your sons, and you shall speak of them"? The answer is that the earlier verse contains two separate commands: The first, that a man should teach his sons Torah, and second, that one's speech should be devoted to Torah. However, how do we know the extent of a father's obligation? This is learned from our verse, stating that "you shall teach them to your sons, to speak about them," meaning, that a father must ensure that his sons devote their speech to Torah. (R' Shmuel Deutsch, Birkat Kohen section 85) *********************************** Last week we defined the study method known as "Pilpul" and described some of the forms that it has taken over the past 3,000 years. This week we examine the Pilpul schools in 16th and 17th century Poland and the passionate opposition which they aroused. At the center of this controversy was R' Yaakov Pollak, who was Rosh Yeshiva, first in Prague, then in Cracow, and finally, in Lublin. Upon his death in 1530, he was succeeded by his student R' Shalom Shachna (d. 1558), also a leading exponent of Pilpul. (R' Shalom's student and son-in-law was R' Moshe Isserless ("Rema") whose Halachic decisions are considered binding on all Ashkenazic Jews. He was not an advocate of Pilpul.) As no name is more closely associated with Pilpul that R' Yaakov Pollak's, it is ironic that we have no idea what branch of the Pilpul school he belonged to. He left no written works, in part (it has been suggested) because the primary benefit of a Pilpul discourse is obtained from constructing it, rather than from remembering it. Thus relatively few samples of Pilpul survive. Much better known than Pilpul's exponents are those who opposed it, and chief among these was R' Yehuda Loewe, the "Maharal of Prague". Maharal was expert in every area of Torah study, and his dozens of published and unpublished works cover Talmud, Halacha, Aggadah, philosophy, ethics, Kabbalah, and Chumash, but the saw no place in the Yeshiva for Pilpul. Other opponents (to varying degrees) of Pilpul include "Maharshal", "Shelah HaKodesh" and his son, R' Sheftel, R' Ephraim Lunshitz (author of the Torah commentary Kli Yakar), "Bach", and "Maharsha". The primary benefits of Pilpul were said to be two. Firstly, it sharpened the minds of the students, teaching them logic and analysis which they could use in their future studies. Secondly, supporters of Pilpul argued that it attracted people to Torah study, because it gave young students the opportunity to compete with each other and to demonstrate their success. Some even argued that the emergence of Pilpul was directly responsible for Poland's development from a spiritual wasteland to a one of the world's greatest Torah centers in the short span of one century. Pilpul's opponents generally did not dispute these factual assertions, but they questioned whether they were worthwhile goals. Of what use is a sharp mind if the student spends all of his time analyzing a small amount of material, and does not bother to broaden his horizons and study new tractates and other works? Furthermore, where would all of this analysis lead? Even (most of) Pilpul's supporters acknowledged practical Halachic questions, for Pilpul involved so much hair-splitting that the individual strands of a discourse were left perilously thin. Regarding Pilpul's power to draw students to Torah, the opponents argued that this was not a positive development. Since these students would spend their whole lives practicing Pilpul, not studying Gemara and Halacha, what was gained? To the contrary, in 16th century Poland, the general population looked down on those who were versed in large portions of the Torah and glorified those who could produce a clever discourse, and thus young men were discouraged from serving their communities in the Rabbinate. (Prospective fathers-in-law, too, were more interested in a young man's clever tongue than in his knowledge.) Pilpul schools still exist, although their popularity is greatly diminished compared to 300 years ago. This development is due in part to the opposition to Pilpul of most of the greatest sages of the last three centuries. Next week we will examine the alternative study plan of one of those opponents, the Maharal of Prague. *********************************** The learning schedule for this Shabbat is: Daily Mishnah Arachin 2:5-6 (Learn two Mishnayot every day) Daily Halacha Orach Chaim (Mishnah Berura) 301:22-24 (Learn three paragraphs each day) Daf Yomi Shekalim 21 (Learn two sides of a page each day) Mazal Tov to Daf Yomi participants who will complete Tractate Shekalim on Sunday. Please join them in beginning Tractate Yoma on Monday. Pirkei Avot Chapter 4 (Learn one chapter each Shabbat afternoon during the summer) ************************************* The hard copy distribution of this week's HaMaayan is sponsored by: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Hirsh in honor of the birth of Aliza Yaffa Hirsh ******************** Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get on or off the direct email mailing list. Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet