Trusting the
Torah’s Sages
Rav
Shimshon Raphael Hirsch
Originally a letter written in 1876 to Rabbi Pinchas
M.E. Wechsler, published in 1976 in the Jerusalem journal Hama’ayan.
Translated by Yehoshua Leiman in Light Magazine, Numbers 191-195 (Volume
XIV:1-5) in 1978. Reproduced in Two Giants Speak, (Jerusalem: Neve
Yerushalayim College, 1994). Here is an extract.
What Chazal Knew and What We Know
Teach Contemporary Science
What do we tell our pupils
when they discover in the words of Chazal statements that do not agree with
contemporary secular knowledge, particularly with the natural sciences which
have made tremendous forward strides since ancient times?
Before us lies a paved road
that protects our pupils from stumbling-blocks, and I think it is the true
road.
First of all, we are not to
keep the pupils from studying these subjects. On the contrary, we are to teach
them the methodology of these subjects in a satisfactory and enlightening manner.
For only the masses who neither know nor understand the methodology of these
disciplines believe all the boasts of our contemporaries that this generation
is the wisest of all and that all of nature - in the heavens and on earth - has
been revealed to the contemporary sages who from the peaks of their wisdom
look down upon all preceding generations.
But one who knows and
understands how these disciplines function, knows and understands that while it
is true that contemporary scholars deserve honor and glory in many matters
that they have demonstrated - measured, weighed, or counted - that were unknown
in earlier generations; nevertheless the theories built upon these
observations are for the most part no more than very shaky guesses. New
hypotheses are proposed daily. What is praised today as unalterable truth, is
questioned tomorrow and then ignored. Each is different from the others, but
they all have no solid foundation.
Similarly, there are
statements in the works of the ancient nations that only 50 to 100 years ago
were laughed at or denounced as lies by the wise men of the generation,
whereas today’s scholars recognize that there is some truth in them. There are
matters of wisdom that were known to the ancients which have been lost and are
unknown to the contemporaries. Consequently if we find statements in the works
of the ancients that contradict the estimates of our contemporaries, we cannot
decide instantly that the former are lies and that the latter are definitely
right.
Sages of Torah, not Masters of Science
In my opinion, the first
principle that every student of Chazal’s statements must keep before his eyes
is the following: Chazal were the sages of G-d’s law - the receivers, transmitters,
and teachers of His toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws.
They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or
medicine - except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and
fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to
them from Sinai.
Nowadays too it is enough
for the non-specialist to know about any of these areas of knowledge whatever
contemporary experts teach that is generally accepted as true. This applies to
the lawyer vis-a-vis all other areas, to the mathematician and the
astronomer regarding the natural sciences, and to the expert on flora
regarding all other areas. We expect none of them to seek out the truth and
satisfy his inclinations in any field other than his own specialty.
Moreover, even in the area
where one is an expert, it is neither possible for him nor expected of him to
know everything through personal investigation and experience. Most of his
knowledge rests upon the investigations of others. If they have erred it is not
his fault. It is sufficient and praiseworthy if his knowledge encompasses all
that is accepted as true at his time and place and generation. The greatness of
his wisdom is in no way belittled if in a later generation it is discovered
that some of the things he maintained or accepted on the authority of others
are unreliable. The same is true for Chazal in these areas. The greatest of
them knew all the wisdom and science of all the great non-Jewish scholars whose
wisdom and teachings became famous in their generations.
They Were Up-to-Date
Imagine if a scholar such
as Humboldt had lived in their times and had traveled to the ends of the world
for his biological investigations. If upon his return he would report that in
some distant land there is a humanoid creature growing from the ground or that
he found mice that had been generated from the soil and had in fact seen a
mouse that was half earth and half flesh, and his report had been accepted by
the world as true, wouldn’t we expect Chazal to discuss the Torah aspects that
apply to these instances? What laws of defilement and decontamination apply to
these creatures? Or would we expect them to go on long journeys to find out
whether what the world has accepted is really true? And if, as we see things
today, these instances are considered fiction, can Chazal be blamed for ideas that
were accepted by the naturalists of their times? And this is what really
happened. These statements are to be found in the works of Pliny, who lived in
Rome at the time the Second Temple was destroyed, and who collected in his
books on nature all that was well-known and accepted in his day.
The Talmud in Bova Kama declares
“A human spine, after seven years, turns into a snake; this applies only if he
did not kneel at Modim. “ Anyone who reads this finds it laughable, but
Pliny says the same statement almost word for word, “After a number of years
the human spine turns into a snake.” Chazal, however, used this to teach a
mussor lesson. To any mind it is clear that every similarly surprising
statement of Chazal, if we look into it, was accepted as true by the scholars
of the time.
We find that Chazal
themselves considered the wisdom of the gentile scholars equal to their own in
the natural sciences. To determine who was right in areas where the gentile
sages disagreed with their own knowledge, they did not rely on their tradition but
on reason. Moreover they even respected the opinion of the gentile scholars,
admitting when the opinion of the latter seemed more correct than their own. In
the Talmud we learn:
The Jewish sages said, “By
day the sun passes beneath the firmament and at night above it.” The sages of
the nations maintained, “By day beneath the firmament and at night beneath the
ground.” And Rabi said, “Their opinion seems more correct than ours. “
To my thinking, this
clearly proves what I have been saying. This is my approach to the study of
these areas with my limited faculties. If I have erred, may HaShem forgive my
errors.
Learn to Say, "I do not know"
I wish to add one more
point - in my opinion an essential rule for every person who teaches our holy
Torah, whether Tanach or Halachah or Agadah. That is: Get into the habit of
saying, "I don't know.” It is not within a teacher's power nor is it his
obligation - to know everything and to resolve every difficulty. Even Chazal left
a number of matters unresolved, all the more so lesser people like ourselves.
Let us admit unashamedly before our pupils, 'This is something we do not
know."
We must be extremely
cautious not to create a forced explanation for a verse or a statement in
Agadah or a statement in the Talmud simply in order to cover our ignorance.
When we admit that we do not know, our pupils learn to humble themselves
before the wisdom of Chazal and all the more so before the statements of G-d
and the expressions of His holy spirit.
Is Agadah from Sinai?
A Dangerous Approach
You are of the opinion that
the agados were received [by Moshe from G-d] at Sinai, and that there is
no distinction in this respect between them and the halachic statements that
were transmitted. As far as my limited mind can grasp, this is a dangerous
approach that poses a grave danger for the pupils who grow up believing this
concept. For it very nearly opens the gates of heresy before them.
What should these wretches
do if they hear from their teachers today, “Agadic statements were transmitted
at Sinai just like the main body of Torah,” and then they discover the declarations
of the greatest of our early talmudic commentators (rishonim) upon whom
all of Jewry relies - in which one of them says, “Agadic statements are not
articles of faith but reasonable assumptions,” and another says, ‘They were
stated as exaggerations,” or “as one man speaks to another, making statements
that are not intended to be true but to entertain their listener for a while,”
or “They narrated what they had dreamed,” or “Learn from [Agadah] only things
that make sense,” and so on? What are these wretches to do when they read these
and similar declarations about statements they were taught by their teachers to
believe came from Sinai with no difference between them and the main body of
Torah?
The Road to Life
They will find themselves
in great spiritual danger, ready to reject both equally and to accept only what
their little brains comprehend. It would be better for them not to study Torah
and mitzvos in depth and simply to keep mitzvos by rote rather
than tread this dangerous path! Which is why it is my humble opinion that we
are not to budge from the road to life shown us by our rishonim when
they made a major and intrinsic distinction between statements made as
transmissions from G-d to Moshe and statements made as Agadah. Their very names
speak for themselves. The former were transmitted from master to disciple, and
their original source is a human ear hearing from the mouth of Moshe who heard
at Sinai. The latter, though transmitted from master to disciple (for many
agadic statements are introduced by a disciple in the name of his master and
sometimes even in the name of the master’s master), have their origin in what
the originating scholar stated as his own opinion in accord with his broad
understanding of Tanach and the ways of the world, or as statements of mussor
and fear of G-d to attract his audience to Torah and mitzvos.
You cite statements in Yalkut
Shim’oni, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Maseches Soferim, all of which
imply that agadic statements were told to Moshe at Sinai. You also point out
that the Talmud forbids men in a certain state of defilement to study Agadah
as well as Halachah.
What Is Agadah?
Allow me to posit a general
principle: agadic statements are surely not ordinary or irrelevant statements.
They are extremely precious statements which are surely pertinent to the
intention of the Torah’s Giver, blessed is He. For, beyond the study and
transmission of the details of Jewish practice so that Jewry should know how to
act, every scholar to whom G-d grants the ability to do so, draws wisdom and
mussor from the well of Torah and mitzvos according to his time and
place, and according to his understanding and talents, in order to draw Jewish
hearts to love of G-d and of His Torah. These are the darshonim of every
generation.38 In his lectures, each of them develops his unique style in accord
with his nature and spirit. There is no doubt that this form of expression is
acceptable to G-d so long as it does not stray from the way of truth and uprightness.
It is acceptable and part of His intention from the very giving of His Torah,
when He informed Moshe of these aspects of Torah, too - but in a general way,
without going into all the details that some scholar might at some time express
publicly in a lecture. He transmitted it generally so that each scholar could
develop his own ideas and produce fresh flowers in the garden of Torah and mitzvos
to please G-d and man. It is no wonder that defiled men may not learn
Agadah any more than Halachah, for agadic statements are as a whole considered
part of Torah and most of them are based on verses in Tanach.
You cite from the Talmud
that agadic works are categorized as Oral Torah which it was forbidden to put
in writing. But this does not mean that they originated at Sinai. Many
statements were not made at Sinai, yet were forbidden to be put into writing.
These include every new insight (chidush) the Sages discovered based on
their own reasoning; laws they established for situations that arose in their
times; commentaries, distinctions, and derivations that they arrived at in
order to clarify halachos; as well as all their amendments and decrees.
It is clear that the lesson of “kesov lecho ess hadevorim hoeileh write
these things for yourself,” means that “these” you put in writing but you do
not put into writing anything else related to Torah, including agados.
Traditions That Are Not from Sinai
You write that there are
[agadic] statements about which it is impossible to say that Chazal invented
them, such as the statement by Rabbi Yochonon bar Chanina41 that the earth for
Adam HoRishon was piled up during the first hour of the morning, etc.,
particularly since [you say,] a major area of Halachah is based on this
statement: the computation of the new moons. Similarly, many other midroshim
have no basis or root in Tanach, nor are they logically inferable; they
must surely be traditions transmitted from master to disciple.
You are surely right in
saying that there are many statements which those who related them did not
arrive at by their own reasoning, but had received from their masters. This is
particularly true for historical incidents such as the stories of Avrohom in
Ur Kasdim or the life of Moshe before he was chosen to be G-d’s emissary, and
similar stories. A clear proof of this is that we find agadic stories recounted
by later talmudic sages (amoro’im) which are found almost word for word
in the writings of Philo of Alexandria who lived several hundred years before
them at the time of the Second Temple. Yet even these stories need not have
been transmitted from Sinai, but could have been part of the national heritage
from earlier generations. It seems reasonable to assume that historical
details were transmitted from the earliest generations - those of Adam, Enosh,
Noach, and Eiver to Avrohom and from him to his descendants.
Nevertheless, to my limited
intelligence, it seems impossible to swear that all those stories are true and
to compare them to those told by Moshe and the other prophets. Some of them may
have been stated as parables for some mussor or intellectual purpose.
And even if someone were to say that the tales of Avrohom’s early life with
Terach and Nimrod in Ur Kasdim were parables inferred from Avrohom’s having
recognized his Creator at the age of three and from HaShem’s statement “I am
HaShem who took you out of Ur Kasdim,” one could not invalidate his position. I
can demonstrate that. According to the opinion in Chazal that Avrohom did not
convert until he was 48 or older there is no room for any of these stories; if
they had been accepted by Jewry as Torah truth, there would be no way to set
his conversion at so late a date. Do not be surprised at this [contradiction],
for even about the story of Iyov some of Chazal maintain that it was only a
parable to teach wisdom, mussor, and fear of G-d in the form of a lofty
story that tugs at people’s hearts.
Impossible?
It seems to me that this
applies as well to the statement you cited about the day of Adam’s creation.
You write that it is impossible for Chazal to have made this statement without
a genuine tradition, particularly since a major area of Halachah -calculating
lunar and solar cycles - is based on this statement.
It seems possible that this
statement was made, not as the report of an incident that really took place,
but was derived agadically from the verse, “V’odom biykor bal yolin.” I
can demonstrate that this is reasonable. The preceding statement of Rav Osha’ya
quoting Rav is no more than a reasonable guess; see Rashi there. I recall
having seen some sage wonder about Rabbi Yochonon ben Chanina’s statement: “How
can you say that the creation of Adam was begun immediately at the beginning of
the sixth day? Didn’t the creation of animals, beasts, and crawling creatures
precede Adam on that very day?” He thus demonstrates that Rabbi Yochonon bar
Chanina’s statement was not made to teach history but is an Agadah that
teaches a moral or intellectual lesson.
According to Rabbi Shelomo
Ibn Aderes in his commentary to the Agados, the agadah of the moon’s
protesting and being punished is only a parable to teach us wisdom and mussor.
Is this reason to, G-d forbid, undermine the basis for determining our
months and our yomim tovim? This seems to be conclusive evidence of the
truth of my position.
Further Proofs Are Not Convincing
You point to the 32
principles by which Agadah is derived, one of which is “parallel texts” (gezeirah
shovah) which no person may originate, but for which he must have a
transmitted tradition. You wish to demonstrate from this that agadic statements
were transmitted from Sinai. Forgive me, but we have no evidence that the
principle that no one may originate his own gezeirah shovah applies to
agadic statements. If you will take the trouble to study the borysa-text
listing the 32 principles, you will find that most of its statements speak of midroshim
of Nevi’im and Kesuvim, and that the midroshim cited
for the principle of gezeirah shovah are all either on Nevi’im or
Kesuvim or to derive Torah laws from statements in Nach (which cannot be
done with the 13 [halachic] principles of Rabbi Yishmoel). It is absolutely
impossible to say that these midroshim were transmitted at Sinai.
