Netziv on the Historical Development of Torah Learning
MODERN RABBINIC
THOUGHT
By Rav
This shiur is
dedicated in memory of
our beloved father Harry Meisels (Elchanan ben
Yitzchak) z"l
whose
yahrzeit falls on 26 Adar the Meisels family.
Shiur #16: Netziv on the Historical Development of
Torah Learning
Netziv repeatedly emphasizes the significance of talmud Torah in
his writings. He portrays the study
of Torah as an omnipresent aspect of Jewish life dating back to the time of the
patriarchs. A critic might
justifiably see the insertion of Torah study into the biblical narrative as a
historical anachronism. On the
other hand, R. Berlin exhibits an acute sense of historical development in his
theory regarding the history of Torah learning. He discusses these ideas several times
in his Torah commentary, but the most extended treatment appears in the first
part of Kidmat Ha-emek, the introduction to his commentary on the
Sheiltot of R. Achai Gaon.
We shall outline that general presentation and then utilize selections
from Haamek Davar to help to complete the picture.
I. Accepted Laws and
Debated Laws
According to R. Berlin, the biblical phrase eish dat
(Devarim 33:2; literally, fiery law) refers to two types of Torah
content. Dat represents
the clear and unambiguous laws of our tradition. Eish, fire, an element that
dynamically spreads, stands for the more creative analysis that produces new
rulings. Over the course of time,
the sages sometimes reach a consensus on an issue previously in doubt, and what
was eish becomes dat.[1] Once that definitively occurs, the
rejected position can no longer be utilized even during times of duress.
This theory enables Netziv to offer an innovative interpretation of the
Talmudic phrase, gemara gemiri la. This unclear phrase appears many times
in the Talmud. As an example, in Yoma 32a the gemara uses this term to
explain how we know that the High Priest immerses himself five times on Yom
Kippur. Rashi comments that this
phrase implies a tradition going back to Moshe at Sinai. Rashis approach generates some
difficulties since, the gemara also derives the number of immersions from a
biblical verse. Tosafot wonder why
we need both a tradition from Sinai and a biblical derivation. Netziv explains that gemiri
does not refer to a tradition from Sinai, but rather to a halakhic position that
became dat over the years.
Since it is now a fixed and clear position, it resembles a law from
Sinai. However, it could have been
derived from a verse at an earlier point in Jewish history when the ruling was
still subject to debate.
R. Berlin argues that his interpretation helps elucidate Rambams
position on this matter. When Rambam discusses laws from Sinai in the
introduction to his commentary on the Mishna, all his examples are cases where
the gemara applies the terminology halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai or
be-emet amru in reference to the law. Rambam cites no examples where the
gemara uses the term gemiri.
According to Netziv, Rambam does not cite any gemiri
examples because they do not reflect rulings dating back to Sinai.
This idea also
explains how Rambam can say (Hilkhot Tumat Met 2:16) that ritual
impurity caused by different parts of the stone structure of a tomb is
divrei soferim (words of the Sages), even though one opinion in
the gemara (Chullin 62a) says that we know about such impurity because
hilkheta gemiri la.
According to Netziv, the rabbis established this law, but it
subsequently became so widely accepted that we could apply the term
gemiri to this ruling.[2]
This idea also explains a difficult gemara in Gittin (60a-b) that
records a debate whether the majority of Torah is written or oral. This debate seems spurious, since it is
obvious that the quantity of Oral Law far outstrips the halakhic material
explicitly stated in the Chumash.
R. Berlin suggests that this gemara does not consider all of Torah, but
only those parts of Torah that have become clearly determined law, or
dat. Regarding such
material, we can debate whether the oral or written component is larger.[3]
II. Modes of Torah
Study
The difference between eish and dat finds expression in
two modes of learning. One method
does not engage in painstaking and creative analysis. Rather, practitioners of this approach
emphasize received traditions. When
a new case emerges, they rely on divine inspiration to make an ad hoc
ruling. The second approach lacks
divine help and may be less well-versed in the traditional material, but is deep
and creative in its reasoning. It
employs the rabbinic hermeneutical principles to arrive at novel
conclusions. Obviously, each
approach has advantages and disadvantages.
The tribes of Levi and Yehuda reflect these two methodologies. Levi teaches the laws to the Jewish
people (Devarim 33:10) through the first method. The
In contrast, when
Yaakov blesses Yehuda, he mentions the lawgiver between his feet
(Bereishit 49:10).
This alludes to Yehudas Torah decisions, the product of ongoing
intellectual investigation. Success
in this method requires intellectual discourse with peers and students who sit
on the floor near the legs of the teacher.[4] Not coincidentally, those involved with
the Ark of the Covenant, which symbolizes Torah, stem from these two
tribes. Betzalel from the tribe of
Yehuda fashions the ark, and the Levites carry it.[5]
The Torah passage
about rabbinic authority and the rebellious elder also mentions these two
models, as it alternates between referring to the judge and to the priest
(Devarim 17: 9, 12).
Rabbinic authority encompasses both the intuitive inspired rulings of the
priest and the analytic creativity of the judge.[6] If the category of rebellious elder
applies to someone who publically rejects either kind of ruling, then both
methods of deciding are clearly authoritative.
III. Different
Methods in Different Historical Periods
Different methods
reigned during various eras in Jewish history. The
This all changed at
the time of King Yoshiyahu. He
understood that exile was imminent and that the old method of learning would not
be feasible outside of the
The rebuilding of the
This divide explains
some of the differences between the Talmud Bavli and the Talmud
Yerushalmi. The former is more
complex due to a heavier emphasis on the analytic method. Since each approach has advantages, the
gemara can indicate a preference for scholars from the
This divide does not
end with the sealing of the Talmud.
Gaonic works tend to summarize definitive halakhic rulings. In the Middle Ages, the French and
German Tosafot picked up the mantle of the Babylonians and excelled in analytic
creativity. Both approaches are
worthy contributions to Torah study, but Netziv does seem to wax more eloquent
about Tosafots contribution. He
mentions religious persecutions as a factor that prevented the Geonim from
continuing the Babylonian method.[11]
IV. Additional
Insights
In Haamek
Davar R. Berlin adds quite a few important points. God gave Moshe the more creative
analytic method at Sinai, but Moshe did not initially transmit this method to
the entire Jewish people. Lacking this method, the people could only deal with
novel scenarios through the method of analogy. They would have to compare a new case
with a definite ruling in the tradition.
They did not yet have the creative resources that come with the
hermeneutical principles.
On the plains of
Moav, in Sefer Devarim, Moshe explains this second method to the people
as well. The verse ke-khol
asher tziva Hashem oto aleihem (Devarim 1:3) conveys this
notion. What was once only taught
to Moshe (oto) will now be given to the entire nation
(aleihem). When the
gemara (Chagiga 6b) refers to the Torah being repeated at the plains of
Moav, it was not merely a review session but rather the addition of a new
dimension to Torah study. The sins
of the golden calf and the spies clarified that the Jewish people would
experience exile, and therefore they would need the creative method to
survive.[12] Netziv contends that the forty years in
the desert prepared the people for future exiles.[13] Apparently, that preparation culminated
in the acquisition of a different approach to Torah
learning.
Why does the Levi
approach not work in exile? We have
already mentioned one answer, namely, that outside of the
As mentioned, the
sins of the desert motivated the diffusion of the creative method. R. Berlin argues that this is manifest
in the difference between the first and second set of luchot (tablets of
the Law). The first were fashioned
by God alone, but the second were engraved by Moshe (Shemot 34:1). This does not just mean a change in
construction strategy but a dramatic shift in the entire method of Torah
study. The creativity of the new
method demands greater human ingenuity and input.
This interpretation
helps Netziv explain an enigmatic Gaonic comment. Ibn Ezra cites one of the Geonim as
saying that the second luchot were more significant than the first. This seems difficult, as the first were
made by God. Indeed, Ibn Ezra
vociferously rejects the Gaons position.[15] Netziv explains this by distinguishing
between types of evaluations. We
can compare the two sets of tablets either from the perspective of sanctity
(kadosh) or from the perspective of honor (mechubad). Sanctity depends upon God, so the first
luchot are clearly more kadosh. However, that does not make them more
useful or more significant. It is
only the greater human involvement in the Oral Law, represented by the second
set of luchot, that enables us to survive during many years of
exile. Thus, the Gaon had good
reason to give prominence to the second set of tablets.[16]
In the Kidmat
Ha-emek, Netziv implies that the beginning of the
One striking
historical point deserves mention.
The characters of Tanakh seem to spend less time studying Torah
than do their counterparts in later Jewish history. One traditional response argues that
Tanakh does not feel the need to explicitly report such study. Netzivs theory opens up an alternative
explanation. Since in the
[1] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:1.
[2] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:2.
[3] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:3.
[4] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:4.
[5] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:5.
[6] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:4.
[7] KiIdmat Ha-emek
1:7.
[8] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:8.
[9] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:10.
[10] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:11.
[11] Kidmat Ha-emek
1:12,13.
[12] Haamek Davar,
Devarim 1:3.
[13] Haamek Davar,
Devarim 8:2.
[14] Harchev Davar,
Shemot 13:16.
[15] Ibn Ezra, Shemot
34:1.
[16] Haamek Davar,
Shemot 34:1.
[17] Harchev Davar,
Devarim 1:3.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!