The Jewish “Common Core”: Common Core in Pesukim, as Explained by
the Maharal
By Eliakim Willner
Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An
Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the
Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. This article is adapted from
his forthcoming continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv
HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.
Introduction
Many pesukim in the
Torah teach us multiple halachos, or lessons of mussar, based on
the different ways these can be extrapolated from the words of the verse. It is
commonplace for our Sages to derive one halacha from a verse’s pshat,
or simple meaning, and what appears to be a completely unrelated halacha
using the drush method of verse interpretation (examples to follow).
It might be thought that
these disparate teachings are related only incidentally in that they derive
from the same verse. The Maharal, however, explains that if a verse has
multiple teachings, there is a single core concept that underlies and unites
all of them.
Pre-Meal Handwashing and Tumah
Purification – A Common Core
A good example can be found
in the Gemara, Chulin 106a, which writes that, according to one
opinion, the obligation to ritually wash hands before eating derives from the
verse (Vayikra 15:11) “And whoever the zav touches, without [the
latter] having rinsed his hands… shall remain unclean until evening”.
Both the verse and the
derivation of the hand-washing obligation from the verse are difficult to
understand, as the Gemara details:
“As Rava explained to Rav
Nachman: where in this verse is there such an allusion? It is from the words,
“without having washed his hands”. Is it really true, [Rava asked,
hypothetically,] that with hand-washing [alone] the Zav-touched person becomes
pure? [Certainly not;] we know that he requires full ritual immersion [in a
mikva in order to become pure!] Rather, the verse should be [homiletically]
read as follows: “[aside from the zav, who requires ritual immersion,] there is
another form of ritual impurity that is removable with just hand-washing [and
that is the hand-based ritual impurity that must be expunged prior to eating]”
In fact, the primary lesson
of the verse as expounded by the Gemara in Niddah 43a is the
entirely different subject of the purification process of a person who is tameh,
ritually impure. The mention of hand-washing teaches, as a paradigm, the Gemara
explains, which parts of the body require immersion; just as hands are exterior
so is the obligation to immerse limited to parts of the body that are also
exterior, and parts of the body that are
not exterior, such as internal organs need not be immersed.
It would seem, then, that
there are two unrelated derivations from the verse. First and primary, that mikva
immersion is required only for exposed parts of the body as the Gemara
in Niddah states. Second, as drush (and as an allusion only), the
obligation to wash pre-meal as discussed in the Gemara in Chulin.
Indeed, some commentators explain the two derivations in this way.
The Maharal, however, in a
novel approach to understanding the Gemara’s discussion of the two
teachings derived from the verse-phrase, “…without having washed his hands”,
explains in Nesiv HaAvodah 16:2, that both seemingly disparate
derivations actually stem from the same concept. The primary derivation is the
teaching that the requirement for mikva immersion is limited to parts of
the body that are exposed, just as the hands are exposed. The underlying
concept, however, is that there is a continuum ranging from “hidden” to
“exposed” and the further along a thing is toward “exposed” the more prone it
is to tumah. Hands are at the “exposed” extreme of the continuum, so
they exemplify susceptibility to tumah and therefore require mikva
immersion. By extension, other body parts that are exposed also require
immersion. Items at the other end of the continuum, however, like internal body
cavities, are not susceptible to tumah at all and thus do not require mikva
immersion.
The concept that hands are tumah
“magnets” because of their “exposure quotient” leads directly to the second
teaching derived from the verse, the requirement for pre-meal hand-washing.
This follows, since, as the Maharal explains, it is inappropriate that an act
that is so directly tied to our sustenance be associated with tumah.
These two teachings – that mikva immersion is required only for exposed
parts of the body, and that one must wash prior to eating bread – both emerge
from the same concept. The verse-phrase is not teaching us two disparate laws,
it is teaching us a fundamental concept out of which each of these laws
emanates.
The “Common Core Concept”
Principle
The notion that there is a
core concept common to multiple derivations from the same verse is a frequent
theme in the writings of the Maharal. He makes it explicit in Be’er HaGolah,
Be’er 3: “A wise person will express wonderment at the tight relationship
between drush, [homiletic exegesis] and pshat, [the
straightforward verse interpretation]. Someone bereft of wisdom, will, however,
express wonderment at the chasm that separates the two… Indeed, every single medrashic
interpretation is rooted in a deep understanding of the verse’s true meaning –
the meaning that surfaces after a thorough analysis of the verse. In fact, that
is why this method of exegesis is called “drasha”; it is the fruit of an
in-depth study of the verse that elicits its ultimate depth of meaning.”
Self-Mutilation and Bais
Din Discord– A Common Core
Here is another, somewhat
simpler example of the principle that all the teachings extracted from a verse
derive from a common core concept. Devarim 14:1 has the prohibition of lo
sisgodidu; one may not make incisions in one’s flesh as an observance of
mourning. Our Sages (Yevamos 14a) derive another prohibition from the
same verse: the Bais Din that rules on Jewish law in a particular locale
may not split between several opposing approaches to halacha; for example, it
is prohibited for some members to rule like Bais Hillel and some like Bais
Shammai.
This prohibition derives
from an interpretation of the root of the word sisgodidu as meaning
“creating factions” and according to this drush the verse is declaring a
prohibition against factionalizing a town’s Bais Din. Apparently these
two teachings – do not make flesh incisions and do not factionalize – are
unrelated. But the Maharal explains that in fact they share a root concept. Do
not create unwarranted separations where unity is warranted. We are a holy
nation (as the next verse explains) and thus unity is called for. This implies
preserving unity in our bodies by not making cuts in our flesh. And it implies
unity in our communities by avoiding factionalization.
Matzos and Mitzvos– A
Common Core
Similarly, the Maharal
discusses the drasha our Sages derive from Shmos 12:17. The verse
says, “And you shall watch over the matzos”. The simple meaning of the
verse (pshat) is that we must take care to bake the Pesach matzos
quickly, before they have a chance to leaven and become chometz. Our
Sages, however (Mechilta, cited by Rashi), using the drush
method, derive an additional stricture from this verse. They read it “And you
shall watch over the mitzvos (commandments)” – there is a one letter
difference in Hebrew between matzos and mitzvos – and they
interpret it to mean, “just as we may not permit the matzos to become
leavened, so may we not permit the mitzvos to become leavened (i.e., to
wait too long before we perform them); if it an opportunity to perform a mitzvah
comes your way, perform it immediately.”
Naturally, the Maharal seeks
a common core concept that underlies each of these apparently unrelated
derivations from the verse. He explains that the Egyptian exodus brought about
a suspension of the constraints of the physical world since it was an event
triggered by an extraordinary degree of open divine intervention. The divine
world is not limited by those constraints. Thus the shackles of time – one of
the constraints of the physical world – were broken. The notion of “delay”
became irrelevant and impossible. On Pesach we “simulate” the removal of the
time constraint by hurrying to bake the matzos as quickly as possible.
Similarly, when we are presented with a mitzvah opportunity we are
entering the world of the divine; the mitzvos are our “handle” into the
divine world of Hashem. In that world there is no time constraint. So here too
we “simulate” the removal of this constraint by hurrying to complete the
mitzvah as soon as possible. Here too, there is a common principle underlying
both teachings of the verse – breaking the time constraint via an attachment to
the divine obligates us to accelerate both the baking of the matzos and
the performance of mitzvos.
No Heterogeneity From
Unity
That a shared core concept
must underlie multiple derivations from the same verse is actually an instance
of a broader principle articulated by the Maharal, and that is that disparate
objects items cannot emanate from a single act of creation. A single verse from
which halachos, laws, emanate is akin to a single act of creation and
thus those halachos must have a common ground. The Maharal discusses the
broader principle in connection with the creation of the sun and moon as
described in Beraishis 1:16: “And Hashem made the two large luminaries;
the large luminary to rule the day and the small luminary to rule the night”.
The obvious question is that the verse first describes both luminaries as
“large”, implying that they are equal in size, and then distinguishes between
them as the “large” and the “small” luminaries. The Ibn Ezra explains that the
original description of both of them as large is in relation to other
luminaries, measured against which both the sun and moon are large. However, in
relation to one another, the sun is large and the moon is small and they were
originally created that way.
The Maharal in Gur Aryeh,
Bamidbar 28:15 takes strong issue with this explanation since it
contradicts a Gemara in Chulin 60b, which states that, “the moon
said to Hashem, ‘Master of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to wear
one crown’? He answered: ‘Go then and make yourself smaller’.” The Gemara
is clearly stating that the sun and the moon were originally created equal in
size – and that is as described in the beginning of the verse which refers to them
as “two large luminaries” – but the moon was later diminished and that is
alluded to in the ending of the verse which describes them as being of
different sizes.
In that context the Maharal
explains that since the sun and the moon were created together – they both
resulted from the same divine declaration of “Let there be luminaries in the
expanse of the heavens” (Beraishis 1:14) – they had to be the same size
because disparate items cannot emanate from a single act of creation.
Therefore, as the Gemara states, and contrary to the view of the ibn
Ezra, the diminution of the moon must have been a post-creation development.
Immutability of the Torah
as Origin of the Common Core Concept
The principle that all the
teachings extracted from a verse derive form a common core concept and are not
haphazardly lumped together is better appreciated in the context of another
Torah-related principle the Maharal discusses in Derech Hashem (3:2) and
that is that the Torah, even in its minutest details, is immutable. Everything
in the Torah is necessary in an absolute sense; that is, there is nothing in
the Torah that is arbitrary or could be otherwise than the way it is. In Netzach
Yisroel 10 the Maharal contrasts this with non-Torah-based civil law, where
different societies arrive at different approaches to maintain public order and
prevent anarchy, and there is nothing inherent in any given law to make it
necessary in absolute terms. For example (the example is ours, not the
Maharal’s), if a thief is to be penalized by having to repay more than he
stole, there is no more reason to favor a larger over a smaller fine. The
choice can be and often is arbitrary. But when the Torah imposes a pay-double
penalty (as it does in certain circumstances) it is necessary for the penalty
to be precisely that, not more and not less. A different penalty is an
impossibility. The same is true about every law, every detail, in the Torah.
The Torah, the Maharal
explains, is not a collection of disparate laws and narratives, it is a unity.
Every element in it has its unique place; every element has to be exactly the
way it is, or the unity is disrupted. We may not understand why these elements
have to be the way they are and cannot be any other way, but, as the Maharal
writes in Tiferes Yisroel 17-18, this is the divine will, reflective of
divine wisdom. There is a difference, the Maharal continues, between “necessary
truth” and “circumstantial truth”, and he illustrates the difference with an
example. Consider the truth-value of the statement, “Reuven is in that house”.
If in fact Reuven is in the house the statement is true but it is only
circumstantially true because Reuven doesn’t have to be in the house; it is
equally plausible for him to be elsewhere. If Reuven is not in the house the
statement is false but again, only circumstantially because Reuven could just
as easily have been in the house. The Torah, however, is necessarily true because,
as we explained, it is impossible for an event or commandment or any other
aspect of the Torah to be otherwise than it is. There is nothing circumstantial
or happenstance about the Torah.
In that light we can better
appreciate the previous principle espoused by the Maharal, that all the
teachings extracted from a verse derive from a common core concept. To say
otherwise would be to impute a degree of haphazardness to the Torah and as we have
just seen, the Torah is an intricate gestalt, without any aspect of
haphazardness or randomness whatever.
Conclusion
In summary, the principle
that the Torah is absolute and not circumstantial truth presages the principle
that disparate objects items cannot emanate from a single act of creation, and
that principle in turn leads to the further principle that if a verse has
multiple teachings, there is a common core concept that underlies and unites
all of them.
The foregoing should enable
us to appreciate that the Torah of the Maharal is itself a monumental and
intricate tapestry where studying individual concepts yields the close-up beauty
of its discrete components, but plumbing the depths of the Maharal’s many works
reveals the broader picture – and triggers the realization that the tapestry
has a grand design into which all the individual components are neatly
subsumed.
