The Jewish “Common Core”: Common Core in Pesukim, as Explained by the Maharal

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.