I have gradually come to understand that even when Chazal appear to abandon pshat in a particular verse, often, though not always, what they abandon is a pshat interpetation of a particular verse but not the halacha that actually comes out of the pshat in that verse. Of course, sometimes they tell us explicitly that a certain interpretation is incorrect and substitute their more complex and less simple intepretation for pshat. However, more comonly they say that the verse means something else than what it appears to be saying, ignoring the pshat but not dismissing it. In such cases, very often the pshat is still reflected in halacha, but it may not be traced to this specific verse. It may be connected as a drash to yet another verse, or it may be introduced as an anonymous halacha of Torah she baal Peh.
Let's look at an example.
A verse in Parashat Shemini appears to forbid one from becoming tamei at any time. The Torah writes concerning non-kosher animals, "you may not eat their flesh, nor shall you touch their carcass; they are impure to you" (Vayikra 11:8).
The gemara (Rosh Hashana 16b), however, interprets this verse compeltely differently and in a way that can only be called drash. Rabbi Yitzchak says that only kohanim are forbidden to become "tomei meit" (impure as a result of contact with a corpse). If so, the verse as referring to a special halakha related only to the three regalim (pilgrimage festivals) - Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot: "A person is obligated to purify himself on the festival, as it says 'You shall not touch their carcass.'" The reason would appear to be that these are the times of pilgrimage, when every person ttouches or eats kodashim.
The Rambam codifies this halakha of Rabbi Yitzchak: "All Yisrael are commanded to be pure every festival, for they must be prepared to enter the Mikdash and eat 'kodashim' (the festival sacrifices), as it says in the Torah, 'You shall not touch their carcass' [which refers] only to the festivals. If one did become tamei, he is [nevertheless] not lashed (makkot). However, no such prohibition applies during the rest of the year." (Hilkhot Tum'at Okhlin 16:10)
The Rambam seems to have held that this halakha relates strictly to the laws of the Mikdash and kodashim. It therefore follows that it would not apply nowadays, in the absence of the Mikdash. Moreover, it would only apply on the three festivals on which each Jew must go to the Mikdash and eat kodashim. It would not apply on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, which do not require traveling to Beis Hamikdash.
At first glance, this gemara takes a verse competely out of its pshat meaning. The posuk says that one is not allowed to touch carcasses and Gemara says that it applies only on Festivals, of which there is no mention in this verse or any other verse.
However, the halacha of the pshat in this verse does return... but unconnected to this verse.
Mishne Lamelech to this Rambam cites various authorities who imply or say that there is a standing prohibition to become Tamei, just as the verse in Shemini says. It is the position of Tosafos in several places and, in fact, it is the simple meaning of gemara in Chullin 34a. Rashi to Chullin 35a(Daleicha) also says it. The concept is called "Tumas Gviah".
It is not surprising that there is even a verse that is connected to this prohibition. Not only that, an entire mysterious and complex system of law is predicated on this prohibition: "Ochel Chullin B'Tahara". This refers to the widespread practice of eating one's regular food items in a state of preparedness and separation from inpurity that one needs for eating kodashim. Usually understood to be rabbinic and of late provenance( see Yoma 23a), Hagahos Mahari Ronshburg on Chullin 2b, cites a Ylakut Shimoni (Ki Tisa, end of Remez 386) that derives it from the verse: " And you shall make yourself Holy and be Holy (Vayikra 20). "From here said R. Gamliel: "Not only to Kohanim was holiness given from Sinai, but to all of Israel, as it says, "You shall be Holy (kedoshim tohyu)".
Here you have an example of a non-pshat explanation of a verse in Shemini but the simple explanation is not rejected. Instead it returns as derived from a different verse.
For completenesss, I must add that not everyone agrees that there exists a blanket prohibition to make oneself ritually impure. See ArtScroll notes to Chullin p. 33a, n. 33.
Now an aside. The Me'iri says a different explanation of the halakha in Rosh Hashana 16b. Every person must purify himself on the festival in order to eat his regular food, Chullin – not the sacrificial meat – in a state of purity. Rav A. Sofer (in his notes on the Me'iri) notes the novelty of this approach and its far-reaching ramifications. This is also the opinion of the Tur. The Tur (O.C. 603) cites a tradition from Avi Ha-ezri that one should try to eat all his food in a state of tahara during the seven days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. He explains that this tradition speaks of only seven days (rather than all ten days of repentance, including Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur) because it is superfluous on Rosh Hashana. Since a person must be pure on the festivals (including Rosh Hashana), there is no need for a special tradition to require eating in a state of tahara on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Similarly, Likewise, the Shibbolei Ha-leket (283) quotes the law of Rabbi Yitzchak and adds that this law applies to every festival – "and even more so on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, which are days of judgement." He go so far as to require the recitation of a berakha when one immerses in a mikveh before Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur as part of his process of teshuva (repentance). The Tur (ibid. 606) records Rav Sa'adya Gaon's ruling that one recites a berakha when immersing in the mikveh before Yom Kippur. The Rosh, however, strongly disagreed, arguing that there is no basis in the Talmud at all for this custom. Bach tries to defend R. Saadia Gaon. R. Yeruchem Perlow in Sefer Hamitzvos L'R Saadiah Gaon suggests that the blessing is derived form a Biblical obligation to purify oneself before Yom Kippur, "Before Hashem shall you be purified".
How could one explain Meiri? I suggest that Rabbon Gamliel, the same one who Biblically obligates to eat Chullin in purity in the Yalkut, holds that Rosh Hashana and Yom Kipur are like festivals for the purposes of voiding aveilus and this is halacha (YD 9 and OC 14). The obligation to become purified on Festivals is a component of the obligation to eat Chullin in Purity and even on Rosh Hashana, when one eats plenty of Chullin and no Kodashim, this obligation applies.
Let us now come back to the concepts.
We saw that Chazal often do not abandon pshat but substitute drash for the pshat. The pshat, however, returns under a guise of a derivation from another verse, or as halacha without a stated derivation. Why do they do it?
I think that it is because no derivation stand alone. One who learns Talmud quickly sees that various Sages had an interconneted and complex system of derivation of various details of a particular halacha from different verses. One often sees how a Sage derives several details from different verses and another Sage who disagrees with one of these details is forced to construct another structure of derivations. The first Sage objects that if so, how do you derive this and that, and the other Sage is forced to proivde verses for that detail as well. I think that we see only a portion of this inteconnected drash systems in the gemara and that they are more complex and interlinked. Sometimes we see an isolated drash that seems "far out" but do not realize that it is a part of an entire structure of interpretations. In order for the structure to be sound and withstand scrutiny, some halachos must bear a more forced and a more drash type of intepretation. When we see this particular interpretation in isolation we do not appreciate the need that forced it and we wonder.
Now, you might think, after I got through with it, that R. Yitzhak's intepretation, that one must purify himsf on a Festival is just a drash and that it has not basis in Pshat. Wrong again!
Rashbam in four places ( Shemos 29:37, 30:29, Vayikra 6:11 and 11:8) explains pesukim in a way that demonstrates that R.Yitzhak is also saying pshat. R. Yitshak says that one must purify himself on Festivals because he will then be touching or eating kodshim. The Torah itself says it, according to Rashbam. In these places it says that one who approaches or touches consecrated things, "yikdash (shall be holy"). The traditional understanding of this is, as Rashi brings, that when a piece of sacrificial meat of lesser holiness absorbs from a piece of greater holiness, it too is treated as having greater holiness. Rashbam says differently. He says that it means that someone who approaches a mizbeach or kodshim must purify himself. He supports it from the identical language used at the sanctification at Mount Sinai (yikdashu).
Here we also see how a what appears to be a drash is actually a simple meaning of a different verse, which Chazal also darshined in a way different from its pshat.
It seems that the realm of derivation and drash and of halacha and pshat are seen as completely separate realms, neither of which takes away from the other.
Fascinating!
One small correction.
Although it is the common conception that on each Regel all Jews everywhere came to Yerushalayim, leaving the rest of the Land empty, or at least that this was required by the Torah, this bothered me for several reasons for a long time. Then I came across Prof. Safrai's book "Ha'Aliyah La'Regel Be'Mei Ha'bayit Ha'Shenei" in which he proves conclusively purely from Hazal and kosher sources that this was not the case. Although Prof. Safrai was a professor and not a Rav, and he published his book thru a secular publishing house, he was Orthodox (I spoke to him personally) and he proves his case exclusively from Hazal.
Posted by: a | May 30, 2011 at 11:23 AM