Rav S. R. Hirsch[i](Letter on Agada): Without doubt the greatness and loftiness of the wisdom and ethics of our Sages found in their Agada and Medrash is beyond measure. It is certain that they planted in their orchards of wisdom the knowledge and understanding that their pure spirits drew from the springs of Torah and mitzvos. That is why they glorified and praised the words of Agada which draws a person’s heart and brings him to love his Father in Heaven. In addition, since even the ordinary conversation of a Torah scholar needs to be studied, so surely this is true of the statements our Sages made with the intent of teaching and improving us. There is nothing in Agada which is meaningless and if it seems that way it is entirely because of our inability to comprehend. Nevertheless, our Sages put a great barrier between Agada and Halacha by stating that one does not learn Halacha from Agada and that Agadic statements do not have to be consistent with each other. This makes sense in my opinion since Agadic statements are not built upon Tradition from Sinai which is the basis for the covenant that was created there. They are in fact based entirely upon the individual human reasoning of wise men. It is quite obvious that any genuinely intelligent person will readily submit to each and every one of our Sages even for matters that are not from Tradition but concerning human reasoning. Furthermore, each one of our Sages is greater than all of us put together and that we are like grasshoppers in relationship to their greatness. Nevertheless, Agada is not part of our obligation to accept as Jews. Therefore, if a person’s reasoning leads him to reject any statement of Agada he is not considered as a heretic. This is especially true since that the Sages themselves differ on so many issues and there is no rule whose view is authoritative as there is concerning halacha.
[i] רב ש. ר. הירש (על הגדות חז"ל תרגום ע"י ר' מ. ברויאר המעין יז:ב ע' א-טז): באין ספק אין ערך לגודל ורוממות החכמה והמוסר אשר המציאו לנו חז"ל בדברי אגדותם ומדרשיהם, וודאי כל מי בינה ודעת ששאבה רוחם הטהור והנעלה ממעיני התורה והמצוות נטעו נטעי נאמנים בתוך ערוגת פרדסיהם. ועל כן פיארו ושבחו חז"ל דברי האגדה שהם מושכין לב האדם ומביאין אותו לאהוב את אביהו שבשמים. ואם אפי' שיחת חולין של ת"ח צריכין לימוד ק"ו לכל הדברים שאמרו בכוונה דרך לימוד ומוסר, ואין בו דבר ריק, ואם ריק הוא ממנו הוא, ששכלנו קצר מהשיג. ומ"מ גדר גדול גדרו חז"ל וחומה נשגבה ובצורה הקימו בין דברי השמועה וההלכה וכלל גדול מסרו לידינו: אין למדין הלכה מן דברי האגדה ואין משיבין מהם ועליהם. וכן בדין לענ"ד, דהא מבלד שכל דברי האגדה אינם מיוסדים על קבלה מסיני שעליה נכרת ברית הנעשה והנשמע אלא רק סברת [החכם] המגיד הם באומד דעתו, ואף שודאי מי שיש לו מוח בקדקדו ולב אדם להבין ולהשכיל בלב שמח ונפש חפצה יכוף ראשו לדעת כל חכם וחכם מחז"ל, אף שאינו מבאר הקבלה אלא מרוח בינתו הוציא מלין, אשר כל אחד ואחד מהם גדול ונשגב מכולנו יחדיו אשר כחגבים נדמינו בעינינו נגדם, מ"מ אינו מכלל חיוב הישראלי, וגם לא כמין וכופר יחשב מי שסברתו נוטה מסברת אחד מחכמינו ז"ל בענין מה השייך להאגדה, בפרט שגם בהרבה מקומות דעתם שונה זו מזו ולא נאמר כלל הכלה כדברי פלוני באגדה כמו בשמעתתא.
iirc maharatz chiyut has an essay on the "wall" between them.
ReplyDeleteKT
Joel Rich
Rav Hirsch's position is given at greater length in a letter to R' Pinchas Wechsler. The original was published by RMBreuer in Ham'ayan 1976. It was then translated into English and published in Light Magazine, and then redistributed by Neve Y-m in a booklet.
ReplyDelete(Both PDFs were provided by RDE to AishDas.org three years ago.)
-micha
I gave a bad link for the English version. Try http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaEnglish.pdf
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the second half of that booklet, by R' Yisrael Salanter, is equally worth seeing. (Although not included in that PDF.)
-micha
Dr. Eidensohn, did you get my last comment on this post?
ReplyDeleteEssentially I wrote that I am familiar with this letter of R' Hirsch but I don't understand how it answers my original question.
(btw, love your blog.
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteDr. Eidensohn, did you get my last comment on this post?
Essentially I wrote that I am familiar with this letter of R' Hirsch but I don't understand how it answers my original question.
(btw, love your blog.
=========================
Glad to hear my work is appreciated.
I though that I had answered your question. R' Hirsch does not feel bound by Chazal. He insists that their interpretations were not given on Sinai. Thus while their words are to be respected - they can be rejected. This view exists in the words of the Gaonim as well as some Rishonim.
The dominant view today is that the interpretation of Chazal are unique because of their ruach hakodesh or mesora from Sinai. The strongest presentation of this view is that of the Leshem.
Therefore if our views are defined by those of Chazal - if the Maharal or R' Hirsch say things which are not clearly based on Chazal they can be inspiring or interesting - but there is nothing terrible in not accepting them. We also basically accept the understanding of Chazal as expressed by Rishonim. Thus if there is no explicit Chazal or any explicit view of a major Rishon serving as foundation - the chiddushim of R' Hirsch or the Maharal are simply derashos of a major talmid chachom.
The Arizal is different because of the assumption that he had his private revelation or mesorah.
Therefore if you assume that every talmid chachom's interpretations are of equal value and you don't distingish between Rabbi Akiva and Rav Dessler - then I have the right also to accept or reject the views.
There is the view of Rav Dessler that acknowledges that the truth is according to the views of Chazal. He notes that where rishonim disagree or deviate from Chazal - it is simply understood as kiruv Torah.
Thus if there is no explicit Chazal or any explicit view of a major Rishon serving as foundation - the chiddushim of R' Hirsch or the Maharal are simply derashos of a major talmid chachom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you.
But can't those drashos serve as source literature for those who wish to use them, as you put it, for "common understanding?" If a rabbi wishes to give a shmooze in yeshiva about Chanukah, certainly he can quote R' Hirsch! (I'm being hypothetical here. I've never heard anybody give a Chanukah drasha based on R' Hirsch's understanding of the battle between Chanukah and Hellenism because of the beauty which R' Hirsch ascribes to Japhet/Hellenism. I'm explicitly avoiding the Maharal because I haven't had the time to look it up; I'm just talking about R' Hirsch here)
Tangentially related: Just yesterday I read one of R' Hirsch's strangest essays, the one on Jewish women (how they're not "Oriental;" it's in Volume 8. I think it's called "Jewish Women"). He has an extremely strange understanding of the flower story between Rachel and Leah; really, they were just being playful and expressing their love for one another. Now if somebody wants to quote that drasha, can't he?
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteDT: Thus if there is no explicit Chazal or any explicit view of a major Rishon serving as foundation - the chiddushim of R' Hirsch or the Maharal are simply derashos of a major talmid chachom.
I agree with you.
But can't those drashos serve as source literature for those who wish to use them, as you put it, for "common understanding?" If a rabbi wishes to give a shmooze in yeshiva about Chanukah, certainly he can quote R' Hirsch! (I'm being hypothetical here. I've never heard anybody give a Chanukah drasha based on R' Hirsch's understanding of the battle between Chanukah and Hellenism because of the beauty which R' Hirsch ascribes to Japhet/Hellenism.
-------------------------------
Of course a person can quote these derashos. My assertion was simply that if I don't see that they have a basis in Chazal - there is no necessity of accepting them. Thus the issue is the authoritativeness of the derasha. That which is perceived as inherent in Chazal is clearly authoritative. That which makes assertions not supported by Chachal or cites Chazal to justify a view - but the connection to the statement of Chazal seems very tenuous or non-existent - are not authoritative.
My assertion was simply that if I don't see that they have a basis in Chazal - there is no necessity of accepting them.
ReplyDeleteI see there was a misunderstanding. B'seder; we're in agreement.