The fact is that the Maharal was ignored for centries
There are two explanations given
1) He was overshadowed by the Arizal until the Chassidic world realized his true value and actively promoted and republished his works
In his letter of approbation to Rabbi Hartman’s work on Nesivos Olam, the late Rav Shmuel Auerbach attributes the relative eclipse of the Maharal’s writings to the appearance in Europe of the astounding new kabbalistic insights of the Maharal’s younger contemporary, the Arizal, which were brought from Tzfas to Europe by the Shelah Hakadosh. Though there is no indication that the Maharal knew of Lurianic Kabbalah, legend has it that the Arizal said on his deathbed, “There is another like me in the West,” referring to the Maharal.
https://mishpacha.com/a-page-from-his-book-2/
2) He is not part of the Mesorah, his Rebbe is unknown, and he presents a mixture of Kabbah Philosophy and ideas he made up - many of which are hard to understand
Rav Shlomo Fisher wrote
ציטוט מכ"י של רבינו זצוקללה".
(ודרך המהר"ל בזה בס' פירושי האגדות שלו דרך תמוהה ומסוכנת. ולא לחינם לא נדפס ספר זה עד דורנו ונשאר בכת"י, ודע עוד דהמהר"ל אינו מחכמי הקבלה המוסמכים, וכל דבריו דרך סברא בעלמא.)
“Maharal was ignored for centuries - Why?” Interesting.
ReplyDeleteToday’s daf hayomi Baba Kama 96b surprised me:
“THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ALL ROBBERS HAVE TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE OF THE MISAPPROPRIATED ARTICLES AT] THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY. What additional fact is the expression. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE intended to introduce? It is meant to introduce that which R. Elai said: If a thief misappropriated a lamb which became a ram, or a calf which became an ox, as the animal underwent a change while in his hands he would acquire title to it, so that if he subsequently slaughtered or sold it, it was his which he slaughtered and it was his which he sold [Supra 379]. A certain man who misappropriated a yoke of oxen from his fellow went and did some ploughing with them and also sowed with them some seeds and at last returned them to their owner. When the case came before R. Nahman he said [to the sheriffs of the court]: Go forth and appraise the increment [added to the field]. But Raba said to him: Were only the oxen instrumental in the increment, and did the land contribute nothing to the increment [Why then should the whole amount of the increase due to the amelioration be paid to the plaintiff?]? He replied: Did I ever order payment of the full appraisement of the increment? I surely meant only half of it. He, however, rejoined [Raba to R. Nahman]: Be that as it may, since the oxen were misappropriated they merely have to be returned intact, as we have indeed learnt: ALL ROBBERS HAVE TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE VALUE] AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY. [Why then pay for any work done with them?] He replied: Did I not say to you that when I am sitting in judgment you should not make any suggestions to me, for Huna our colleague said with reference to me that I and King Shapur [Meaning Samuel, who was a friend of the Persian King Shapur I, and who is sometimes referred to in this way; cf. B.B. 115b. [To have conferred the right of bearing the name of the ruling monarch, together with the title tham, mighty. was deemed the highest honour among the Persians, and Malka, King is apparently the Aramaic counterpart of the Persian title Malka (v. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien. I, 73). On Samuel's supreme authority in Babylon in matters of civil law, v. Bek. 49b.] are [like] brothers in respect of civil law? That person [who misappropriated the pair of oxen] is a notorious robber, and I want to penalise him.”
Beautiful. My theory. This week’s parsha Mishpatim makes clear thieves pay double the value of what they stole. The Mishna makes clear value at the time of the robbery. R. Nachman includes half of the value of the land improvement. Why? To penalize a repeat robber. Surprising. Usually Sages make rulings to make it easier for robbers to do teshuva. The Gamara seems to support R. Nachman to make a ruling that foregoes a leniency of the Sages. Why? More likely to deter (and hopefully to bring them to repent) repeat robbers (hardened criminals) by foregoing leniencies of the Sages as R. Nachman does here etc. Fair beautiful fascinating Talmudic discussions.