Mitzvos

There are certain Mitzvos, which, by their very nature, obligated people differently according to their levels. These are notable exceptions, the ones that come to my mind offhand being Kedoshim Tihiyu, and Talmud Torah. The amount of Kedusha and the amount of Torah you must learn depends on your level.

---

You do a Mitzvah because Hashem said so. While we do get closer to Hashem by doing Mitzvos, and Mitzvos "lift up" the world, and it is fine to have all those things in mind when doing the Mitzvah; the reason you are doing the Mitzvah is none of the above, but rather because a Mitzvah is the will of Hashem.

To illustrate this, consider a hypothetical case where you could (a) get closer to Hashem, or (b) lift up the world, by going against the Ratzon Hashem. Would you do it?

No, you would not.

Then consider a case where you could fulfill the Ratzon Hashem but by doing so you would get further away from Hashem, or bring the world down. Would you do it?

Yes, you would.

The question, rather, is what should be your motivation to listen to Hashem?

The answer is, there are different levels: There is Ahava, the higher level, where you listen to Hashem's will because you love Him. The reason you love Him is because of the wonderful things He does for you, that is, out of gratitude to Him.

The lower level is Yorah - out of fear.

---

Kaddish is not "such an important part" of Judaism. It is actually a custom - not one of the 613 Mitzvos, not even a Rabbinic Mitzvah, and surely not one of the 13 Fundamentals of the religion.

Among the non-religious, Kaddish became like the most important part of Judaism, and that is because the non-religious Jews used to have religious parents, and when those religious parents died, the non-religious children figured they'd do something nice and honorable for them religious-wise in their honor, since the parents always believed in the religion anyway. So Kaddish became it.

Of course, where the custom applies, it is considered honoring one's parents to say the Kaddish. That means if you do not have a minyan, or if you are a woman, or a slew of other circumstances as well.

Women do not say Kaddish because a custom, by definition, is followed according to its established methods, and when Kaddish was instituted, it was explicit that women do not say it.

The reasons it was instituted that way could be many: don’t forget - if you read the words of Kaddish, you will find not a single mention of death, deceased relatives, honoring the dead, or anything at all that would motivate someone to say this prayer in honor of or in memory of a deceased relative. In fact, the main part of Kaddish - yehai shemei rabbah - is merely an Aramaic translation of the prayer "boruch shem kevod malchose l'olam vaed", which we all say twice a day anyway, women included, and even without a Minyan.

The kabbalistically-aware sages who instituted this custom did so because as per to Jewish mysticism, this prayer, when recited in a certain way (with a minyan), at a certain time (after the aleinu prayer, and sometimes some other places, during the davening, for the first 11 months after the death of certain - not all - relatives, and on the anniversary of their death thereafter), and by certain people (men), if is of benefit to the soul of the deceased. When said not under the specific designated conditions, it does nothing for the soul, and for all we know can perhaps even be harmful.

There are times and circumstances that the Kaddish is optional; there are times when the Kaddish is mandatory; and there are times when the Kaddish is prohibited. All of this is based on the original, kabbalah-based reasons for the kaddish in the first place.

But as I said, Kaddish is NOT a main part of Judaism at all, and it is not to even the main way to honor deceased parents. The main way to do that is available to males and females both - if the children follow the Torah's path, it is a greater merit and honor for the soul of the deceased than 1,000 times saying Kaddish.

That is what Orthodox Judaism says - if you want to honor and commemorate your parents after they are gone from this world, let your behavior be proper, do Hashem's will, and let your parents be proud of you.

The Kaddish is only a custom.

---

Proving Torah : Misc. II

Regarding the Refuos in Gemora, the rule is "nishtanu hativim" - refuos change, and in the days of the Gemora they worked. We do not rely on the Refuos in the Gemora today.

Scientists are constantly changing their mind about things and one would be hard pressed to use current scientific knowledge as a question on Chazal. (A while ago, they would have said that the Zohar, which states the world is round, is a strange statement, since the scientists know that the world is flat!).

On the other hand, there are inexplicable statements in Torah that have proven centuries later to be scientifically correct, such as the statement in Niddah that there are no fish with scales that do not have fins, or the Rambam's incredible calculation of the exact time of the lunar month down to the fraction of a second, which took NASA about 700 more years of technology to figure out the exact same number, to the thousandth of a second, using their technology.

---

Some scientific facts were known through rabbinic tradition. The Rashba cites a rabbinic tradition from Sinai that a treifah cannot live more than 12 months. (Rav Yonason Eyebushitz (Kreisi Upleisi 40) writes that such traditions are not to be disregarded even if found to be against “all the laws of heaven and earth”, since they are part of Torah shebal peh.)

The most recent example of this is the Chazon Ish ZTL, who lived in our times, and had no secular education at all, yet showed much knowledge of math and astronomy, much of which can be seen in his teshuva on the international dateline.

To question a scientific fact that is derived from the Torah is to question the author’s understanding of the Torah, which, in the case of Chazal, cannot be done. The only question is, did Chazal derive all of the scientific facts they used from the Torah, and what do we do when we see a scientific fact in Chazal that contradicts current scientific knowledge?

The Rama in Toras HaOlah quotes the Rambam who says that in the days of Neviim and Chazal, the science of astronomy was “incomplete”. The Rama strongly argues, stating clearly that we assume rabbinic science to be infallible, and ancient rabbinic knowledge of astronomy complete.

The Maharal (B’er Hagola 6) writes that when the sages mentioned a scientific fact, they derived it from their knowledge of the Torah and Hashem, Who is the Cause of all science. He says that science is inferior to Torah even where it comes to scientific knowledge, because scientists base their opinions on what they see, which is a finite and imperfect method of investigation, as opposed to knowledge of science through Torah, which is the root and cause for all facts in the world.

The fact that science in Chazal was gathered from “higher sources” was used by Rav Yehuda Breil ZTL, Rebbi of the author of encyclopedia Pachad Yitzchok, to refute his student’s suggestion that we reconsider Chazal’s leniency of killing lice on Shabbos because lice are spontaneously generated. The Pachad Yitzchok (topic: “zaide”) suggested to his Rebbi that now that science has refuted the possibility of spontaneous generation, we should not be lenient in allowing the killing of lice on Shabbos.
But Rav Breil did not accept the suggestion. Stating an idea similar to that of the Maharal, that Chazal’s knowledge is based on the reality, not mere scientific observation, it is certain that the rabbinic science is more accurate than the science of the scientists, and even if currently it appears one way, the rabbinic view will eventually be proven correct. He mentions that in the disagreement between the sages and the scientists regarding whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa, the sages conceded to the scientists, but centuries later, it was proven that the Torah sages were right all along (Moderator’s note: See Shitah Mekubetzes that the sages never conceded that the gentiles were right; they merely “lost the argument”. They knew from tradition that they were right; they just could not defend the correct position).

There are others (Rav Dessler, if memory serves) who write that when the sages explain a Halachah based on a scientific fact (such as the heter to kill lice on Shabbos), they do not mean to say that the Halachah depends on this fact. Rather, the Halachah is based on deeper, hidden reasons, and they merely “clothed” their reasoning in the scientific fact. They did not even mean to commit themselves to the truth of that fact per se. So if the fact is proven wrong, the Halachah stays the same.

(I am fully aware of the statements in the Sefer Me’or Anayim of Rabbi Azariah min Ha’adumim where he states that secular scientific fact would outweigh the science of Chazal. Please note that the sefer Meor Aynayim is considered highly unreliable (see Sdei Chemed vol. 9 p.179), declared prohibited to read by many Gedolim (and even worthy of being burned); at the very least, not everything he says is considered true or authoritative. It is his statement that the Maharal (quoted above) came to refute.)

---

When Chazal discuss life, or what constitutes animal, mineral, or vegetable, they are using the Torah’s definitions, not the scientists’. And the Torah’s definitions of all of the above depend not on physical characteristics but spiritual ones. An inanimate object has a Nefesh Hadomem – the “spirit” (which is a better translation than “soul”) of an inanimate object; plant life has a Nefesh HaTzomeches; animal life, a Nefesh HaBehamis, and a human being, a Neshomah.

The definition of life that is used throughout Torah is spiritual, not physical. The Halachic cut-off date for an embryo being considered not yet life regarding certain Halachos is 39 days. On day 40, that changes. Biologically, there is no way to identify the exact date of “life”. This is a spiritual, Neshama-based, assessment, because the definition of life depends on spiritual, Nefesh-based criteria, not scientific ones.

If I were to create an android – a robot made out of human tissue – that is “programmed” to have human characteristics – to cry when hurt; to laugh when told a joke; to smile and display all chemical and physical signs of happiness when confronted by a desirable event (i.e., events that are programmed to be “desirable”) to eat and drink and burn the food as fuel; to portray in every scientifically way possible human characteristics – such a Golem, no matter what biological signs or functions it displayed, would not be a human being because it has no Neshamah; it would not even be considered “alive”. Perhaps a clone is in that category, a non-living humanoid constructed through biological matter and those biological factors that enable human functionality, copied from a real human being the way one copies a computer program, but without the spiritual components of a live creature, the Nefesh and Neshama. I don’t know whether, when you clone something, the spiritual components get cloned as well, but if they don’t, then I imagine a human clone would be considered not a human being but rather an organic robot, a humanoid, with no “life” of its own. Even if the scientists cannot tell the difference.

Should a human not have a Neshama or a Nefesh, he is not a human, but an organic construct; should someone create an organic machine that mimics plant life in every biological way possible, it may still be considered a Domem, if it lacks the spiritual Nefesh HaTzomeches.

So when Chazal say that lice do not reproduce but rather spring from sweat and dirt, they mean that lice do not impart into their eggs the same life-force that animals do, that their eggs have a Nefesh HaDomem, or partially a Nefesh HaDomem, and Halachicly their status is not that of eggs. The fact that scientists will tell you lice eggs are the same, biologically, as any other eggs, means nothing here. They see a Mommy louse, a Tatty louse, and a baby louse, but that’s just the way this construct was programmed to function. Plants also “reproduce” – the pollination process involves moving a seed (the pollen) to another "organ" (the stigma) which causes reproduction - so we have a Daddy plant, a Mommy plant, and a baby plant -- but plants aren’t animals. And plant “eggs” aren’t eggs. And Chazal had a tradition that neither are lice eggs, Halachicly, because the way lice are reproduced -- with a Mommy louse and a Daddy louse -- does not involve the result in the creation of an egg that enables an animal Nefesh the way other eggs do.
The Gemora, no matter what explanation you are going to have of it, says that dirt can produce lice. The scientists point out that it is an egg that produces lice. That’s not a big deal, because I am saying that those eggs are halachicly not eggs, but dirt. Because the difference between an “egg” and a biologically identical domem is something only Chazal could know, based on their knowledge of the Nefesh.
The Pachad Yistchok proposed to prohibit the killing of lice based on then new scientific knowledge that they are not spontaneously generated. Most achronim disagreed with him, either because (a) when the Gemora makes such statements it does not mean to link the halachah to the scientific fact but rather to "clothe" the halachah in a scientific fact, but the reasoning behind the halachah is based on spiritual reasons rather than science, or (b) the scientists constantly change their mind about things and their current position on anything is no proof that they will not change their mind.
But whatever - that’s a discussion in the Achronim. But it says nowhere that Torah she bal peh depends on the scientific statements that chazal based halachos on. As I said, that is a discussion in the achronim. Your question is not directed against torah she bal peh - for nowhere does it contradict you - but rather the interpretations of achronim.

If you prefer the Pachad Yitzchok's approach, I would disagree with you and tell you it's not necessary, but it wouldn’t make you any more of an opponent of Torah she bal peh than he was --- and he was one of the great Sefardic sages of recent history.

---

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says that, even according to the scientists, who say today that the hare only appears to be chewing its cud, and even if it is true, it is not a contradiction to the Torah. The reason they do not chew their cud is because the hares we have today are not the same hares we had in those days (the time of the giving of the Torah). Rabbi Hirsch was not claiming to independently confirm or deny what the scientists said in his days - he never claimed to be a scientist.
He is not saying that the hares of 5,000 years ago changed into today's hares. He's saying that the animal identified in the Torah is currently extinct, and what we call a hare is not that animal.
This is a rare but altogether acceptable occurrence. It has happened. When the Torah refers to certain animals, it does not give identifying features to classify the animal. We rely on Torah shebal peh to do so, when necessary. Otherwise, translations such as these can become confused.
For instance, there is a machlokes as to what a "nesher" is - Tosfos in Chulin 63 a says it is not an eagle. (there are those who say it is a vulture).
There is a machlokes between Rashi and Tosfos regarding what "orzo" is -- rice or millet? (The question is, which one do we make a mezonos on?)
There is even a Rabbi in Eretz Yisroel - Rabbi Yitzchok Abadi - who holds l'halachah that shiboles sh'ul is not "oats", and that the real "shiboles shul is some kind of grain that we don’t have nowadays. He holds that oats are not mezonos but hadamah; that you cannot fulfill the mitzvah of matzoh with them; that they are not chometz.
So if Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch says that an arneves is no longer with us, or that it is not lepus or oryctolagus - hare or rabbit - then fine. Not anything shocking.
I would have said that when the Torah talks about chewing cud, it can very possibly include something that appears to be doing so such that you would need scientists to tell you technically it does not. The Torah was given to people, not scientists only, and if Hashem wanted to tell us about a hare, He definitely could describe it that way.

It does not say anywhere in Torah shbal peh that the arneves is what we today call a "hare." These things sometimes get confused, as I pointed out above. Today, in Israel, they call a tiger "NOMER" (as in "Tony HANOMER" on the box of Frosted Flakes), but we know that NOMER is a leopard. I would not be surprised if in many years from now, there will be some innocent Talmidei Chachamim that mistakenly confuse nomer for a tiger because of the colloquial usage. In fact, regarding the arneves itself there is clearly an error in "common knowledge". See Professor Yehuda Felix's "Chai v'Tzomeach B'Torah" p. 23, where he insists that the arneves in the Torah - the species that chews its cud - is NOT the domestic house rabbit that people think it is. It is only the wild species. He says this mistake happened because in ancient times they brought to Eretz Yisroel house rabbits from outside the land and grew them IN Eretz Yisroel (you can tell the difference because of their smaller body and legs). He adds that mistakenly people commonly refer to the domestic rabbit as "shafan", but clearly, he says, that is a totally different animal (i.e. the hyrax).

Point to a cougar and ask an average person what that is. "Leopard" he will likely say.

That’s how these things happen.


I don’t know where this idea came from. The subtle insertion of false assumptions into an if-then pattern of logic is a typical tactic of the "misinformation professionals" who try to "prove" falsehood. They arrange their falsehoods in such a way as to sound as if some transitive formula is being stated when in reality it’s just a bunch of hogwash. The listener gets so caught up in the "if A then B so if B then C" pattern that they are distracted from the falsehood of the entire sequence.

---

The earth revolving around the sun is only relative. Nobody has proven nor even claims that it is absolute. In other words, if the Earth is the center of the universe, and the entire universe revolves around the earth, it will appear from the vantage point of anyone located within the universe that the sun is revolving around the earth, when in reality it is the opposite.

In other words, if you throw a ball in the direction of north at 60 MPH, you are stationary but the ball is moving.

However, if at the time you threw the ball you were on a bus traveling south at a speed of 60 MPH, you were actually moving, but the ball was stationary.

It wouldn’t seem that way to you, though, because you’re on the bus throwing the ball.

But someone outside the bus would see the ball stay in the same place, and you move.

However, if that outside observer were standing on earth, which was (for the sake of the argument) rotating North at 60 MPH, then even though to him it would seem like the ball was stationary and you were moving, the truth would be that the ball is moving, you are stationary, and he is moving.
Movement relative to another object depends on your perspective. And in order to know, ultimately, whether the earth revolves around the sun, because the earth is moving, or the sun revolves around the earth because the universe is moving and earth is stationary, you would have to measure form a vantage point outside of the universe, and nobody has been able to do that yet. At least not scientists.

So the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is like saying that the ball is moving inside the bus. Maybe. Or maybe everything is moving in your immediate area except the ball. You'd have to be outside the bus to know that.

Same thing here. To know whether it is the earth or the sun that is moving, you would have to take into consideration the entire universe's movement, which no scientists has been able to do.

The scientists themselves do not claim to be able to determine what goes around what, except from the vantage point of being inside the universe. The Torah is talking absolute.


So the scientists, and everyone else in this universe, are "on the bus". From their vantage point, it does indeed seem like the earth moves and the sun is stationary. But they are not, nor do they claim to be, able to determine whether the entire universe is moving around the earth. People merely tend to assume that is not so, because of all the quadrillions of planets and stars in the universe, why would everything be revolving around this particular planet earth?

Except for the fact that Chazal tell us that the entire world was created for the sake of Klall Yisroel and the Torah, and that the sun in fact revolves around the earth, as does the entire universe, of which the earth is the exact center.

And no scientist in the world is going to tell you that he can disprove that.

From our perspective, we who are "on the bus", it looks like the "ball is moving".

But from the ultimate perspective, the complete perspective, stepping so far back that the entire universe is in view, the earth is smack in the center.


The idea that stopping the sun is not literal will not help, because the Gemora says explicitly that the sun travels around the earth.

The scientists today do not even claim to know that the earth revolves around the sun except in a relative way as I mentioned before. The Torah is speaking in absolute terms.

---

The "four corners of the earth" is not taken by anyone literally nor was it ever. It was, and still is, an expression. Kind of like when the Torah says Hashem took us out of Egypt "with an outstretched arm."

Jews always knew the world was round even when the scientists said it was flat. The Zohar speaks about "kadur haatrez" - the ball of the earth. Of course, if "secularists" were there, they would have said the Torah doesn’t mean "globe of the earth" literally, or something messed up like that.

---

Proving Torah : Misc. I

It makes no sense that Judaism could be forgotten suddenly - by everyone, everywhere, at the same time? Suddenly? How? Why?

No, Judaism was never forgotten, Jews were always scattered around and separated, but nevertheless they had the same Mesorah and same recollection and traditions of the giving of the Torah.

---

The Gemarah that says Har Sinai was held over Bnei Yisrael so they would accept the Torah {this is after we said Naaseh Venishma} and we later reaccepted the Torah completely and without reserve after the events of Purim]

Kafah aleihem har kegigis was not c"v a forced belief. It was a forced acceptance of obligations. They believed very well, with or without that mountain. They just were reluctant to accept the responsibility of the Mitzvos.

In fact, the Ran says that the reason the aseres hadibros starts with Anochi Hashem, as opposed to "Thou shalt believe in me", is because they certainly did believe before kabbalas hatorah, because anybody who is not an idiot (or willing to fool himself into being one) surely believes, since G-d's existence is so obvious. So it was meaningless for Hashem to tell them "thou shalt believe". Instead, He introduced Himself, as if to say "The G-d that you believe in -- I am He!" Anochi Hashem. And the Mitzvah of Emunah is therefore to believe not that G-d exists, since that's simplicity - but to believe that the G-d that surely exists is the entity that took us out of Egypt and gave us the Torah -- to believe that "I". i.e. the One talking to us on Har Sinai, is in fact the G-d that we all know must exist.


---

The reason Hashem made things so complex is because He wanted to provide you with proof that He exists. So even though He could have done it differently, He did it this way for you to see His hand in creation. It says this in the posuk: Asah Elokim Sheyiru Milfanav - G-d created in order that you should be in awe of Him.

---

During the Mabul, the entire world was under water, even Australia (an exception in Eretz Yisroel, Chazal say). The reason Hashem had to destroy the koalas there is the same reason he had to destroy the grizzlies in California: the animals themselves became corrupt and acted unnaturally. Only the fish did not "sin", and so they were spared.

Of course, such termination of animal life is not a "punishment" since animals have no Bechirah. Rather, it is more of a simple sanitizing of the world by removing from it all the tumah that man had planted therein.
The animals fitting into the ark was a miracle.

Crossing from Asia to America is possible on foot by crossing the Bearing Straits, a 52 (I believe) mile wide stretch of water between Russia and Alaska, which freezes up in the winter and creates a walkable path. That is probably how humans got to the Americas.

---

The skeletons of the Jews who died in the desert due to the cheit hamiraglim might be found, it’s not as if archaeologists go out looking for them.
But more likely, I would imagine that the remains of those people who miraculously died were swept up by the ananei hakavod and buried miraculously, or something to that effect. Their deaths were of course a miracle, so their burials could very well have been also. Who knows?

---

There is tons of archeological and historical evidence of Yetzias Mitzrayim. Rabbi Kelleman's book is a good place to start - he lists much archeological evidence of things like the 10 makos which were written down by Egyptians lamenting their fate at the time, as well as the exodus itself. But there is also history - the fact that Egypt suddenly "disappeared" off the historical map as a superpower for a few centuries has bothered secular historians for a very long time. Check out a book called Ages in Chaos by Immanuel Velikovsky, where he demonstrates that the sudden and inexplicable disappearance of Egypt as superpower coincides perfectly with the Biblical account of Egypt getting their country decimated by the Makos and their entire army wiped out at the Yam Suf.

---

Ask him how his doctor can "restrict" him from eating certain foods - like cyanide, arsenic, and mercury, for instance (all deadly), - will not drinking gasoline make you a better person?

Your soul has a “biology” to it just like your body does. And G-d, in His benevolence, has revealed to us what it takes to keep that soul alive and healthy. It's that simple. G-d does not "restrict" us any more or less than science "restricts" us by telling us what will kill and harm us. Does he have a problem with that?

Why would G-d create a body with such "restrictions"? But He did, didn't He? Your soul, too, has such requirements, and the scientists of the soul are the Chachamim, the science of which was given to us by G-d on Mt. Sinai.

Just like by following your doctor's directions you will merit a healthy life in this world, so too by following G-d directions you will merit eternal happiness in Gan Eden. And vice versa.

---

Get a hold of a book called "Awake My Glory" by Rabbi Avigdor Miller (which, by the way, is a wonderful book about Jewish ideology in general), and "Permission to receive" by Rabbi Lawrence Kelleman, where you will find, in the appendix, representatives of Pope John Paul II trying pathetically to defend Christianity, and failing miserably. Also check out www.jewsforjudaism.com.

Normally, though, I would suggest you just avoid the missionaries.

---

Proving the Torah II

Avraham's converts did not merely believe Avraham that he heard G-d talk to him. That's not how Avraham convinced them to be Jewish. Rather, he proved to them that G-d is One, and idolatry is a fraud. In other words, Avraham convinced people to be Jewish with the same reasoning that convinced him to be. Avraham never used revelation to produce converts, but rather reason.

---

Even things that happen in front of small crowds can eventually be distorted in the details - like playing telephone. If there would be no disagreements about something that happened in front of a crowd, you can be more assured that it is so. The very fact that there are no discrepancies is the evidence.

Kabbalas HaTorah, on the other hand, was uncontested in ancient times - there was no controversy, there was no discrepancies, and even the other religions, who would have benefited had they claimed that G-d said to follow Jesus or Mohammad, did not do that. They could not - it was historical unanimous fact that Kabbalas HaTorah happened.

In front of millions of people, with no dissenting opinions.
That Jesus thing supports the proof to the Torah - because even a small issue like who killed jesus is so subject to disagreements. Thus, the fact that a miracle like Hashem speaking to millions of people is not subject to any disagreement throughout history is the proof.

Even though Moshe learned from Hashem for 40 days and nights, the entire nation heard Hashem say Anochi, lo yihiyeh lechah, and perhaps the rest of the aseres hadibros (that's not clear either way, and is a machlokes among the rishonim).

It is clear - nobody disagrees with this, not even the atheists or the other religions, which is a big problem for them - that not long after the G-d "supposedly" gave the Torah, the entire Jewish nation actually believed that G-d came down Himself and told everyone - their own parents, grandparents great-grandparents etc. - to follow the Torah.

Now, if this never happened? How did they get the story?

The only possibility is that someone told them, "Hello people, I have news for you. Not long ago, G-d Himself came to your grandparents and said that they should all follow the Torah, tell their children to follow the Torah, and their children's children etc."

But if that happened, why would only this person know that information and not anyone else? If it would have happened, the nation surely would know about it.

So it is impossible, really, to tell people a story that supposedly happened in front of millions of witnesses who happen to be their ancestors, if the descendants themselves don’t know about it. Why would one person know about it and nobody else?

So obviously they did know about it. Meaning, it happened.

And more, nobody - not a single group of people - ever denied the story of the revelation on Mt. Sinai. Not even the Christians or the Moslems. When they wanted to make a new religion, they did not say the Revelation never happened, or that G-d said follow Yoshkah. Why not?

The answer is, they could not say such a thing because it was a unanimous historical fact. Their only solution, as weak and silly as it was, is that G-d "changed His mind."

Why would everyone unanimously follow such instructions unless they knew they were true - i.e. they heard it from G-d? And if you were making up the Torah, you surely would not overburden everyone like that - unless you are crazy. But in this case, it wasn’t a stupidity - everyone - everyone! - followed. In a religion like Judaism where we had so many deviant sects and so many disagreements, not a single group denied Torah misinai. That is the proof.


Now obviously it would be more credible to the originators of these other religions if they would claim that G-d Himself didn’t just whisper in their ear, “Pssst – here’s a new religion”, but would instead show Himself to the entire populace of Iran or Salt Lake City and say “I am G-d. This is what I want you to do…”. Yet NO RELIGION CLAIMS THAT G-D APPEARED TO THE MASSES (and that they survived to tell it), except Judaism. To be sure, the religions of the world are mutually exclusive – Christianity, for instance, clearly rejects Islam, and vice versa. So one thing everybody agrees on is: SOMEONE here is making up their own fake religion. And not only someone, but almost all religions HAVE TO be a fake, because they all (for the most part) claim all the others are phony. The only question is, which is NOT the fake?

So now if people are going to make up a story, why don’t they make up a better story than “G-d told me, privately, to tell you that he wants you to follow whatever I say He says”? Why can’t they just make up a story that G-d told the WHOLE WORLD to follow their religion? Or at least a few million Arabs / Christians / Mormons etc.? Wouldn’t that make more sense? With all the crazy religions and cults out there, not one of them has figured out this idea – even though it is clearly stated in the Torah. Strange, no?

Why are they settling for a weak religion, one that depends on the believability of the prophet, rather than a strong one, where G-d Himself came to the people telling them to follow the prophet?

That’s the question. So tell me, what do you think?
If you were a false prophet and you wanted to make up a new religion, which of the following would you do:
(a) Tell people that G-d came to you and told you about this new religion, or
(b) Tell people that G-d came to all of THEM or all their ancestors and told them all to follow you

You would tell them that G-d came to you or something similar. How could you say that G-d came to them, as they would know it's not true? It’s the same thing if you told them G-d came to their parents, how come they don't know about it and only you do?"
You can't get away with creating such a hoax. And obviously that's why all religions that claim the "word of G-d" start off with G-d supposedly speaking to someone privately, as opposed to a whole nation.

Except for one religion. Judaism claims that Hashem came to the entire nation and spoke to them. The entire nation is claimed to have seen and heard Hashem Himself descending into this world.

This was clearly the belief of the Jewish nation shortly after the event (Kabbalas HaTorah) is claimed to have taken place - King Dovid built the Bais Hamikdash about 400 years after the Torah was given.

Dovid HaMelech publicly claimed that the Torah is true (it is all over his Tehillim), meaning the Torah that claims that the entire nation - ancestors of all living then - heard Hashem.

Now the question is: if it wasn't true how come nobody said "King Dovid -- we never heard of that before!"

There were constant deviant and rebellious sects among the Jews throughout history. Karaim, Sedukim, Christians, et al. All of them had their own "ideas". But interestingly enough - not one of them even denied or questioned the giving of the Torah on Har Sinai!

Even the Christians made fools of themselves rather than deny this simple event. They say that once upon a time, Hashem came to the entire nation and gave them the Torah. They say that was the "temporary" Torah. But when Hashem supposedly gave the "permanent" Torah (the "New Testament"), the same Hashem, instead of coming back and announcing it to the entire nation the way He did the first time, had some "angel" privately visit a guy named Joseph and whisper it in his ear.
Of all the different dissident sects on record, including Christians, not a single one questioned the revelation. This is true despite the fact that denying the revelation or describing it differently would have been to their interest, and conceding to it is very much against their own interest.

So every single group on record willingly conceded to a revelation where G-d said to follow the Torah, which put them at a tremendous disadvantage and forced them to weave the most far out tales in order to justify their dissent.

Nobody would do this unless they had to. And the fact that everybody on record did it shows clearly that they had no choice. If it wasn’t a historically accepted fact, they would not do it.

Every single version of the Torah throughout the world ever found has the exact same narratives in it. Greek mythology (totally incomparable to the Torah) has numerous versions, despite its relative geographic narrowness and limited time frame. The Torah on the other hand, which has been in the hands of religions, tribes, and even atheists all over the world for thousands of years - factions which were warring with each other even - all have the exact same stories without any discrepancies.
Christianity could not make up a story about Hashem visiting the nation, it wouldn't fly. So now they're stuck with the unhappy predicament of having the "old" law publicly announced, but the "new, revised" law whispered privately to some individual.

Not very believable, is it?

But the question is: If Hashem did NOT give the Torah on Har Sinai, then who did create it? And how was it possible that never did any of the descendants of the witnesses of the historical event question it?

Why was Judaism the only religion able to pull this off? Especially since there were always those group who questioned almost everything in Judaism -- but on this issue they never said "boo".

And this is just for starters.

---

Ignorance is not measured by the number of people whose lifestyle you follow. And Christians do not comprise the majority of people in the world. They are currently about a third (Muslims are about 22% but their population is growing faster than that of Christians), and in the New Testament, Mark quotes Mt 7:13-14, which says that at any one time, only a minority of those will be true Christians - and that means a minority of Christians, who are a minority to begin with (please note I am not quoting the New Testament to prove its point, for the so-called prophecies of the NT never come true. On the contrary - I am quoting to show that according to Christianity itself, they do not claim to be a majority).

The New Testament also contradicts itself regarding “sightings” of Yoshkah after his supposed resurrection. Luke and John imply that Jesus was sighted only in Jerusalem, while Matthew and Mark say he was sighted only in Galilee.

There are numerous other obvious contradictions in Christianity: For example, was J a descendant of King David from his father's side as is required for the Messiah? Or was he of virgin birth?

---

The word "Elohim" is used in reference to great people, or the judges on a high court. This word does not mean G-d, it means "Master", or "Lord", which, even in English, although it can obviously refer to G-d, it does so as an adjective and not a proper noun, and therefore can apply to humans as well.

The posuk says "You shall not MAKE other gods before me" - it says is that people make them. But they do not really exist. chas vsholom.

Try the Bible. By that I mean the Oral Law part of the Bible, which has always been part of the Jewish Bible, as authoritative as the Scriptures, but chopped off by the Christians when they started their religion, because if they were to use the full Bible, they would never be able to teach that Jesus is the Messiah - the Oral Law part of the Bible clearly negates that possibility (as does the Scriptures themselves, but not nearly as explicitly). In the Oral Law, it states clearly that there were no other gods, and the reason that G-d said "Let us make man" was because He was referring to Himself and the earth - since man is made both in the image of G-d as well as from the dirt of the ground. Man has 2 parts to him - the G-dly and the earthy. The "us" represents those 2 sides.

---

Hashem hu ha'elokim does not say "li" - therefore, it means "YKVH is the authority of the world". Meaning, He is the only power that exists. It is not discussing G-d's relationship to "me" but rather G-d being the only power in the world.

"Hashem elokainu Hashem echad" means not that G-d is our authority as opposed to having authority over the rest of the world (then it would be a contradiction, as well as a falsehood) but rather, we are the ones who believe in G-d as the Elokim, as opposed to the rest of the world who do not. In Olam Habah, Hashem will be "echad" - meaning, everyone will recognize that G-d is Elokim.

The bottom line difference is that the first posuk says "li" which implies some relationship, not merely a belief, and so the Targum adjusted the meaning to make room for that relationship.

Changing the girsa is a last resort. If every Chumash in the world learned by every Godol had the current girsa, we can assume it is correct if we have any choice at all.

Proving the Torah

We discussed in the forums that Torah is different than all the other so-called “religions” in that every other religion began with some guy claiming to have heard G-d tell him that He (G-d) wants to start a religion. Unverifiable, and hardly very believable. So all religions are based on “belief”, blind belief in a prophet who claims that G-d confided in him about starting the religion.

Of course, these religions could not claim that G-d came to the masses and said “Hello, I want to start Christianity”, because the masses don’t know anything about it. If Yoshkah would have told everyone “The Creator of the world came to all of us 400 years ago and told all of our ancestors to follow Yoshkah”, they of course would have said, “Hey Yoshkah, how come you’re the only one that knows about this?”. You can’t make up a story that involves the ancestors of millions upon millions of people.

But the Torah does just that. Hashem came to the entire nation saying, “I am Hashem. This is what I want from you…” If a human being would have written the Torah and tried to sell this idea to the descendants of the millions at Har Sinai, it could not have worked.

As opposed to Torah, here’s how the other religions started:

CHRISTIANITY – Mary comes home to her husband, Joseph, pregnant. It’s not his, and he’s upset. Joseph says an angel came to him secretly and explained her excuse: “G-d did it.” So now a religion starts. Oh, and Yoshka’s resurrection? Nobody claims to have seen it. Some claim that they saw Yoshkah alive after he was supposed to have been dead, but no verification has ever been provided. (Elvis lives!)

ISLAM – The religion started when Muhammad claimed to have heard a “message from G-d” that he was chosen to be the holy “chat’m” (a special kind of prophet). He heard other messages, too, and he compiled them into what later became the Quran (Koran). Nobody except Muhammad heard these messages. You either believe him or you don’t.

The Quran reports that Mohammed’s mother also heard a voice claiming that her son will be a king and prophet, but we have no idea if this woman ever told this to anyone or the story was made up afterward, never mind if she herself was really telling the truth. Another “secret” revelation.

BUDDISM – Prince Siddhartha Gautama claims to have been supernaturally “enlightened” whilst in the midst of a meditative trance. When he “woke up” he enlightened the rest of the world with his supernaturally obtained truths. (I am not making this up.)

MORMONS – A man named Joseph Smith claims to have been periodically visited by angels, Yoshkah, Hashem Himself – you name it – explaining to him that all religions are fake, and giving him the secret directions to some golden “luchos” with important messages. Smith further claims to have eventually located these tablets, and recorded their message into what is now called The Book of Mormon. A friend of Smith, by the name of Oliver Cowdery also claims to have been visited by certain Talmidim of Yoshkah who bestowed upon both Cowdery and Smith some type of priesthood. (I am not making this up either).

ONE MORE RELIGION WHO CLAIMS A PUBLIC REVELATION (check this out!) – For the following piece of research, I am indebted to Rabbi Leib Kellemen, in “Permission to Receive” (Feldheim, ’96). There is ONE other religion that does indeed claim a public revelation. Some Indian groups have an oral tradition that the Hindu god Krishna addressed millions of warriors who participated in a certain battle. But – get this! – ALL THOSE WHO HEARD KRISHNA DIED IN THE BATTLE. Nobody survived to tell of the revelation. So how do we know it? Take a guess. Some individual, later in history was visited by Krishna privately who told him the story that nobody else knew.

JUDAISM - G-d Himself appeared to millions of Jews and told them "I am Hashem. This is what I want you to do . . . "

No comparison.

---

If you concede that we’ve proven the truth of the Torah because the episode of Kabbalas HaTorah could not have been fabricated (please see the rest of this section), then you have proven G-d’s existence as well. It was G-d, wasn’t it, Who did speak to the entire nation at Har Sinai, right?

The fact that “[religion] has been debated” for 5,000 years means nothing. There have been religions that believed in totem poles as gods. The truth has to be assessed by its own merits, not by popular vote. When any of the 5,000 years worth of pagans and wishful thinkers can answer the hard evidence, then I will gladly agree with you. But despite 5,000 years of debate nobody has been able to answer the proofs.

Oh, and don’t mix Judaism with “religions.” There is a fundamental difference that distinguishes Judaism as being unique among them. ALL other religions that claim to know the word of G-d do so by claiming that G-d came to some guy and told him (the guy) that He (G-d) wants them (the people) to follow them (the guy and G-d both). There are never any witnesses to the revelation, never, and for some odd reason, G-d, Who supposedly wants everyone in the world to follow some individual – Yeshua, Mohammed, David Coresh – never told this to any one of them except the one who they are supposed to follow.

So you either believe him or you don’t.

Torah is different. In the Torah, G-d Himself comes to the entire nation, millions of them, and says “I am Hashem. This is what I want you all to do . . .”

NO RELIGION IN THE WORLD CLAIMS THAT G-D HIMSELF REVEALED THE RELIGION TO THE MASSES. It’s always a prophet who is telling us that he “received” the word of G-d. That’s what “religion” is. It’s belief.

Torah is history and fact. Nobody had to believe anybody. G-d Himself appeared to the entire nation and explained things to them. And the reason no religion can duplicate this story is because, as we said, it cannot be fabricated historically (see the “G-d” forum).

"How then, with Torah being accepted as a nation, and G-D being WITNESSED as a nation, were the people of other religions able to convince their children, and they their own children, of the existence and truth of a lie whose very basis in logic is faulty?"

Because nobody can confirm or deny their lies.
Either G-d spoke to Mohammed or He did not. Who's to say? Except Mohammed. If you want to believe him, fine. Nobody can contradict him. The Torah is the only story that cannot be fabricated.

Besides, the fact is that throughout history people have been convinced of the stupidest things, such as totem pole gods, scientology, and assorted nonsensical theologies. It is no problem to convince people to believe a lie that cannot be contradicted by the listeners. The impossibility is convincing people to believe a lie that can be contradicted by the masses.

---

Even though we lump Judaism in the same category ("religion") with l'havdil Christianity and Islam, it is in a completely different category. Judaism is the only religion -- the others are clearly just inventions of some leader.

But regarding these two so-called religions, they are a joke. First, both of them would have to agree that their large number of followers doesn't prove anything, since if it does, each would have to explain why the other one has such a large following, even though they are heretics.

The truth is the reason these religions have such followings is because they have been running around for thousands of years trying to convert the world to their religions, using every tactic from falsifying their own religion in order to attract pagans - whatever religion the pagan was from ,they would say Yoshka is the fulfillment of the messiah or prophet of their (the pagan's) religion, copying part of the pagan religions in order to attract followers - to slashing your throat or torturing you to death if you didn't convert.

As opposed to Judaism where we have no interest in attracting converts, certainly in twisting our religion to meet the needs of every flesh-eating barbarian in the world.

As serious religions, these two -Christianity and Islam - never qualified. Their problem is, in order to be accepted as real they knew that they would have to be based on the Torah, since the Torah was accepted as a historical truth, and therefore how can you start a religion thousands of years after the world was already created and people already have a religion that their ancestors saw come from G-d? How can you contradict that?

So they decided to use the Torah as a basis but change it to fit their religion. G-d "changed His mind" the Christians say, which is kind of a problem, since all over the Torah (Devarim 5:26 and tons of other places) it states clearly that the Torah is forever. To this day, the Christians have no answer to this, never mind literally thousands of other disproofs from the Torah.

Perhaps you may believe that there is another side to this story, and that perhaps the Christians can somehow defend themselves? Guess again. Rabbi Lawrence (a.k.a. Leib) Keleman of Jerusalem, who currently teaches in Neve Yerushalayim (and if memory serves Michlelet Esther as well) sent three simple yet devastating disproofs of the New Testament to the doggone Pope John Paul II himself, politely asking for an explanation. The official Catholic Church's answer is printed, with comments, in Rabbi Keleman's "Permission to Receive", pp.205-211.

It's pretty funny. Basically, they admit that the New Testament is not really factually correct, rather, parts (such as the virgin birth) were taken from pagan religions to attract the pagans, and that Yoshka himself wasn't really a descendant of King David, but since the Jews always thought of the messiah as such, they referred to Yoshka in those terms.

Christianity they admit is basically a system of man-made beliefs that they feel are nice and important, but is this religion "true"? Not a chance, they admit.

The Muslims, too, have a joke of a religion, based on the Torah. Even though the Torah was given in front of millions of people, the Quran, which qualifies and changes it, was supposedly given privately to Mohammed and nobody else. It's full of contradictions and disproofs of its authenticity. The fact that they changed Shabbos from Saturday to Friday is itself enough to disprove their religion since it says clearly in the Torah, which they believe in, that Shabbos is the seventh day. Their excuse? I quote:

"The Sabbath was only appointed to those (i.e. Jews) who differed from their prophet concerning it, and your G-d will surely punish . . . for that which they differed." (Quran XVI, The Bee). Which means, that because the Jews "rejected' Friday as the real Shabbos, Hashem "punished" them by giving them the Shabbos on Saturday.

And this detail makes about as much sense as the rest of their religion.

If you want more information on Judaism versus the so-called religions, check out Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Awake My Glory, ch. VI, "The religions".

Torah Misinai and only MiSinai

[Note: I included the questions asked in this post so there would not be any confusion. It doesn't mean anything against the other great questions asked, it's just that this seemed like it needed context. If it gets confusing, please let me know. Thanks. -taon]

{Achiezer: I had it pointed out to me that the Ibn Ezra (and, apparently, the Chasam Sofer as well) in certain places seem to imply that the entire Torah is not completely written by Hashem/Moshe. Also, there’s something in Bamidbar Rabbah (3:13) that says Ezra put the nekudos/was unsure about some words, and I heard Rav Moshe wanted to burn this medrash. Rashi to Breishis 18:22 (in SOME editions) says it is a "Tikkun Sofrim shehafchuhu Z"L lichtov ken" (see Mizrachi, who quotes the Rashba that I know you will quote, Moderator, but also adds that Rashi seems to hold it is an actual change by Sofrim. And Medrash Tanchuma Beshalach at the end also writes "Tikkun Sofrim Anshei Knesses HaGedolah". The Eitz Yosef on the spot disputes this and says it was a later addition as he saw in the Ba'al Tzedah, but a different meforash seems to imply that the girsa is correct. Also, Ralbag (I am told) expresses the idea of "yesh mi-yesh" as opposed to yesh mi-ayin. These are very disturbing references--how should we deal with these?}


The phrase "Tikun Soferim" does not mean anybody c"v changed the text of the Torah, but rather it was a Peirush, a commentary, as to what the Torah intended when it wrote a certain thing. In other words, because of certain reasons, the Torah always had in mind the Soferim's comments, and meant it from the beginning. The moshol they give is like when King David would tell his scribe "Write down that David decrees so-and-so," and the scribe would write "King David decrees so-and-so". Even though the King did not use the title when referring to himself, it was his intention that the scribe write it anyway. The "tikum soferim" is part of Torah shebal peh, similar to the Ksiv-Kri that we have in many places.
Any differences in Sifrei Torah are in Ksiv-Kri, or malei or chaser, etc,. which is a matter of Torah shebaal peh, or Halachah l'moshe misinai. There are numerous disagreements about such things throughout Halachah.

But all this pertains to the Halachos of HOW to write the Torah, not what the Torah means to say.

The Rishonim and Achronim have already explained these things. The most comprehensive treatment of this that I know of is in Minchas Shai Zachariah 2:12. See also Maharal Tiferes Yisroel 66, Haksav V'Hakabalah Bereishis 18:22, and also Rambam Commentary on Mishna Kaylim 17:12.


The Ralbag says simply that yesh m'ayin the way we understand it does not make any sense, and that the Torah does say the "waters" were in existence before creation started. He suggests that during the time of the "waters" there was "substance without form", which is obviously nothing that we can comprehend, nor is it anything physical in any way that we can relate to.

To us, there is not much practical difference between this the position of total "yesh m'ayin". It only is a disagreement in philosophical terms, of what is the nature of the "nothing" that existed before creation. The Ralbag does not mean that there was anything in the sense that we conceptualize physicality before creation. It was something unimaginable. Like the "waters".

The Ralbag backs up his position with proofs from Chazal. Of course, most authorities disagreed with his position anyway. And he acknowledges his disagreeing with the Rambam in this.

That having been said, the Ralbag was very much into philosophy, more loyal to Aristotle's opinions than even the Rambam (though he got most of his information about Aristotle's positions from the Arabian philosopher ibn Rashd), and his philosophical ideas were criticized by other Rishonim. The Rivash writes that even though the Ralbag was great in Torah, his involvement in philosophy caused him to go off in a number of ideas in Milchomos Hashem, and he lists them. Interestingly enough, the Yesh M'Ayin issue is not one of them. The Milchomos Hashem was a very controversial Sefer, more so in many ways even than the Moreh Nevuchim, but basically for the same reasons. Rav Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov used to refer to the Ralbag's Sefer as "Milchomos Im Hashem." The Ralbag was embroiled in the same anti-philosophy controversy that the Rambam was.

However, needless to say - and the Ralbag writes this explicitly in a special section in Milchomos Hashem - that philosophy is useful only to the point that it does not conflict with the Torah and Chazal. When there is a contradiction between the two, it means that the Torah is of course correct, and that any problems in understanding are our fault, not the Torah's or Chazal's.

Kabalah

All of Hashem’s actions in this world are systematic and work along certain patterns that He created. The study of these patterns and this system, and how they connect our world and Hashem, is Kabbalah. It has zero to do with witchcraft.

There are two reasons why only very advanced, very righteous, Torah scholars may learn Kabbalah. If anyone else tries to, first, it is wrong, and secondly, it won’t work.

All of Torah describes the will of G-d. This means that someone who learns Torah becomes familiar with who Hashem is. The more Torah you learn, the more you “recognize He Who created the world” (Sifri Devarim 6:7).

Now let’s say you have acquaintances who know you. But they only know the outside of you. Only your friends you let into the “inside” of you. But not all the way. Maybe there’s someone very special in your life that knows the real inside of you. Someone who has special access to really deep inside of you. Only this special person you let in there.

Same thing with the Torah. The goyim know Hashem as acquaintances or friends, so Hashem let’s them know Torah shebiksav (the Written Torah). But that’s as far as they can go.

We Jews are the special people to Hashem, we have that special relationship with Him that he allows us to know the inside of Him, what He is really like; what He really wants; what he really cares about. Only we can go there, because we are the special people in His “life”.

This inside of Hashem is called Torah shebal peh (the Oral Torah – the Talmud and Midrashim). Only Jews are privy to this special part of Hashem. A goy who learns Torah shebal peh commits a capital sin! Because he has no right to invade Hashem’s privacy like that. Only Jews, who are in a special relationship with Hashem, can go there.

But then, maybe there’s a part of you that’s so deep and so private, that not even that special person in your life knows that part of you. Maybe you yourself don’t even know that part of you. This is the inside of the inside. The deepest most private parts of your personality. Even your most special people you maybe won’t let in there.

That’s the Kabbalah. It’s the inside of the inside of Hashem’s Will. Even though he lets us in to the Oral Torah part of Him because we have that special relationship with Him, but to go to the inside of the inside – the Kabbalah – even Jews cannot go. For that, you have to have an especially special relationship with Him; otherwise it’s terribly inappropriate for you to peek so deep into the Will of Hashem. This place is reserved only for the special of the special. The great Tzadikim, the great Talmidei Chachamim.

That’s first.

Second, even if you were to learn Kabbalah, you would not be successful unless you are an advanced Torah scholar.

Kabbalah is like sunglasses.

Yes, sunglasses. Sunglasses let you look at the sun, but they distort the image. The sun looks green, less shiny, and altogether different than it is in reality.

So if you look at the sun with your sunglasses, but you don’t understand intellectually what the sun looks like, you will go away with a totally wrong idea of what the sun looks like.

So too the Kabbalah. It allows you to see places that otherwise would shine too bright for you to look at, but the image you will get is distorted. You therefore need the intellectual knowledge of advanced Shas and Poskim (Talmud and Halachah) so that when you do learn Kabbalah, you will get the proper impressions.

---

Kabalah is, and always was, part of Torah. It is one of the "sod" part of the 4 parts of Torah, i.e. Pardes. Because only people who reached a certain level should learn it, it was restricted throughout the generations to mouth-to-mouth tradition from established mentor to worthy disciple.

From the earliest times, those worthy have learned Kabalah - after all, it is part of Torah. But you can't ask to find a proportionate sample of it in the Gemora - the Gemora was designed for a more inclusive audience. Not everything Chazal learned or said or did is in the Gemora. Don't think the Gemora is an accurate representation of Chazal's activities. Medrash exists too, and so did Kabalah. The Gemora has a specific purpose, and because something is not there does not mean it didn't exist.

As the Gemora (Pesachim 119a) learns from a posuk in Yeshaya:

"This refers to someone who conceals the things that Hashem concealed. And what are these things? The secrets of the Torah."

And in Gemora Chagiga (13a): Rav Ami said, we do not give the secrets of the Torah to anyone who does not have these five qualifications..."

These "secrets of the Torah" (sisrei torah) are Kabalah.

As far as Hashkafa and Neshama, etc, that as always dealt with, in Medrashim. It was made into Seforim by various authors as time went by for the same reason most seforim are made - there was a need for them.

---

The Rambam did not use Kabalah in his writings (although the Migdal Oz quotes a letter from the Rambam written in his later years that says he discovered Kabalah and he regrets many things that he said previously about it), and he was also never saw the Zohar. He based his writings on philosophy, not Kabalah.

Nevertheless, there is a school of Kabalists - the Yismach Moshe and his line - that use the Rambam's writings to explain Kabalistic concepts, and vice versa. (A computer search for Moreh Nevuchim quoted in Chasidishe seforim will show it very rarely -usually not quoted at all, a couple of times in Kedushas Levi, but all over the Yismach Moshe.)

The Satmar Rebbe ZTL, a descendant of the Yismach Moshe writes that even though the Rambam did not have Kabalah, because he was on such a high level to know the truth, because of his greatness, he came to truths on his own that are Kabalistic concepts; and that the Rambam - get this - did not contradict the Kabalah at all.

(As far as sheidim, they are all over Shas. But Rabbeinu Avrohom, his son, quoted by Rav Yonason Shteif ZTL at the beginning of Brachos - says that the Rambam really did believe in sheidim and statements otherwise were inserted by others.)

So while it is theoretically possible for any Rishon to base his statements on a metzius that is later shown to not be the case, the words of the rishonim can be interpreted on all levels of PaRdES (pshat, remez, drush, and sod), and it is fine to interpret their words in a way that fits in with reality.

---


The Zohar was indeed written by Rav Shimon bar Yochai, as confirmed by all our Torah experts, including the Arizal, who was the greatest expert in Kabbalah ever. The Gra, too, as well as all other experts in this topic agree that the Zohar is for real. It is quoted by the Bais Yosef in Ch. 140, and by the Ramah in Shulchan Aruch in a number of places. It is also quoted countless times in the Poskim, throughout the generations. (There was one Rav who questioned the authenticity of the Zohar, but his opinion has been dismissed as an overreaction to the Shabse Tzvi debacle, because of the above reasons, plus the fact that he had not one shred of evidence to back up his position).

We do not learn Kabalah because it is the "inner sphere", but it is more than 100% legitimate. There is no Torah authority after the above authenticating authorities who have chas v'sholom rejected the Zohar. The whole idea is nonsensical, and a product of non-religious, anti-Torah elements.

Rav Yaakov Emden held that parts of the Zohar were written by the "students and students' students" of Rav Shimon bar Yochai without a doubt, but it is as if Rav Shimon bar Yochai himself wrote it" (M'tpchas Sforim I p.31).

This is not the issue. The issue is whether the Zohar was "written centuries later", which alludes to the old, disproven opinion of Gershom Sholem, a heretic who knew not much about Judaism, despite - or actually, in line with - his title of "Professor of Kabalah" at Hebrew University.

This man decided, about 60 years ago, that that he understood Kabalah better than the Arizal, the Ramak, and the other masters, and that really Kabalah is not part of Torah but rather an alien outgrowth from Gnosticism and philosophy.

This is not, c"v, the view of Rav Yaakov Emden, the Chasam Sofer, or any other clear headed Jew. R. Yaakov Emden writes about the Zohar:

"Holy is the Sefer HaZohar ... cholilah to question it! The worthy reader will see in it holy light and the path to righteousness ... " (ibid, intro.)

Said R. Yaakov Emden, "The Seforim that I authored are full of Kabalah, based on the Zohar" (Adus B'Yaakov p. 21)

While it is true that Rav Yaakov Emden did on occasion change the text of the Zohar to conform to what he held was the original, or remove some later insertions - and it should be mentioned that even this opinion of his was rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars - he writes, "Cholilah that I should erase even one letter from the Zohar except where it is absolutely necessary" (MS I p.31). (See also Teshuvos Teshuva M'Ahava I:13, and I:26).

So out of touch was this G. Sholem, and that he even went on a campaign to publicize his "discovery" that Rav Yonason Eyebuschitz ZT"L was a closet follower of Shabse Tzvi! Of course, Rav Yonason was accused of that in his day by Rav Yaakov Emden, but the accusation was subsequently found to be a total mistake. But the fact that the Vilna Gaon himself found only pure Torah in Rav Yonason's Kabalistic writings did not impress Sholem. I guess it was because The Gra was did not have a PhD from Hebrew U in Kabalah.

Of course, all serious scholars at that time such as Rabbi Reuven Margolis ZT"L did a chainsaw massacre on Sholem's "discovery", exposing it for nothing more than ignorance and distortions.

Sholem latched on to a statement of Rav Yonason quoting "Drush Tanini" regarding the Kabalistic concept of "the holy nachash" and that Moshiach is Gemtria "nachash", which, the professor of Kabblaah said, is obviously referring to a work of Noson Ha'azasi, the notorious student of Shabse Tzvi.

Of course, Rav Margolis pointed out that in the Zohar (Bo) there is a "Drush Taninim" and that is what Rav Yonason was referring to.

Sholem insisted that his opposition doesn’t know what they are talking about, and "anyone who understands the Zohar knows that this is an open lie, that we do not even have to deal with".

He wrote: "Every single commentary on the Zohar without exception agrees with me".

This is what happens when someone tries to learn Kabalah from the printed word without a mentor, thus misunderstanding everything he sees.

Well, the professor, of course, turned out to be wrong. The Kabalistic explanation of Rav Yonason Eyebushitz ZT"L turned up --- guess where? -- in the commentary of Rav Yaaov Emden on that very Zohar!

Kind of a Kiddush Hashem, when something like that happens. (See Zaharei Yaavetz p.125 - 132 for details)

Even the phony secular pseudo-Kabalists have begun to give up on Sholem's ideas. Moshe Idel, "Professor of Jewish thought" (sic) in Hebrew U (he has a "PhD in Kabalah" (sic). I am not kidding) has proven Sholem wrong. In his "Kabalah, New Perspectives" (SIC!) he shows that Kabalah is really ancient and that the Gnostics actually were influenced by Kabalah, not vice versa.

Well, duh. At least someone takes Sholem seriously enough to bother disproving him.

No, sorry, all so-called "scholarship" trying to discredit Kabalah has already been discredited, and if you present any particular tidbit of such "scholarship" I will show you why it doesn’t work.

Or perhaps you can find a "Professor of Truth" somewhere in Hebrew U that can explain it.

Rav Yaakov Emden surely does dispute that. He said clearly that the Zohar was written by the students etc. of Rav Shimon bar Yochai - please see above. It is not necessary for him to repeat that.

The Arizal and the GRA, as well as other authorities of that caliber accepted the authorship of the Zohar as RSHB"I, or at the very most, with some parts by the students etc. But its authority as a Talmudic source was undisputed among the Torah authorities.

There is also no reason to oppose the Minhagim or Halachos from the Zohar. The Gemora about Eliyahu Hanavi is talking about Eliyahu making a gezeirah against a Minhag (see Meiri ad loc). Since we had a minhag to do chalitzah with a sandal, we will not accept his gezeirah. But if he were to come and tell us we were wrong, we would have to contend with his position with due Halachic process. Another interpretation is that the Gemora's ruling in the theoretical case of Eliyahu saying not to use a sandal for Chalitzah is because he has no halachic reasoning to back up his position. In other words, even if Eliyahu tells us something halachicly invalid, we should not listen. But if he would have the reasoning to show us we were wrong then we would indeed listen.

Besides, the Zohar may disagree with the Gemara regarding the statement about Eliyahu hanavi, the same as it can argue with any other part. But it is not at all necessary to make such a dispute. Following the Zohar where appropriate is not a contradiction to what the Gemora says.

That Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochaii didn’t write the Zohar meaning the all the exact words are not written by him is pretty clear - and yes, you don’t need to swear to that. The Zohar was clearly edited by students of RSHBI, or even Geonim (the Steipler said that). Like the Mishna was edited by R"Y Hanasi.

That doesn’t mean at all that it doesn’t have the authority of RSHBI any more than the fact that the Mishna was edited means c"v it doesn’t represent the opinions of the Tannaim quoted there.

As far as the disproofs of Gershom Sholem, my point is that since there is a clear tradition and expert testimony to the authoritativeness of the Zohar, the onus would lie on those who dispute that. Once their claims are disproven, the default value so to speak of this issue is the traditional one.

The Zohar was not widely publicized, and not printed, and went lost in the days of the Tannaim. It was "found" later on - some say the Ramban found it.

The Gemora is not kol hatorah kulah, though it is the most authoritative part of it. The Rishonim that rejected gilgulim did so not because it says in the Gemora that gilgulim do not exist but rather for the lack of evidence that it does exist, together with their own understanding. There is no disagreement here between the Mishnah and the Zohar.

The idea that the Zohar was written by Moshe DeLeon comes form the maskilim. It has long been disproved, discredited, and discarded. Please do a search for his name on the Frumteens.com website where the proofs against those ignorami are discussed.

It’s not only the Zohar that accepts gilgullim - it is every Torah authority unanimously that ever discussed the issue since the Zohar was uncovered. That goes all the way forom the Rishonim to the Arizal to the GRA down.

The idea that Gilgulim are fiction is not accepted at all, and we attribute such statements in Rav Sadiah Gaon to the fact that he did not have the benefit of the Zohar. Nobody, since the Zohar was revealed, agrees with it.

---

Aggada and Midrashim

The requirement to believe Torah MiSinai includes of course, not only Torah shebiksav, but Torah shebaal peh. That includes Midrashim.

However, Agados can be interpreted non-literally. Rav Saadia Gaon writes that an Agada can be interpreted as Mesholim in 4 instances: If it contradicts reality, reason, Gemara, or Rabbinic tradition. The Ramchal, in Maamar HaAgadta also writes that some Agados are mesholim. (See also Radak Shmuel I end of ch. 28)

Not accepting a Mamar Chazal is not acceptable - but to reinterpret it in a way that makes it more palatable is OK.

Theoretically, that is. In order to interpret any Chazal - Halachah or Agada - you need to benefit of Rabbinic tradition throughout the ages. If the Rishonim considered an Agada literal, you would be fooling yourself by saying that it is not. They surely had the same measure of common sense as we do, and so if they were not bothered by the credulity of a specific statement of Chazal, we should not be, either.

Another thing: There are people who refuse to accept what seems to them incredulity even in Pesukim of the Torah and they therefore interpret them allegorically. That is Apikorsus for sure. And to say that well, I will trust the Torah and the Prophets but not Chazal makes no sense. Chazal didn't make up stories. But rather the Agada was said, sometimes, as a Moshol. But to know when it is a Moshol and when it is literal is as difficult as properly interpreting any Torah passage. And here, too, the same logic that tells you the literal meaning of the Chazal is hard to accept also tells you in even stronger tones, that we are nothing but foolish to reject the opinions of our Rishonim, who understood both reality and Chazal much better than we do.

I have a better idea, then, for such cases, when you come across such a Chazal. Invoke Rav Chaim Brisker's dictums: 1 "Fun a kasha shtarbt mir nisht". You won't die from a [an unanswered] question. 2 "S'iz besser to beiben by a kasha vi tzu zogen a krumer teretz" - "It's better to remain with a question than to have the wrong answer."

So say simply, "I don't understand this Chazal." You don't have to interpret it any way at all. Maybe one day you'll see something in a sefer or someone will explain it. In the meantime, there is no need to jump to conclusions that our predecessors did not reach.

---

Scientific facts in Chazal and rabbinic tradition can be divided into two categories:
(a) Scientific facts that are taken from the Torah itself, and
(b) Scientific facts that were known by Chazal based on their knowledge of science.

That scientific knowledge can be derived the Torah, there is no doubt. The Gemora in Bechoros 8a derives from a posuk in Bereishis the fact that a snake stays with its children longer than the rest of the animal kingdom. This is cited by the Ramban (Toras Hashem Temima p.159 in Chavel edition) as but one example of how Chazal knew facts of science from the pesukim in the Torah that describe Brias HaOlam. He cites more. Rabbeinu Bachya writes in the Introduction to Chumash that all wisdom and science in existence is contained in Torah. Some scientific facts were known through rabbinic tradition. The Rashba cites a rabbinic tradition from Sinai that a treifah cannot live more than 12 months. (Rav Yonason Eyebushitz (Kreisi Upleisi 40) writes that such traditions are not to be disregarded even if found to be against “all the laws of heaven and earth”, since they are part of Torah shebal peh.)

To question a scientific fact that is derived from the Torah is to question the author’s understanding of the Torah, which, in the case of Chazal, cannot be done. The only question is, did Chazal derive all of the scientific facts they used from the Torah, and what do we do when we see a scientific fact in Chazal that contradicts current scientific knowledge?

The Rama in Toras HaOlah quotes the Rambam who says that in the days of Neviim and Chazal, the science of astronomy was “incomplete”. The Rama strongly argues, stating clearly that we assume rabbinic science to be infallible, and ancient rabbinic knowledge of astronomy complete.

The Maharal (B’er Hagola 6) writes that when the sages mentioned a scientific fact, they derived it from their knowledge of the Torah and Hashem, Who is the Cause of all science. He says that science is inferior to Torah even where it comes to scientific knowledge, because scientists base their opinions on what they see, which is a finite and imperfect method of investigation, as opposed to knowledge of science through Torah, which is the root and cause for all facts in the world.

---

Rabbeinu Avrohom says that Medrashim are not "essential" beliefs - not in the 13 ikarim, but he does not say that they are not as authoritative as the non-ikarim beliefs of the Torah. The ikarim means that if you don’t believe them you are not part of klall yisroel. According to the Rambam, even if you accidentally don’t believe them, or are mistaken about them.

There are numerous explanations of the difference between the Ikarim and the rest of the Torah - even though everything in Torah can be considered in Torah shebal peh - but even the non-ikarim of the Torah are binding belief, such that you cannot say about then what the Ramban said about the Medrashim: "If you believe them, good; if not, it doesn't hurt."

The fact that Medrashim, according to Rabeinu Avrohom, are svara not kabalah doesnt negate their authority. Other parts of Torah are svara too - one of the 13 Midos of the Torah, Kal Vachomer, is a svara, not traditional, and that is once of the reasons given for ain onshin min hadin - that we do not punish people based on kal vachomer, because since it is not tradition but mere svara, we cannot be sure it is true.

But nobody ever said that someone has the right to disagree with any halachah based on kal vachomer. The svara of chazal are authoritative even without tradition.

I would imagine that the pshat is, that the Agados, as opposed to Halachos, are often not meant k'pshutam, and therefore, when the Rishonim "disagree" with them, they mean merely to disagree with the simple meaning, implying that the Medrash must mean something that we do not understand, as oppsoed to saying that the Medrash is simply wrong. As the Menoras Hameor said, if they look strange, it's because we don’t understand what they really mean. So when dealing with the simple pshat in Tanach, it may be OK, if you are a rishon, to learn the pshat differently than the Medrash, if you have proof that the Medrash cannot mean what it seems to say - not that the author of the Medrash is mistaken.

Especially since the Abarbanel does sometimes learn pshat differently than the Medrashim, and the Abarbanel happen to hold, in his sefer Rosh Amanah, that every fact of Torah are "essential" beliefs, not only the 13 dictums of the Rambam. So if license to disagree with the Agad is based on the fact that they are not among the 13 Ikarim, the Abarbanel would not agree with that license, since to him, everything is included in the Ikarim.

Rather, disbelieving a Medrash is not allowed; saying "it does not mean what it seems to say" is acceptable. This would not even be considered "distrusting the sages" since you are not distrusting anyone except your own understanding of what the sages said.

---

In the Ramban's transcript of his disputes with Christian priests, the Ramban seemed to say we don't take Midrashim literally. We know this isn't true, so how could he say that?
The Yam Shel Shlomo in Bava Kama does say that it is a capital crime to falsify a Halachah, but not everyone agrees with that. I heard Rabbi Dovid Cohen say at an AJOP convention that he once asked Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL about his (Rav Moshe's) Teshuva on capital punishment, written to the president of the USA, which does not seem to square with the Torah's view. Rav Moshe replied that even though what he wrote wasn't 100% true, he needed to tell that to the President for whatever reason. Rabbi Cohen then mentioned the Yam Shel Shlomo, and Rav Moshe said he disagreed with the Yam Shel Shlomo.

But I don't see that the Yam Shel Shlomo would necessarily have a problem with what the Ramban said. The YSS is talking about stating a false Halachah, saying what is chayav is potur or vice versa. The Rambam did not change a single halachah or Torah idea. All he did was make a misleading statement about Torah methodology - about the authority of Medrashim, but there was not a single practical difference in the world. One the contrary, by the Ramban saying that he was able to convey the authentic Torah stance on the matter; had he conceded as to the authority of Medrashim, the Goyim would have believed a false concept, since the Rambam could not have explained to them that the Medrash is talking al pi kabalah. The Rambam said a lie in order to bring out the true Torah position, as opposed to the Maharshal who is talking about falsifying the Torah position.

Furthermore, the Ramban's words could be interpreted many ways - as a milsa d'misparshei b'trie anpei - we have examples of Chazal, and even Yaakov Avinu, using verbal trickery to give a wrong impression without uttering a lie ("ani esav bechorchah"). The Ramban said that: We have a book called medrash, which are sermons etc." The Ramban did NOT say what he has in mind when he refers to this "book." He did not say that he is referring to the Medrash Rabbah or Tanchumah etc. Perhaps he had some other "book" in mind when he said that, which states the birthday of Moshiach. It is true that in context of the question posed, he did give that impression, but if the Ramban wanted to, he could say that he did not lie. And/or, the Ramban could mean that the literal meaning of the Medrash is negligible, meaning, that the Medrashim surely are authoritative, but their literal words are not always their real intent. In other words, the "sermons" of Chazal are not the same as "sermons" of humans - even when Chazal gave a "personal opinion" sermon, the personal opinion only refers to the literal text, but there is certainly a Torah she bal peh, authoritative meaning in the Medrash, even if the Medrash is only a moshol.

The reason I say that it is untenable that the Ramban just did not believe in the authority of Medrashim is because we have an entire body of Torah literature - Halachic and Agadic - based on Medrashim, as well as Halachic proofs being brought from Medrashim, and we do not find in this entire body of literature, anybody defending himself against a Medrash by saying it is merely a sermon. And don't forget - this would include the Mechilta, Sifra, and Sifri as well. They, too, are not part of "Talmud." The first Ramban on the Taryag Mitzvos (of the Rambam) wants to disprove the Rambam's position that Anochi Hashem is a mitzvah based on an Agadita in the Mechilta. This is just one of countless mesholim.

Because of that, and because such a sentiment from the Ramban happens to only appear when he is put on the spot by the Christians in a public forum, in which he had no other choice (what should he have done - explained to them the Kabbalistic, "true" meaning of the medrash??), and the other sources (such as the Abarbanel) do indeed explain that Medrash to have meaning only al pi kabbalah, plus the fact that to interpret the Ramban differently would put the Ramban at odds with Torah authorities who clearly state otherwise (see below), and it is a rule (stated explicitly in the responsa Chacham Tzvi) that whenever we have a choice, we go out of our way to interpret Torah positions so as NOT to argue with each other, I do not believe that the Ramban meant simply to say that the Medrashim (i.e. anything outside of "Talmud") are just discardable.

The Radvaz (4:232) writes that "Aggadah is part of the Torah shebal peh and is rooted in what Moshe received on Har Sinai directly from Hashem, just like the rest of Torah shebal peh".

The Sifri (48) explains the posuk in Devarim 11:22, "And you really follow all this Mitzvah", that "this means to learn Midrash, Halachah, and Agada."

The Sdei Chemed (vol. IX p.130) brings opinions that we rule halachicly like the Medrash Rabbah even against the Tosefta (others disagree).

Rabbeinu Tam (Sefer Hayashar) says that we do rule Halachicly from Agadita, and what Chazal mean when they say we do not, is merely that when Agada argues with argues with a Halachic source we rule like the Halachic source.

But nobody says that Agadita is just to be disregarded if one doesn't believe what it says.

As far as Rabeinu Avrohom ben Harambam, all he says is that some peirushim on Pesukim are not Kabalah l'moshe misinai, but rather the personal interpretations of the sages.

But Rabeinu Avrohom does not inform us as to what authority the "personal interpretations" of the sages have. He does not say that they are not binding.

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos reads, "Shimon his son says, 'All my life I grew up among the sages and I have not found anything better for the body than silence'."

The Tana of this Mishna says explicitly that his statement is NOT a tradition from previous generations, but rather his personal observation. But does that make this Mishna any less holy, or authoritative, than any other?

The underlying concept behind the authority of the sages is not merely in what the received by tradition but what they discerned on their own. Their understanding reaches deep into the "infinite wells of wisdom" that G-d has planted inside a human being (see Ramban v'yipach b'apav nishmas chaim).

The Gemora constantly asks "lomoh li kra, svara hu." That means that the "personal understanding" of the sages has authority and a posuk does not add anything to the "personal logic."

Of course, it is very possible - and this seems to be what Rabeinu Avrohom is saying - that there are levels of authority in the Torah. There are the 13 "fundamentals of the religion", as opposed to other beliefs, which are binding, but denial of them is not the same as denying the fundamentals. So, too, Rabbeinu Avrohom is saying that denial of an interpretation of a Medrash is not on the same level as denying a tradition from Sinai (in fact he makes it a point to say that denying the interpretation of a Medrash is not like denying one of the fundamentals of the religion). But just as saying that creation ex nihilo for instance is not one of the 13 Ikarim (the Rambam actually omits it), does not mean that it is not a binding Torah belief, so too when we say that the Medrashim are not Siniatic traditions - which is all Rabeinu Avrohom said - it does not mean that you are not bound to believe them. Rabeinu Avrohom's statement and the Ramban's are not the same.

---

As far as whether scientific data culled from the Torah is considered Halachah or Agada, and if they can be explained allegorically, there is Chacham Tzvi (77) about this. He used a Zohar to rule Halachicly that a chicken cannot live without a heart. There was a Rabbi then who suggested that the Zohar cannot be used to prove such a thing l'halachah because the Zohar is perhaps meant only as a moshol, but not literally.

The Chacham Zvi responds that unless we have no choice, we are obligated to interpret the words of the Torah and its sages - including the Zohar - literally, and so scientific facts can indeed be derived therefrom, and relied upon l'halacha

The Ran (Drashos, 5): "Just as we are commanded to follow their decisions (chazal) regarding the laws of the torah so to we are commanded to follow them regarding traditions and theology (deos) and the way to darshon the pesukim, whether it is regarding a mitzvah or not, and a jew who deviates from their words, even regarding what is not relevant to a mitzvah, is an apikores and has no share in the world to come."

And the Alshich: "Nobody has a right in our generation to disagree based on his own opinion, if he did not find such an opinion from his predecessors (Rebbeim). We are commanded "lo sosur", which includes also Agadita." (Shmuel II 21:1)

And the Menoras Hameor: "We are obligated to believe the Medrahos and the Agados as much as the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu a"h. And if there seems to be something that looks like an exaggeration or unnatural, the problem is in our understanding, not in their statement." (1:2:1).

The Maharashdam (EH 127) quotes the Rashbatz saying that "our generations compare to the earlier generations like a monkey to a human."

There are literally countless such examples of statements in the poskim regarding how we must accept the authority of those superior to us.

In the Responsa Chut Sheni (#18): "Even though this Mitzvah is not listed in the Gemora, still, since our Rabbis in France all wrote it, that is, the Baalei Tosfos, the Smag, Smak, Rosh, etc., we are obligated to fulfill it as if it was stated in the Gemora . . . for the Rosh writes regarding the post-Talmudic Geonim, and even regarding the sages of each generation, that whoever makes a mistake by not knowing their words, it is as if they made a mistake in not knowing a Mishna, so too here, someone who violates their words is as if he violated the Gemora, and is called a sinner."

(Interesting to see Rav Yaakov Emden's comments on the Chasam Sofer's disagreeing with his predecessors, in Yaavetz YD 264).

A monkey may not be obligated by law to believe what his human superiors tell him, but if he's a smart monkey, he will trust their intellectual superiority.

---

Chidushim

A Chidush is anything that you didn't know, and then figured out. Even if it only clarifies the simple meaning of the text, it is considered a chidush.

Other Chidushim are those that others, even Torah greats, may not have known. Perhaps you will find an answer to a question of R. Akiva Eger ZTL. That is possible. Every person on earth has Chidushim that only he is destined to uncover. Without him, they will remain lost forever. Each sage has his own special part of Torah that is destined to be revealed by him, and so he may think of one or many of the possible opinions that were given on Har Sinai, and some other sage may think of others, but all those opinions are legitimate and given on Har Sinai. Even when we follow the majority, we still understand that the minority opinion was given on Har Sinai as well.

And the way Hashem arranged this system, no Tazdik can figure out the part of Torah that was designated for a different sage. But all the legitimate opinions were given on Har Sinai.
Moshe Rabbeinu knew all of this. It's just that Klall Yisroel was unable to absorb everything Moshe knew, so things became forgotten. You cannot come up with a Chidush that Moshe did not know.

Of course, if your Chidush involves explaining a novel pshat in a Gemora for instance, we assume - we hope! - that the sage of the Gemora knew your Chidush, or else you are attributing to the Gemora something it never meant. The same applies if you say a new pshat in a Rashi, etc.

---

There seems to be a contradiction with regards to Moshe having learnt the entire Torah. We are taught that the Torah is infinite, and infinity can not be reached, so how is this possible? Infinite means something different when we use it to describe Hashem or the Torah, than when we use it to describe the universe.

With regard to physical things, "infinite" means a never ending quantity, or distance, or size, of something. The "infiniteness" is that there is so much of whatever, that it cannot be measured. But the item itself, in lesser quantity, is very finite.

When we say Hashem is infinite, we mean a totally different thing. Hashem's infiniteness is not due to the fact that there is so much of Him, but rather His very nature is beyond physical characteristics. It is not just that he cannot be measured, but rather any and all physical characteristics does not apply to Him.

The same thing with the Torah. Every word of the Torah is made of the infinite character of Hashem. It is beyond time and space. Not merely that it has so much of it.

When we say that a Godol knows "all the Torah", it is an exaggeration, a figure of speech. It doesn't really mean He knows all of it. Nobody can - since it is infinite.

When we say that the Malach teaches the baby the entire Torah, the commentaries explain that the "whole Torah" means a soul that is made out of the Torah, which is infinite. But it does not mean he actually hears an infinite amount of words.

---

Chidushei Torah are simply explanations of what the Torah means that are not apparent at first glance. Sometimes, they will not be apparent to anyone except the person who figures out the chidush.

But the idea behind all chidushim is that they explain what the text, be it Chumash, Gemora, or Mishna Brurah - means to say, as opposed to finding a place in the text to fit in what you want to say.

So the best type of Chidushei Torah is those which resolve difficulties in the text. Others don't necessarily resolve difficulties but enhance our understanding of the text.

The goal in creating a chidush is that the chidush should be true, that is, your chidush should actually reflect the intent of the text.

So obviously, you can't just decide whatever you want as a chidush. In order to qualify, it has to be reconcilable with the entire rest of the Torah, for if your chidush contradicts something else in the Torah, then according to you the Torah contradicts itself. Your chidush has to be something that the Torah would actually mean to say, as opposed to just some thought that you came up with and would like the Torah to say.

That in itself suffices to explain why the Ramban's chiddushim are better than ours - in order for an idea to be legitimate it has to be in line with every single thing the Torah has to say, and who can say for sure that his chidush qualifies?

The Ramban can. You’re talking about someone who correctly understood all of the Torah, all of its aspects, and was able to know whether what he thought of is in line or contradicts, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by implication, openly or by any possible derivation, even the most hidden message the Torah contains.

That is why the best chidushim - and in some schools of thought the only really good ones - are those which they refer to as "muchrach", that is, those that explain things without the need for any additional ideas or explanations. They're more like discovering things that are obviously there, but unnoticed or unnoticeable at first glance, as opposed to having to add something that wasn't there before.

These are the kind of chidushim which, after hearing them, you say to yourself, "Darn! Why didn’t I see that?"

The more a chidush helps us understand a posuk the better it is; the more it takes us away from a posuk the worse it is. This is really what "poshut pshat" means - the poshut pshat is not chas vsholom the literal translation (literal translations are not the same as pshat - when you say "the early bird catches the worm", the pshat in what you said was that it's good to be early; the literal translation would have you talking about worms and birds and that's clearly not what you meant!), but rather what the posuk really means to say.

As an example of a marvelous chidush which also is "pshuto shel mikra" I will use the world famous Bais Halevi on the conversation between Yosef and his brothers.

Yosef's brothers told him that they have to bring Binyamin back or else their father will die of grief. Yosef then reveals himself to the brothers, saying "I am Yosef, is your father alive?" The posuk then says that the brothers were "shocked" by the revelation and could not answer him.


Problem: Why did Yosef ask if their father was alive? Didn't they just tell him that they have to bring back Binyamin or else he will die? So Yosef knew that their father was alive!

Another mystery: The Medrash comments on these pesukim: "Woe is to us on the day of judgment! For Yosef gave mussar to his brothers and they were unable to answer him. So too will Hashem judge us all according to what we are!" Question: What in the world does this statement have to do with the episode of Yosef and the brothers? And what is the Medrash trying to tell us anyway? How else would Hashem judge us - according to that we are not?!

Answer: Yosef meant something totally different. When Yosef heard the brothers say that they have to bring back Binyamin or else their father would die, he refuted them. "Are you really so concerned about your father dying because of grief because Binyamin will disappear? Well, you're talking to the wrong person. You know who I am? I am Yosef - the one you people sold into slavery and told our father that I was dead! Why weren't you concerned about your father when I disappeared the way you claim you're concerned now over Binyamin? I am Yosef - 'ha'od avi chai' - Is my father still alive? Your father obviously didn't die when I disappeared, and you obviously didn't think he would - so why are you suddenly so concerned now??

And that's what the Medrash means. That's why the brothers "couldn't answer" him. He disproved their seeming concern for their father's welfare in the sharpest of ways. He showed them that they are hypocrites - that they themselves contradict what they claim to be.

That's what the Medrash means when it says "Woe to us on the day of judgment, when G-d judges us according to what we are", meaning, whenever we make some excuse to Hashem why we didn’t do this or that Mitzvah, Hashem will show us that we are phonies based on things we ourselves did. When we claim that we didn't learn so much because we didn’t have time, Hashem will say "but look how much time you had to talk on the phone and go to the movies!"; when we say we were too tired to learn Torah Hashem will say "If you were so tired how come you had enough strength to go to Blockbuster and rent a video?"

That's a chidush. Before the chidush we had problems in the posuk. After the chidush we have beauty, clarity, and meaning.

When someone says a chidush you want to ask, "Why do you need to say that chidush? What was wrong with the posuk beforehand? Does your chidush make the posuk any more understandable than it was beforehand?"

If the answer is "no", then the question is, "what then makes you think the chidush is true?"

So if I say for instance, "Bereishis bara elokim" - my chidush is: Bereishis means not just "at the beginning" time-wise, but also "in the front" - at the forefront of creation is our universe, but there are many universes besides ours that was created - many things besides shamayim vaaretz. These universes are not made up of shamayim vaaretz but other things that are beyond our comprehension"

You want to ask me: "What good does your chidush do?" Does it make the posuk easier to understand? (no). Does it solve any problems or answer any questions? (no). So then: How do you know that that is what the posuk is meaning to tell us?

And I would be stuck. Such a thought is not a chidush - it's babble.

There has to be some reason that you chose your chidush-explanation as opposed to any other possible explanation.

If there is no reason, then the chidush is useless.

(Note: There is another approach, called "drush", where you would use the words of the posuk out of context in order to teach a lesson. The idea is that the Torah, which contains infinite wisdom, contains any and all lessons that can be derived out of its wording no matter how you look at it. However, because the possibilities of drush are unrestricted by context, it can not mean to prove anything; it is merely meant to derive from the wording of the pesukim a lesson that we already have legitimately derived elsewhere, or some teaching that we otherwise know to be true regardless of the posuk.)

Someone once told me about some "chidush" they had, that when the posuk says "v'kivshuhah" regarding Adam conquering the world, that it really means "you should learn everything about the world". The person who said it claimed that it was "his chidush."

Of course, it is not a chidush at all, because why in the world would lead us to believe that this is what the posuk means? Nothing at all. Its the same as my Bereishis bara elokim "chidush" above. He may as well have said "vekivshuha" means that we must buy up all the land in the world, thereby "conquering" it; or that we must go all over the world and plant flags with our pictures on them on all continents, thereby "conquering" the world.

This stuff is not Chidushei Torah – it’s trying to fit your own hashkofos into the posuk. Its not even legitimate drush, because the legitimate kind of drush demands that the lesson have some sort of basis before you fit it into the posuk. It has to stand alone, make sense by itself, even before the derivation from the posuk.

And even if this "lesson" would have some basis, it would be very low quality drush anyway - what does the word "kibush" have to do with learning stuff? How do you associate learning with conquest? If I learn about something that means I "conquered" it? This is worse than drush - this is just making my own translations.

As far as Torah Sheba'al Peh and the seeming departures from pshat there, Torah shebiksav means nothing unless is reconciles with Torah shebal peh. So if the posuk says "an eye for an eye" we know it does NOT mean to knock out the perpetrator’s eye. That is simply wrong pshat - not according to any derech whatsoever.

The same applies to the entire Torah.

You would have a legitimate question, however, if you would ask "If the Torah meant payment and not poking out eyes, why didn’t it just say 'you should pay'?" And if you can find an acceptable answer to that question, you’d have a good chidush, since it increases your understanding of the posuk, and solves an issue for you.

But what you cannot do, is to say that posuk does indeed mean literally "an eye for an eye." Our Torah itself - in the Oral section - says that’s not the case.

Even if you don't know a reason why the Torah would word the posuk like that, you still can't attribute to the posuk something that it does not mean. When discussing chidushim, you should always remember Rav Chaim Brisker's rule about questions that you don’t have answers for:

"It's better to remain with a good question than to have a bad answer."

---

In theory, you can come up with your own opinions. Of course you have to think. And many people do not, and come to premature conclusions

Many of the Chazals and the teachings that are in the Gemarah, etc., are so complex, that your conclusions are indeed premature, and easily blown away upon further investigation into the topics. In order to be able to conclude "halachah lmaaseh" or "haskkafa lmaaseh" you have to possess greater amounts of information and greater Torah-interpretation skills than what the average person has, and surely you can't do it as described above.

Only a reliable, capable, and skillful Rav can do that. For you, you should get a hold of one of those reliable, skillful and capable Rabbonim and "Make for yourself a Rebbi." He will also explain to you those Chazals and teachings that you learned in light of bottom line halachic and hashkafic practice.

It’s just as difficult to derive hashkafa as it is halachah, and just as you would not be a posek on your own, you would not be a hashkafic mentor on your own either.

At the very least, get a hold of some seforim written by such people. Its better, of course, to have someone live, but seforim are great both in conjunction with, or even in the absence of, a real Rebbi.