A place for faith studies, midrashim and legends in the Talmud Torah

What about all the non-halachic parts of the Torah
(Genesis, half of Exodus, parts of Numbers and Deuteronomy)?

Is there any benefit and point in studying them, and if so, what?

I don't see much use in them. The first Rashi on the Pentateuch already brings up the question of Rabbi Yitzchak: Why did the Torah begin with Genesis and not content itself with the halakhic part (this month's commentary for you) alone? We see that he assumes that the narrative parts are essentially unnecessary or secondary.
It is true that it is difficult to say that someone who deals with these parts of the Torah has no reward as a Torah scholar. But this is a qualitative nullification of Torah. In my opinion, one learns nothing from this, precisely for the reasons I listed above.
R”H of Volozhin in chapter 4 of Nefa”H also insists on this and defines that the aggadot are within the scope of the word of God, while the laws are the will of God (and He and His will are one). Of course, the laws are both His word and His will.

Studying the words of legend and thought that bring a person closer to knowing the One who said and created the world, and to understanding the thought system of Judaism, is not only abrogating the Torah, but also abrogating the positive commandments from the words of Kabbalah, as the prophet Isaiah commanded us, in the haftarat of Yitro: "The heart of this people is fat, and their ears are dull, and their eyes are dull, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and return and be healed." And wonder at the prophets, the Tanach and the Amoraim, the first and the last, who multiplied the writing of books on morality and the knowledge of God, the opposite of the commandments of the prophet Isaiah 🙂 and Tze'e'c.

With blessings, Samson L'tz

If so, Rabbi Michi, what did the Giver of the Torah see in writing so many unnecessary and secondary parts in his Torah?
Apparently, in the eyes of God, it is not so secondary.. (Seriously, without cynicism or a desire to attack)
Perhaps from this itself we will learn what in his eyes is important, or at least - no less important?

As I wrote, I cannot deny the value of study from the perspective of God. What I wrote is that in my opinion, one learns almost nothing from it, and therefore I see no value in it. Your question is valid, but it is not addressed to me, but to God. The fact is that one learns nothing from it (and this is a fact, not an opinion), and the question is then why was it written.

A. There is a famous saying that in the Volozhin Yeshiva there were two Yeshiva heads: the one who studied and taught the Bible was a passionate Zionist, the one who only studied was a clear anti-Zionist 🙂 And very well done.

What about the things I learned from the Bible? (Warning - centrist-Kokist content! Forgiveness be with you.):
1. Fulfillment of the commandments in the land: A comprehensive and central purpose in the Torah is the existence of the people in the land while keeping all the commandments (and this also includes that the people are no longer a mitzvah like the Atenaz, but a self-contained purpose, in which the people live their own life of commandments) [It is made clear in many verses that the purpose will come out - reaching the land (the beginning of Parashat Vaara). The idea as a whole is repeated in Devarim 4-9 very often].
2. From the above also: National purpose: The Torah's purpose is primarily national, that the people as a nation will fulfill the commandments of God. In other words: the commandments are not a private commandment for me, and in that case also for you and all other Jews, but a desire for there to be a complete nation that knows God and keeps His commandments.
3. Universal purpose: The understanding that the people of Israel are destined to enlighten the entire world with the word of God, and to be a beacon of faith and calling on the name of God. To all the peoples of the world (“And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (priests of whom - of the entire world) “And it shall come to pass in that day, that many nations shall be joined... and they shall be my people” (Zechariah) “And many nations shall go and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord;’ and he shall teach us of his ways, and we shall walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the Torah (to the whole world), and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem).
4. The commandments as a central and binding factor in the relationship between Israel and God. That is, the validity and importance of the commandments in the eyes of God, to the extent of such severe punishments for their non-observance. [An idea woven from the Book of Deuteronomy to “Remember the law of Moses, my servant”].
5. God will not replace His people by breaking His covenant with them.
(End of warning)

B. Question about the essence: You wrote above that the Bible and faith, which are not useful and relevant to the learner, are the abrogation of Torah (at least in quality), compared to Halacha, which is always the study of Torah.
How do you know that the normative is of greater quality than the historical?
I understand that the entire value of studying Torah is only in that it is content that He wants me to learn. According to Him, what is the difference between desire and speech? He wants me to learn both.
In other words: What is the point of studying stories about Saul and David to me, for investigating the Torah, for investigating the Barish Gittin, for what is Ashkelon, for the dispute over the mountains of Bar Lev and the final judgment, for what is the confession of a legal practitioner? In all of them, I learn concrete content that He wants me to learn. I want to learn, whether historical or normative. And how can I say that one is better than the other?
Thank you.

I checked carefully.
The one who taught the Bible also taught Gemara and Halacha, and eventually withdrew from the Zionist movement. But the fundamental distinction does indeed stand.
And not to leave the issue unfinished, I will bring another similar distinction. I once went to the open shelf in the Bar Ilan library to look for literature that deals with the virtues of preaching (mainly the Koran). The entire shelf was exclusively by Mizrochniks (rabbis. Not necessarily scholars: Hirschenzon, Amiel, Ostrovsky, Hanazir, and more).

Regarding the Kockist conclusions you brought, a few related comments:
1. These lessons are, if anything, the general spirit of the Bible. This is not a lesson learned from a specific parsha. For this, you do not need to study the Bible. It's like saying that you learned from the Bible that there was a Mount Sinai standoff or that He created the world and brought us out of Egypt. Well, that's fine. My question is what lesson do you learn from delving into a particular chapter or passage in the Bible and its details. And my answer: usually nothing.
2. As you know, not everyone agrees on these premises either (there are also some Jews outside of Kokiada). It seems to me that almost every one of the conclusions you brought can be argued about. You accept them because that's your opinion from the start.
3. I don't think you'll find anyone who thought differently and when they read the Bible, they were convinced and changed their mind. Therefore, even these things are difficult to say that you learned from the Bible.

This is a simple explanation, as R. Volozhiner and R. Yitzchak wrote at the beginning of Rashi on the Torah. Beyond that, you assume that learning has value only because God commanded it. But this is a superficial and incorrect perception. Even if He did not command the study of Torah, it would have value because the Torah is His command and will. And as I explained in a video lesson (see link below), the command to study Torah is not really a regular command. According to the opinions of the Rabbis, morning and evening, the law is issued, and the rest is left to our decision.
But this is not just a normative statement. When I study the will of God, I feel that I have learned something. If my goal is to study history, I can also study it from other books (and probably more accurately and more efficiently). What do I care if Hezekiah went there or fought there? Why is it significant? If it is a decree, we accept it (daily religious entertainment), but we have not departed from the rule of nullifying the Torah in quality.

Link to the lesson:

It was not only the Netziv who was a 'Hovevei Zion' who dealt with the Bible. Rabbi Hirsch, who was an opponent of the 'Hovevei Zion', also dealt with the interpretation of the Bible, and showed in his commentaries on the Torah and Psalms that there is much to learn for our lives from the Bible. I provided material on the engagement with the Bible and its interpretation in the Haredi community in my responses to Elchanan Nir's article, 'Reward for Retirement'. (On the website ‘Mosaf Shabbat– Makor Rishon9. Among other things, I brought the words of my great-grandfather, Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Levinger, a student of the Hatz, who wrote (in his book ‘Archot Chaim’, or ”H Si’ Kanu) that studying the Bible was necessary so that its fear would precede its wisdom. I mentioned there that in the Hungarian yeshivots there was a systematic study (including weekly tests) of the Torah and Rashi, and in some of them also Nach. The difference between the Lithuanian and Hungarian yeshivots was that in Lithuania the systematic study concentrated on the study of the Gemara, and the rest of the Torah studies remained the personal responsibility of each student. In contrast, in the Hungarian yeshivots they were aware of the need to train not only great Torah scholars, but also To also train ‘householders’ Torah scholars, and therefore there were organized lessons in a variety of Torah subjects – issues in study; Gef”t and Mahrash”a on the Seder; Chumash and Rashi, Och and Yoch, and Nech or moral books. And for each subject, times and exams were set, and learning was not left to the personal initiative of the learner.

With best wishes, Shࢭtz Levinger

Sh”el, there is no dispute that there were (many) Jews who dealt with the Bible (you wouldn't have to go that far. In my uncontested opinion, Rashi and the Ramban themselves (!) dealt with this). Ramada makes a claim on a different level (and thus usually opposes proofs along the lines of "everyone believes/does this way").

Rabbi, you assume that learning has value only because God commanded it. But this is a superficial and incorrect perception. Even if He did not command the study of Torah, it would have value because the Torah is His command and will. Why is the Bible not considered His will? Even though the history that can be studied in Mecca is clear, we would prefer to study with the best teacher (God) even if the motives are unclear. Beyond that, you keep quoting the question of the first Rashi and forget that there is also an excuse.

In the Sed Esek, all that God has said is done and heard, 2017

I heard, I think in a lesson by Rabbi Kook, that from the statement, “We will do and hear,” it follows that “hearing” is not just a preparation for “doing,” for hearing the laws and the details of the laws must precede action, otherwise how will they know what to do? The “hearing” that comes after “doing” is already a second hearing that has its own value beyond knowledge of the law.

The words emerge from the plain text of Exodus 24, where it is explained that Moses recited the laws before writing them, and the people answered, “All the words that the Lord has spoken, we will do.” Then Moses wrote the “Book of the Covenant” and made a covenant with the people, and after that Moses reads the Book of the Covenant in the ears of the people, and now, after the people have already heard the laws twice! The people say: “We will do and obey!”

After making a covenant with the Lord, we are not only “obedient subjects” of a king, but his allies who work with him out of responsibility and personal initiative to realize the great ideals that underlie the laws. From now on, it is not enough for us to do what is my duty, but rather it is our duty to follow in the footsteps of the patriarchs and prophets, who take the initiative and go beyond their duty to elevate the world.

We follow in the footsteps of Abraham, who brings those far away and teaches them justice, in the footsteps of Isaac, who seeks to hold on to the land and bring forth from it "Rabbi Dagan and Tirosh", in the footsteps of Jacob, who lays the foundations for a people who walk in the ways of God, in the footsteps of Joseph, who influenced the center of civilization and tries to reorganize it, and in the footsteps of Moses, who rebels against injustice and the enslavement of his people and restores them to their land. These sublime values are embodied not only in the commandments, but also in the actions of the patriarchs and prophets, who are the bodies of the Torah and its foundations.

With blessings, Sh”t Levinger

Even the parts of the laws in the Torah are not content with dry legalese, but rather present the ethical trend. I will give a few examples from the parasha.
The author of Ohah interprets that ’You shall not go out as the slaves’ said the Torah about the Hebrew mother, expressing the ’beginning’ of the Torah, that the mother should not be left in this state for six years, but should be designated for marriage to her master or her son. Even the law ‘An eye for an eye’, which the Torah itself neutralizes its practical existence by permitting a ransom when it is not a case of murder – is a moral statement that it was appropriate to punish the one who harmed his body, but that he had the possibility of redemption.
Thus the prohibition ‘Beshesh in a field of plunder’ It is not just a Jewish law, but an expression of the trend of ‘Anshi Kadesh Tehiyon Yi’, and the commandment of the Sabbath is not just a religious reminder of the creation of the world, but a commandment of moral sensitivity: ‘That your ox and your donkey may rest, and that your slave and the stranger may live.’.
The laws of the Torah are not just a dry law, but the shaping of the soul of the individual and the people and their education in sublime values.
With blessings, ShÞtz Levinger

A. In order to know that this is a qualitative abrogation of Torah, one must first study it.
B. Sometimes studying these fields is required so that a person has knowledge and does not speak nonsense, as is sometimes the case (although the case of Rabbi Kelner proves that even those whose main concern is in these fields are found to speak nonsense).
C. The Ramban disagrees with Rashi on a site and it is appropriate to at least feel his opinion (and so we see the opinion of the Ramban in Mitzvot Asa 1).

And yet it seems that most of these questions arise not with regard to the individual person about whom it is said that a person does not learn except from a place in his heart that he desires, but out of an educational interest in outlining an educational path for the many. And here I would be happy if the Rabbi would devote a few columns to education. I do not expect the Rabbi to establish an educational institution (and the Rabbi also made it clear that he is not interested in this) and I also do not think that there is one educational path; there is a lot of trial and error in education. And I still think that many readers would be happy if the rabbi drew up an educational roadmap for at least a few questions:
1. What is the educator allowed to expect and what is not allowed to expect.
2. What is the place of Torah in Gebra versus Torah in Hapcha in the educational process.
3. How do you balance Torah study with the demands of society (secular studies, military/civilian service, work).
4. What place does reason and free research have versus the auditory logic of the Torah.
5. What is the attitude towards disobedient people from a religious and educational perspective.
It is clear to me that each of the readers will adapt the words to the society in which he lives (ultra-Orthodox, religious and secular) and it still seems that as a roadmap this is essential.

6. What is the place of girls in Torah study and education in the mitzvot?

Ah,
Your question is not clear. You asked why the Bible is not considered His will. Simply because no desires are expressed there. Only the halakha is an expression of the will of God. I did not say that He does not want the Bible to be studied, but that the Bible is not an expression of desires. The narrative part of the Bible is facts, and facts are not desires.
As for the best teacher, I am not so sure that he is the best teacher. If what you are studying is history, I know better teachers and texts. And I do not see anything else there.
I quote Rabbi Yitzchak's question to say that even after the excuse, it is clear that the stories in the Torah are of lesser importance. What does the excuse say? They are also important. Indeed, this is an innovation and all you have in it is its innovation. Beyond that, see what the excuse is: If the nations of the world tell us you are thieves, we will know what to answer. Well, I already understood that. What now? I am already exempt from learning this, right?

Y”D, Rashi's words were brought only as an illustration. My argument is proven from it. I claim that there is nothing new to learn from there.
Regarding essays on education, all of the things are discussed by me. Should I gather them all in the form of an organized educational sub-section? I will think about it.

In the book that you will put before them,

To you,

Hello,

Your words about a ‘road map’ in education are right on target. If I try to educate from a high place while offering my way as the right and best – who says that the son or student will buy my ’goods’? Maybe a different way is right for his soul?

Rationality suits one, and another needs to cultivate the world of emotions; one tends to be conservative, and the other – seeks renewal? And who would argue that my son or student should be like me? Maybe just as I don't ‘copy paste’ From my late father, and he was not a ‘copy-paste’ of his late father – Shouldn't the next generation be a ‘copy-paste’ of mine?

If I want the son/student's choice to be within the realm of Rabbinic Judaism – I should offer him the wide variety of schools of thought and methods within the camp and provoke a discussion of the arguments and justifications of each method, with the aim of understanding ‘who is a camiplegic?’ and what ‘isn't all that non-plegic–.

When you offer a variety of methods within Judaism – you discover that &#8217it's all upside down and &#8217it's all in one’. Our sages throughout their generations have encountered many outside opinions and cultures and have dealt with them and the questions they raise, so that no cultural innovation will constitute a “resounding discovery” for the younger generation that will drive them crazy.

One of the effective ways to see diversity is to study the Bible, which presents the dilemmas of faith and values, and to confront the various interpretations. In this way, a multi-generational and multicultural discussion takes place, in which Rabbis and Rambams, Rashi Rabban and Ramban, philosophers and Kabbalists, Hasidim and those with modern education, argue and discuss, and we and our students also add our own ideas and questions – and in this way everyone finds the spiritual food that suits them.

Best regards, Shatz Levinger

Good morning Rabbi,
I also brought the Ramban for illustration.

The things are discussed, but in the end you are relying on the table of others. Yeshiva Har Etzion, Phonobiz, and other places express assumptions other than yours. The place that is perhaps closest to you is Bar Ilan University for the combination it makes between Torah and science (although for years I have despised the Hagam and also approach that is prevalent there). However, many Torah preparations are required on the one hand, and scientific and practical on the other, before reaching the right balance. If the Rabbi can discuss these preparations, it will be a blessing.

I didn't understand what I was basing my assumptions on other people's tables. By the way, how are the assumptions in Ponibez different from mine? In my opinion, only in that they don't dare to say what they think (after all, they also skip over legends and don't deal with the Bible).
And how did Bar Ilan get here?
Maybe I didn't understand what you're talking about in this message. The topic of the thread is studying legends and the Bible. Is that what you were talking about?

In the book of Zechariah Bishvat,

In Ponivez, there was a regular order for the study of morality. And all morality literature is based on the Scriptures and on the legends and teachings of the sages. The overseers of Ponivez were among the greatest experts in Jewish thought, as can be seen in the Letter from Elihu by the Graha Dessler, and Graha Friedlander was also a trustee of the Ramachal's house and edited his books that are profound in thought and Kabbalah.

Indeed, in Ponivez's kollel, there was no order for the study of morality. In the book Ka'il Ta'arug It is said of Rabbi Shteinman (p. Shassa) that when Rabbi Shteinman was appointed head of the kollel in Ponivez, the supervisor Shteinman Levinstein asked him to also lead the study of morality in the kollel, and Shteinman replied that if a moral order was practiced in the kollel, he could strengthen and establish it, but he was not able to introduce anything new.

In the conversation that ensued between them, the supervisor said to him: “You are one of the students of the Shteinz, and the common knowledge is that the rabbi was not a supporter of the study of morality, etc.” But know that when the rabbi founded the yeshiva of his son the gerid in Jerusalem, he asked me to join him as a kohen as a masgichih in the yeshiva and they would teach musar in the yeshiva, and the payment would be that I could speak in the study with the gerid (ibid. On the study of musar in the ‘Chafetz Chaim’ yeshiva in Kfar Saba, which Rabbi Steinman headed before he was invited to teach in Ponibez’ – ibid., pp. 56-57).

With best wishes, Sh”ts Levinger

About the Rabbi Shteinman on Wikipedia, it is said that he used to give a weekly lesson in his home on the path of the Lord, the soul of life, and the spirit of life to Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin.

With greetings, Shtat Levinger

And

Shchel, as someone who studied a little in the Ponivez Kollel and knows the gezara quite well (and not from reading entries on Wikipedia), no Seder Moser and no Plaster. And even if there are yeshivots that have set aside half an hour for Moser, almost no one has done so in practice, and it is a very disrespectful time (which is why many have canceled it). The evidence from Rabbis Dessler and Friedlander is a bad joke. The fact that the supervisors from Ponivez wrote essays says nothing about what was practiced in the yeshivot itself, and certainly not about what is practiced there today. They also gave classes on these subjects, and usually it was for individuals (including Kabbalah classes, which I also studied with a student of Rabbi Friedlander who studied with him) and really does not indicate the general mindset. The general mindset is that this is abrogation of Torah from the Torah in quality and quantity, and it is a waste of time. And rightly so.
And in general, until you bring evidence from them, you can go to Ramach himself and the Khozari who taught subjects that are not in the context of Halacha and Talmudic scholarship. So what? And did the Ramban and Rashi not interpret the Torah? What does this evidence say? How does it relate to my claims?
And by the way, I was talking here about studying Aggadot and the Bible in the Poniface, and you are leading the discussion to morality (and as mentioned, you are wrong about this too).

By the way, are you sure that Rabbi Steinman taught these lessons in his home? Wasn't this a general, daily lesson in the yeshiva? Another act of contradiction!

I'm sorry, my words came out fragmented and unclear. What I wanted to say was that the rabbi's basic assumptions are not implemented in an educational way on any site. Even if there is a partnership between the rabbi's path and certain places in certain aspects, there is no place that includes all sides. The Gush is suitable for the rabbi's path in terms of openness of thought, but not in terms of attitude to the Bible (and who knows). Phonobiz is suitable in terms of Torah in the Haftsa compared to Torah in the Gebra, but not in terms of openness of thought. There are many more details that I cannot detail. What I am asking for, and it seems that others are asking for, is an educational roadmap that will address the various aspects in a way that will enable the transition between the worlds that the rabbi has.

As for morality, in my opinion, the morality movement (which was a large and valuable movement) lost its driving force following the dismantling of its intellectual foundations by the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish's move to withdraw into the deserts, that is, the yeshivahs, was contrary to the optimistic belief of the morality movement that it could deal with modernity with psychological tools. The Chazon Ish's argument, following Maimonides, about the influence of man by his contemporaries, indicated the superiority of sociology over psychology. This undermined the morality movement, which believed in psychology. As a result, the study of morality lost its persuasive power in a way that led to its practical neglect, as Rabbi Michi noted.

Rabbi, where did Sh”el claim that there was a moral order in the Ponivez’ kollel? On the contrary, he said that it did not come to pass

In the 2nd of Shvat, 2011

To the 2nd of Shvat,

How do you want to reconcile the ’openness’ with the disdain for studying the spiritual part of the Torah, starting with the Bible, continuing with the Aggados and Midrash of the Sages, and ending with all the moral and philosophical literature of the first and last generations? Openness to everything, but complete closure to Jewish thought?

And how can one educate about the internal contradiction between commitment to Halacha while not accepting its spiritual foundations? After all, someone who is already accustomed to a life of Torah and mitzvot will not give them up even if their foundation of faith has been shaken – but to educate about it? Who would buy into an internal contradiction?

With blessings, Sh.C. Levinger

I think the problem begins when there is no intellectual challenge in the study. Even the study of Halacha would cease to be attractive if everything were as clear and agreed upon as a “section in the life of a person.” The challenge of different methods confronting each other on the assumption that they all have a basis in the interpretation and sources of the Sages, and we try to understand what each side means and how they explained the conclusions – we arrive at a tremendous wealth of interpretations, questions and solutions, and enjoy the attempt to find our way through it.

If we apply the same method of “clarifying the methods”, also in the study of the Bible, faith and values, and see the sea of methods “fighting” with each other, with each one bringing evidence to its side from the sources and interpretations – these studies will also be interesting and thought-provoking.

Just as in Halacha we try to understand both Rashi and the Tosafot, both Maimonides and the Rabbis, and see them all as our revered teachers, so too with Halacha we rule differently in practice – so it should be in the world of faith and values. We will try to understand the different methods for their own reasons and justifications, and how each one aligns with the sources, with the scriptures, and with the words of the sages.

Then, from the in-depth discussion and clarification of the different methods – each one will find the path that suits him best, the path to which he connects more, but will also know how to appreciate the other paths.

With best wishes, Sh”tz Levinger