With God’s help

From the Gift of the Desert – 5759

A. Pardes

It is known that there are four ways of interpreting the Torah, and the Notarikon Pardes. It is not clear what the source is (even for this division itself,[1] And also for Nutricon). Again, the Rauni Dahari writes this in the chapter on the writings of the Sages to the 5th Davot (on the Ha Damer, R. Meir said, 'Everyone who studies Torah for its sake...'), and also on the Hagagiga 14b: 'Four entered the orchard...'. Although it seems that he is not the source for this, but rather he is only discussing the question of which world each of the paths corresponds to, and so on.

The simplicity It is the interpretation required according to the plain meaning of the Bible, usually a local interpretation (Rabbi Whitman's article, 'HaMa'yan' 1977).

 

The clue Simply put, it is not an interpretation of the verses at all. In relation to the results of the hint (notrikon, gematria), the verse is a hint that points to them. The hint is not the interpretation of the verse, and the verse only points to the hint, and evokes it in us (perhaps also an association). It is only a device for transmitting the implied information. It is a code, a key, through which Torah principles can be created from Torah verses. Some have claimed that 13 qualities are also in such a situation, but this is not so. 13 qualities are an essential interpretation of the verses (see my lessons on 'Kol HaNavo'). It is true that the Maimonides and the Ramban in Shoresh B disagreed on this, and for the Ramban the qualities are an interpretation, and for the Rambam the qualities are an expansion. In any case, this is not an arbitrary code like the hint.

In the method of allusion, the data are usually the letters and not the words (gematria and notarikon). The information of each book is ostensibly found in the words, and the other methods of interpretation use the words as the data for interpretation. They are based on the content and not on the letters. Therefore, allusion is not interpretation in the conventional sense.

Preach (Aggadah and Halacha) is a commentary on the verses based on the methods of the sermon. This is a commentary that differs from the Pesht, and sometimes even contradicts it. There are several approaches regarding the relationship between the Pesht and the sermon, and so on.

It is interesting to note that the Rambam in the second root describes fourteen ways of preaching: the thirteen qualities of Dr. Ishmael, and pluralism. The question is what is the difference between them, and why R. Ishmael does not list the last way. And it seems that all of Dr. Ishmael's thirteen qualities are ways of interpretation that deal with words and meaning, and therefore are in the nature of an interpretation. The fourteenth way (plurality) often deals with letters (unnecessary letters), and even if it does not – the reference is not to the meaning of the word but to the fact that it is unnecessary. This is actually a hint and not a sermon. In this sense, it is clear why R. Ishmael did not bring this way of 'dresh'. Although the Rambam apparently generalizes the hint with the sermon, and calls everything that is not 'pesht' - 'dresh'.

 

The secret It is also an interpretation of the verses, as in the exhortation and the Peshat, and not as a hint, except that it is stated in language and a system of terms that are different from those of the Peshat.

Another distinction that exists in this field is the distinction between 'revealed' and 'hidden.' There are perceptions that the relationship is gradual: the simple is the most revealed, and the secret is the least revealed (the most hidden). The sermon and the hint are in the middle.

These concepts assume that the revealed-hidden axis describes distance from the immediate meaning in the text. That is, to what extent the interpretation is revealed or hidden behind the text.

The truth is that the first three ways are revealed, and the secret is the hidden. These three ways speak in the concepts of the world of action, our world, and therefore they are revealed. The secret speaks in the language of the world of nobility, and therefore it is hidden. In other words, the revealed-hidden axis describes the world in which the concepts we use are found and not the distance from the interpretation required in the text.

According to the 7th, it is clear that the axis that describes the distance from the simple interpretation of the text is the axis along which the approaches belonging to the three ways of revelation are measured: the closest is the simple, the second is the sermon, and the third is the hint (if any). All of these together are called "revealed," and this is because the terminology belongs to our world. In contrast to the revealed, there is the "hidden," which is distinguished by the fact that the terminology belongs to a higher world.

And it should be noted that in the Da'a, p. 30, he discusses the correspondence between the parts of the Paradise and the four worlds, and according to the Pizdah, it seems that the relationship between the paths is indeed parallel. Each of the paths uses a world of concepts that belongs to a different spiritual world. And yet we will argue that empirically it seems as we say here, and tza'k.

There is a difference between the relationship between the hidden and the revealed, and the relationship between the preacher and the plain. The preacher and the plain are two different interpretations, and sometimes contradictory. Both are correct, but we need to understand how to reconcile them when they contradict each other (in the midrash of halakhah: Halakhah is always a preacher. See, for example, 'Eye for Eye'). On the other hand, the secret and the revealed are two sides of the same thing. The concepts of revealed constitute a low representation of a high system in which everything occurs simultaneously. These are not two occurrences but two different representations of the same occurrence. Even as explanations of a Torah principle, there are two meanings here that are one: not two meanings, not two interpretations, but two different representations of the same interpretation.

See Sheldon Beit Eh, page 4a, and Tractate Pesachim, page 35b, in the sermon to P. Mezure (especially at the end of page 72), which expands on this.

Although there are also contradictions between the hidden and the revealed, in such cases one always tries to reconcile the two interpretations (the GRA always does this, for example regarding the direction of the bed).

Although there are sometimes contradictions between the hidden and the revealed, as in the mitzvah of sending away the nest (whether positive or existential, R. Responsa Chavvi), regarding the direction of the bed, and also in the halakhah of tefillin. The Maga in the halakhah of tefillin 20 states that in the case of a contradiction, the halakha is like the simple, but it is clear that this is only due to a lack of choice. The accepted explanation for this is that regarding the great Rabbi, no halakha was ruled like him because his friends did not reach the end of his mind, meaning that precisely because he was the greatest of the generation, there is no halakha like him. The halakha is ruled not as true, but as much as the posk understands.

It is interesting to note that the secret adherents do not act as a Maga, but according to the law according to the secret. In other words, there is a disagreement between the revealed and the hidden even on this issue itself: what to do in the event of a disagreement between the revealed and the hidden.

 In this case, in contrast to the contradiction between the sermon and the simple, it is clear that one of the directions is wrong, for as we have seen, these are not two interpretations but the same interpretation described in a higher language. If there is a contradiction, it seems that there is an error in one of the two considerations. The assumption is that correct thinking on both levels will always lead to the same conclusion. A contradiction that arises indicates an incorrect way of thinking on one side of the equation.

The reason why Halacha is like Peshat is because in Peshat there is less chance of error, where we have intuition and common sense. And it seems that for the same reason, apparently, the secret ones, the Kabbalists, actually rule as hidden, because they have more confidence in the secret halakhic consideration.

And in the case of the rabbis, what the rabbis did not rule on is because they did not go to the end of their understanding, and therefore there is a chance that their considerations will make an error. Those who are revealed to rule as a hidden rabbi can draw erroneous conclusions and therefore they do not rule in this way. If so, the halakha does indeed represent truth and not only what is understood by the rabbi, and not as we saw above.

In this perspective, it is appropriate to say that when there is a contradiction between revealed and hidden, the situation is actually similar to a situation of disagreement in revealed halakha. In revealed halakha, when there are two opinions, we perceive that both are correct. Both are the words of the living God. We saw above that in a contradiction between revealed and hidden, this is not the case; here there is an apparent error. Although, according to our words here, it could be said that a revealed scholar who is more skilled in considering the revealed, rules according to the revealed consideration, it is clear that his secret way of thinking is supposed to correspond to the result of the revealed consideration. In contrast, the secret scholar, the accepted one, who rules according to the halakha from the hidden, apparently arrives at the correct halakha with a higher probability. If so, it is clear that his revealed consideration will also lead him to the same conclusion (if it is constructed correctly). So, after each party has completed the overt and covert consideration, there is a side that is overt and covert that rules in this way, and on the other hand, a side that is overt and covert that rules in the opposite way. This is a situation of ordinary disagreement in halacha, and not a disagreement between overt and covert. It is indeed questionable why all those who have overtly held as one side, and all those who have overtly held as the other side.

The rabbi Chaim of Sanz said that he never ruled on a halakhic law if the revealed and the hidden did not agree with him. The reason for this is that such a contradiction indicates incorrect thinking on one side, and therefore there is concern and doubt as to which side is correct.

This is also the reason why Kabbalists quote the Rambam more than do poskim who had a tendency and background in the occult. It is known that the Ari always ruled according to the Rambam. The reason is because it was the Rambam, who did not take the occult into account, who was more likely to hit on the truth.

In general, those with halakhic knowledge often lack a background in the occult, and that's not a bad thing (there is a known case where the Rabbi fell asleep during the Ari's lesson, and the Ari said that the root of his soul was revealed). It is possible that for the same reason that poskim are not scholars, and vice versa. Scholarly knowledge is a method that can make mistakes, and therefore if there is a formal system of halakhic rules that leads us to the same goal, it is better to use it. There is less chance of making mistakes. This is the meaning of the story about Rabbi Yitzhak Elchanan and the Garach. Semantics and syntax. The Chinese room.

By the way, the secret holders are usually people of Halacha. This is the sandwich phenomenon: the secret holders actually use formal considerations in Halacha, and do not work with scholarly methods. They want to play it safe.

Where there are no formal considerations, and the situation requires a radical revolution, there is no choice but to resort to the occult, and of course this raises great concern about error, and therefore criticism. The methods are not unambiguous and clear, but sometimes there is no choice. It is no coincidence that Hasidism and Zionism (Rabbi Kook), and in contrast, the Shabbos, will cleanse themselves of the secret teachings. Therefore, there is criticism because there is definitely a revolution here, and there is a possibility of error, and indeed mistakes have been made in practice. In a historical perspective, many things were corrected only because of 'conservative' criticism (the GRA against Hasidism, and the Haredi against religious Zionism). Here, supervision is created through formal methods over revolutions that are based on the occult teachings. The formal methods are safer, and therefore they constitute an essential control over any revolution.

B. Secret people and people of revelation (Pashto)

 

It is known by the Ari that there is a Pardes in everything. It is usually understood that the secret is the Zohar and the writings of the Ari, and the revelation is the Gemara Mishnah and the Baraitot, and these also contain parts of the Pesht Remez and the sermon. The Ari said that in every book, in every event, and in every thing, there is the entire Pardes.

In Midrash Tanchuma, chapter 5, "Vaira," we discuss the relationship between the Torah and its interpretation (interpretation). And there it continues:

Rabbi Yehuda bar Shalom said: Moses requested that the Mishnah also be in writing, and God, the Blessed, foresaw that nations would in the future translate the Torah and read it in Greek. And they would say: We are Israel's. God, the Blessed, said to Moses: 'I will write for them the greater part of My Torah,' and if so, 'they will be counted as foreigners' (Hosea 8:12). And why so? Because the Mishnah is from the Holy One's writings, the Blessed One, and God does not teach from His writings except to the righteous, as it is said: 'The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him' (Psalms 25:14).

We find here that the Mishnah is a story of God, and as explained later, it is also called His "secret." It is known that there is an interest in dissecting Mishnahs even without understanding them (see Maggid Meishram L'Yi), and this is because a Mishnah is a secret ('Mishnah' is the letters 'neshma').

And they explained this (the Shelah? Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner?) that because of this the Mishnah is structured in a way that is 'considered like a foreigner': the ones who are considered to be in a shelter, established, etc. (see Ma'mari's article and that of the Hashishka in Mamdabbar Matana), and therefore it was given only to those who fear God. See in Ma'mari's article where there is a clear hint in the Mishnah, a sermon, and a secret.

This is usually understood to be a constraint: since the mishna wants to express a principle in a hidden way and, in the same language, also express a halakhic principle in a revealed way, this is a constraint that requires the distortion of the mishna. However, it seems that this is not a constraint. Whoever understands the secret in its depth will understand the hidden principle in itself, but he will also understand why the revealed principle must be expressed in a way that is apparently distorted. See an example below.

And perhaps the Mishnah is found above, in the world of nobility. And it is clear that there is difficulty in 'translating' it into our language. That is why the Holy One, blessed be He, said that it cannot be written because it would look 'like a foreigner.' And indeed, after Rabbi did so because of 'a time to do it for her', it truly came out 'like a foreigner.' This is why the Toshab"p is higher than the Tshav"k, because the Toshab"p is found only above, and the Tshav"k can be written without it looking 'like a foreigner.

Scholars who interpret the Mishnah in a simplistic way, and explain it in a way that differs from the validity and positivity of the G-d, do not understand it correctly. The Mishnah is essentially a 'mystery'. Someone who lives only in this world, a 'revealed person', cannot understand the Mishnah. When the study contradicts the 'secret', it is clear that one of them is wrong. There are no two truths here (it is not a question of continuity versus essence, since these do not contradict each other fundamentally, and whoever thinks there is a contradiction is simply wrong. The study also does not draw such a conclusion. What I mean here is interpreting the Mishnah in a simplistic way, and seeing the accepted interpretations as errors).

For example: In the Hebrew Bible, the ninth letter is:

Rabbi Yaakov, a foolish and small deaf bull that Rabbi Yaakov hit, pays a fine. Rabbi Yaakov, what is its duty? Rather, Rabbi Yaakov says, "Mother, pays a fine."

And the things are puzzling, to be sure. Even if there is an error in this modified version, why bring it up in the Gemara and correct it? Why didn't the editor bring up the corrected version right away? When they bring up a non-halachaic version, this is done because there is truth in it that we should study, or as the Mishnah says, evidence that if we encounter such an opinion, we will know who to attribute it to. However, there is no reason in the world to bring up such an error.

Here it is clear that this is not an editor's error, as the error itself and its correction are documented. It is also not a printer's error, nor anything like that.

The researcher will explain that there was a disruption here, and will explain how it unfolded, etc. None of these provide a sufficient explanation for perpetuating the matter.

And here in the book of "Beautiful Faces" to the letter "Yaishel" in verse 27, it says "and is", and likewise in the book of "Beit Ha'atar" collection, the first chapter, the fifth chapter, it says "and so" (which he brought from the introduction to the book of "Shomer Emunim"), and likewise in the Ya'abetz Bk. I have heard that there is a Ram'a from Panu (but I did not find it), that all 27 are in this version, a great secret.

As we saw above, both halakhic principles and world events are interpreted in all these ways. Anyone who thinks that the plain interpretation that contradicts the secret interpretation is the correct one is mistaken. If they are incompatible, the secret is the correct one.

The people of the Peshat interpret every principle and every event (in Torah and in science) literally, and through the process of concatenation. Usually, a concatenation explanation is considered by them as a substitute for a substantive explanation. When there is a problem with the Peshat, there are two options: decide that it is a mistake, or move on to the secret. The researchers decide that it is a mistake, and explain how it concatenation occurred. The people of the secret understand that there is a secret here, and whoever understands it will also understand the secret.

It should be noted that the confrontation is conducted both on the plane of the simple versus the sermon, and on the plane of the revealed versus the hidden. Observing events in reality, such as interpreting the Torah, can be done in all four ways of the Pardes. Deeper observation, which requires a comprehensive and all-encompassing analysis, a descent to the philosophical root, is considered a sermon. Observing a higher world is considered a secret. Both observations are unpopular in the world of 'rational' research. Both characterize a 'confidant'.

This type of argument is not open to people from the world of action (Avner). So is the study of the Maharal. If we do not fight this phenomenon, we almost inevitably become people of the Negela (=householders, whose entire world is the world), and the secret (and the sermon) is closed to us. It seems childish and unconvincing to us. In fact, there is a flaw in faith here. A statement by the overseers, but it itself seems to the people of the Negela to be absurd and childish. They see themselves as very rational.

In fact, after one understands the secret, and if there is a clear belief in the secret explanation, only then can one reach an understanding of it (even in our terms), it often becomes a more correct simplification than the 'simplification' that appears at first glance. Today, mainly following Rabbi Kook's absorption of the secret, the simplification has become more sophisticated. Hasidism has also contributed to the concepts from the upper worlds taking on meaning and relevance in our world.

My essay on hermeneutics. The strange explanations are the real simplification, and even in the system of simplification they are more convincing. 'Rationalists' reject such interpretations out of hand, as if they were 'mystical'. In the end, there is also a better simplification here (it should be noted that they reject both 'secret' and 'sermon' about reality).

In the future, the process will be exactly like this: the secret will be understood in a simplified way. The disconnect between the two levels will disappear (Torah of Israel). The concepts of the secret will take on meaning in our language (and as we have seen, this is what is happening today, following Hasidism and Rabbi Kook).

It is true that one must be wary of the Ramchal phenomenon in Baal HaLesh, where the interpretation becomes the secret itself, instead of being a tool for understanding the secret. People are no longer willing to accept high concepts that are not meaningful and relevant in our world. This is the demand for 'connection' with things. Although this demand usually means a desire to see everything on our level. In fact, the process that should occur is that the simple, after it is more understandable in our mind, will ascend back (together with us) to the secret, and not that the secret descends to the simple. This is the process of refinement described in the writings of the Ari (the people of the Enlightenment are not willing to accept this. For them, everything exists and happens here. There is nothing in the higher worlds, which are at most symbolism surrounding the world).

Perhaps this is the intention of the Midrash Tanhuma, verse 6:

Another thing is, "And the Lord said, 'I am the One who covers'" which is what the Scripture says, "For the Lord God will do nothing, but He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). In the beginning, the Blessed One would reveal His secret to those who fear Him, as it says: "The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him" (Psalms 25:14). Again, we give it to the righteous, as it says: "In the secret of the righteous there is a covenant" (Psalms 111:1). Again, we give it to the prophets, as it says: "For if He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

In this Midrash we see that God reveals the secret in stages: starting only with those who fear Him, the great ones. These are those who have faith, and only they can understand the secret and trust it (and as explained above). Then He gave it to the righteous, and as we explained in the introduction to Genesis (of the young men), "righteous" means one who understands the Torah in his own understanding, like the patriarchs (the Book of Genesis is the "Book of Righteous"). At this stage, the secret is also understood in a simple understanding (Chasidism, Zionism). Although in such a situation it is possible that they may be mistaken and understand that this is the entire Torah of the secret (Carmchal).

Therefore, after the secret has been delivered to intuitive understanding, it must be returned and delivered to the prophets, meaning that they will understand it in worlds that are accessible only to the prophets (and perhaps in such a situation, 'all the people of God are prophets' will exist).

[1] See Zohar, p. Behalotach, cited in the book of the Laws of the Laws, p. 1, where it is stated that the Torah has four parts, and it appears that these are the parts of the Pardes. Although I did not find this division in the Hadiya before the Ari. And see Uriel Eytam's article in Mamdabbar Matanah, p. Behalotach, p. 2, in the Book of the Laws, p. 3, 561.