With God's help

MiMidbar Matana – 5759

A. Pardes

It is well known that there are four modes of interpretation of the Torah, abbreviated by the acronym PaRDeS. It is not clear what the source is (both for this very classification[1] and for the acronym). I was again shown that the Ari writes this in Sha'ar Ma'amarei Hazal on chapter 6 of Avot (on Rabbi Meir's statement Anyone who studies Torah for its own sake…), and likewise on the Talmudic passage, Hagigah 14b: Four entered the orchard…. However, from there it appears that he is not the source of the idea; he merely discusses the question of which world each of the approaches corresponds to, and this still requires examination.

The plain sense is the interpretation called for by the plain meaning of Scripture, usually a local interpretation (Rabbi Witman's article, HaMa'ayan, 5737).

 

Allusion in the simple sense is not really an interpretation of verses at all. With respect to the products of allusion (acrostic interpretation, gematria), the verse is a sign that points to them. Allusion is not an interpretation of the verse; the verse merely points toward the allusion and evokes it within us (perhaps also by association). It is only a device for transmitting the encoded information. It is a code, a key, by means of which one can formulate Torah principles from the verses of the Torah. Some have claimed that the thirteen hermeneutical principles have this status as well, but that is not so. The thirteen principles are a substantive interpretation of verses (see my lectures for Kol HaNevuah). Maimonides and Nachmanides, however, disagreed about this in Root 2: for Nachmanides the principles are interpretation, whereas for Maimonides they are extension. In any event, this is not an arbitrary code like allusion.

In the mode of allusion, the data are usually the letters rather than the words (gematria and acrostic interpretation). The information in any book is ostensibly found in the words, and the other modes of interpretation use the words as the data of interpretation. They are based on content, not on letters. Therefore, allusion is not interpretation in the usual sense.

Homiletic interpretation (in aggadic literature and Jewish law) is an interpretation of verses that relies on homiletic methods. It is an interpretation different from the plain sense, and sometimes is even in tension with it. There are several approaches regarding the relation between the plain sense and homiletic interpretation, but this is not the place for that discussion.

It is interesting to note that Maimonides, in the second root, describes fourteen homiletic methods: Rabbi Ishmael's thirteen principles, plus inclusion. The question is what the difference is between them, and why Rabbi Ishmael does not count the last method. It seems that all thirteen of Rabbi Ishmael's principles are methods of interpretation that deal with words and meaning, and therefore qualify as interpretation. The fourteenth method (inclusion) often deals with letters (superfluous letters), and even when it does not, the focus is not on the meaning of the word but on the fact that it is superfluous. This is really allusion, not homiletic interpretation. In this sense it is clear why Rabbi Ishmael did not include this 'homiletic' method. Maimonides, however, apparently subsumes allusion under homiletic interpretation, calling everything that is not 'plain sense' – 'homiletic interpretation'.

 

The esoteric is also an interpretation of verses, like homiletic interpretation and the plain sense and unlike allusion, except that it is stated in a language and conceptual system different from those of the plain sense.

Another distinction that exists in this area is the distinction between the 'exoteric' and the 'esoteric'. Some conceptions view the relation as gradual: the plain sense is the most exoteric, and the esoteric is the least exoteric (the most hidden). Homiletic interpretation and allusion lie in the middle.

These conceptions assume that the exoteric-esoteric axis describes distance from the immediate plain sense in the text; that is, how visible or concealed the interpretation is behind the text.

The truth is that the first three modes are exoteric, and the esoteric is the hidden. These three modes speak in the concepts of the world of action, our world, and therefore they are exoteric. The esoteric speaks in the language of the world of Atzilut (emanation), and therefore it is hidden. That is, the exoteric-esoteric axis describes the world in which the concepts we use are located, not the distance from the interpretation naturally called for by the text.

Accordingly, it is clear that the axis describing distance from the plain interpretation of the text is the axis along which the approaches belonging to the three exoteric modes are measured: the closest is the plain sense, the second is homiletic interpretation, and the third is allusion (if it counts at all). All of these together are called 'exoteric', because the terminology belongs to our world. Opposed to the exoteric stands the 'esoteric', whose distinctiveness is that its terminology belongs to a higher world.

And it should be noted that in Leshem, Sefer HaDe'ah, vol. 2, p. 30, he discusses the correspondence between the parts of Pardes and the four worlds, and accordingly it seems that the relation among the modes really is parallel. Each mode uses a conceptual world that belongs to a different spiritual world. Yet it still seems to me that empirically matters appear as I have argued here, and this still requires further consideration.

There is a difference between the relation of the esoteric to the exoteric and the relation of homiletic interpretation to the plain sense. Homiletic interpretation and the plain sense are two different interpretations, and sometimes they contradict one another. We accept that both are correct, but we must understand how to reconcile them when they conflict (in legal midrash, the law always follows the homiletic interpretation; see, for example, an eye for an eye). By contrast, the esoteric and the exoteric are two faces of the same thing. The exoteric concepts are a lower representation of a higher system in which everything occurs in parallel. These are not two events but two different representations of the same event. Likewise, as explanations of a Torah principle, there are here two meanings that are one: not two meanings, not two interpretations, but two different representations of the same interpretation.

See Shelah, Beit Hashem, fol. 4a, and in tractate Pesahim, fol. 35b, in the discourse on Parashat Metzora (especially at the end of p. 72), where he elaborates on this.

There can, however, sometimes also be contradictions between the esoteric and the exoteric, but in such a case one always tries to reconcile the two interpretations (the Vilna Gaon always does so, for example regarding the orientation of the bed).

There are, however, sometimes contradictions between the esoteric and the exoteric as well, as in the commandment of sending away the mother bird (whether it is obligatory or merely contingent; see responsa Havot Yair), in the matter of the orientation of the bed, and in the laws of tefillin (phylacteries). The Magen Avraham writes in the laws of tefillin that in a case of contradiction the law follows the plain sense, but clearly this is only for lack of an alternative. The accepted explanation is analogous to the reason that, with respect to Rabbi Meir, the law was not ruled in accordance with him because his colleagues could not penetrate the depth of his view; that is, precisely because he was the greatest of the generation, the law was not ruled like him. Jewish law is decided not by truth as such, but by what is intelligible to the decisor.

It is interesting to note that the esotericists do not follow the Magen Avraham, but rather practice according to Jewish law as determined by the esoteric teaching. That is, there is a dispute between the exoteric and the esoteric even about this very issue itself: what one does in the event of a dispute between exoteric and esoteric.

Seemingly, in such a case, unlike a contradiction between homiletic interpretation and plain sense, it is clear that one of the two directions is mistaken, since, 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 lines of reasoning. The assumption is that correct thought on both planes will always lead to the same conclusion. A contradiction that emerges indicates a faulty mode of thinking on one side of the equation.

The reason Jewish law follows the plain sense is that there is less chance of error there; there we have intuition and common sense. And it seems that for this very same reason the esotericists, the kabbalists, specifically rule according to the esoteric, because for them there is greater confidence in the esoteric halakhic judgment.

Accordingly, the fact that they did not rule like Rabbi Meir was because they could not penetrate the depth of his view, and therefore there is a chance that their reasoning will contain error. Exoteric scholars who would rule like an esoteric master may draw mistaken conclusions, and therefore they do not rule that way. If so, Jewish law really does represent truth and not merely what is intelligible to the decisor, contrary to what we saw above.

On such a view, there is room to say that when there is a contradiction between exoteric and esoteric, the situation actually resembles a dispute within exoteric Jewish law. In exoteric Jewish law, when there are two opinions, we regard both as correct: Both these and those are the words of the living God. We saw above that in a contradiction between exoteric and esoteric this is seemingly not the situation; here there is, apparently, an error. Yet according to what we are saying here, one could argue that a master of the exoteric who is more skilled in exoteric reasoning rules in accordance with exoteric reasoning, but clearly his esoteric line of thought ought to fit the result of the exoteric reasoning. By contrast, the esoteric master, the kabbalist, who rules according to Jewish law from the esoteric side, presumably thereby reaches the correct ruling with greater probability. If so, clearly his exoteric reasoning too will lead him to the same conclusion (if it is properly constructed). Thus, after the exoteric and esoteric reasoning have been completed by each side, there is one side, exoteric and esoteric alike, that rules one way, and opposite it a side, exoteric and esoteric alike, that rules the other way. This is a situation of ordinary dispute in Jewish law, not a dispute between exoteric and esoteric. Even so, it still remains somewhat unclear why all the exoteric authorities hold like one side, and all the esoteric authorities like the other.

The Divrei Chaim of Sanz said that he never issued a halakhic ruling unless the exoteric and the esoteric both aligned for him. The reason is that such a contradiction indicates faulty thinking on one of the sides, and therefore there is concern and doubt as to which side is correct.

This is also the reason that the kabbalists cite Maimonides more than authorities who themselves had an esoteric inclination and background. It is well known that the Ari always ruled like Maimonides. The reason is that specifically Maimonides, who did not take the esoteric into account, was more likely to have hit upon the truth.

In general, halakhic authorities often lack background in the esoteric, and that is no small matter (there is the well-known story that the Beit Yosef fell asleep during the Ari's lesson, and the latter said that the root of his soul lay in the exoteric). It may be that for the same reason halakhic decisors are not analytical Talmudists, and vice versa. The analytical method is a methodology that can err, and therefore, if there is a system of formal halakhic rules that leads us to the same goal, it is preferable to use it. There is less chance of error. This is the point of the story about Rabbi Yitzhak Elchanan and Rabbi Chaim. Semantics and syntax. The Chinese room.

Incidentally, the esotericists are generally also people of Jewish law. This is the sandwich phenomenon: precisely the esotericists use formal considerations in Jewish law, and do not work with analytical methods. They want to proceed safely.

Where there are no formal considerations and the situation requires a radical revolution, there is no choice but to resort to the esoteric, and of course this raises great concern about error, and therefore also criticism. The methods are not unequivocal and clear, but sometimes there is no choice. It is no accident that Hasidism and Zionism (Rabbi Kook), and, in a very different vein, Sabbatianism as well, drew from esoteric teaching. Hence there is criticism, because there is indeed a revolution here, and there is a possibility of error, and mistakes were in fact made. In historical perspective, many things were corrected only because of the 'conservative' criticism (the Vilna Gaon against Hasidism, and Haredi society against Religious Zionism). Here oversight is created by means of formal methods over revolutions whose basis lies in esoteric teaching. The formal methods are safer, and therefore they provide vital control over every revolution.

B. Esotericists and Exotericists (Plain Sense)

 

It is well known in the name of the Ari that there is Pardes in everything. Usually people understand 'the esoteric' to be the Zohar and the writings of the Ari, while 'the exoteric' is the Talmud, the Mishnah, and the baraitot, and these also contain elements of plain sense, allusion, and homiletic interpretation. The Ari said that in every book, every event, and everything, all the dimensions of Pardes are present.

In Midrash Tanhuma, Parashat Vayera, section 5, they discuss the relation between the Torah and its translation (that is, its interpretation). And there, later on:

Rabbi Yehuda bar Shalom said: Moses sought that the Mishnah, too, be put in writing, but the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that the nations would one day translate the Torah and read it in Greek, and they would say: We are Israel. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “Were I to write for him the greater part of My Torah,” then “they would be regarded as something foreign” (Hosea 8:12). And why all this? Because the Mishnah is among the secrets of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Holy One, blessed be He, entrusts His secrets only to the righteous, as it is said: “The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him” (Psalms 25:14).

Here we find that the Mishnah is among the mysteries of the Holy One, blessed be He, and as is explicit later on it is also called His 'secret'. It is well known that there is value in reciting passages of Mishnah even without understanding (see Maggid Mesharim to the Beit Yosef), and this is because the Mishnah is esoteric, for the word 'Mishnah' is an anagram of the word for 'soul'.

This has been explained (the Shelah? Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner?) as follows: because of this, the Mishnah is structured in a way that makes it appear they were regarded as something foreign: ellipses, forced contextual readings, and so forth (see my article and Hanskeh's in MiMidbar Matana), and therefore it was transmitted only to those who fear God. See my article there, where I argue that the Mishnah contains plain sense, allusion, homiletic interpretation, and esoteric meaning.

Usually this is understood as a constraint: since the Mishnah wishes to convey a principle on the esoteric plane and in that very same language also convey a halakhic principle on the exoteric plane, this constraint necessitates distortion in the wording of the Mishnah. But it seems that this is not really a constraint. One who understands the esoteric in depth will understand the esoteric principle as such, but he will also understand why the exoteric principle must be expressed in a form that appears distorted. See an example below.

Or perhaps the Mishnah exists above, in the world of Atzilut. And it is clear that there is difficulty in 'translating' it into our language. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, said that it could not be written, because it would appear as though foreign. And indeed, after Rabbi Judah the Prince did so because of It is a time to act for the Lord, it really did emerge as though foreign. This is the reason that the Oral Torah is higher than the Written Torah: the Oral Torah exists only above, whereas the Written Torah can be written without appearing as though foreign.

Scholars who interpret the Mishnah by way of the plain sense, and explain it differently from the Talmud's contextualizations and constructions, do not understand it correctly. The Mishnah is 'mystery' in an essential sense. One who lives only in this world, an 'exoteric person', cannot understand the Mishnah. When scholarship stands in opposition to the esoteric, it is clear that one of them is mistaken. Here there are not two truths (this is not a matter of development versus essence, since those do not truly conflict at the essential level, and one who thinks there is a contradiction is simply mistaken. Scholarship itself does not yield such a conclusion. What I mean here is interpreting the Mishnah by way of the plain sense and seeing the accepted interpretations as errors).

For example, in the Talmud, Bava Kamma 39b, it is stated:

The Rabbis taught: If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gores, Rabbi Yaakov says he pays half damages. What has Rabbi Yaakov to do with this? Rather, say: Rabbi Yaakov says he pays half damages.

This is extremely puzzling. Even if there is a textual error in this strange version, why present it in the Talmud only to correct it? Why did the editor not simply present the corrected version from the outset? When an initial proposal that is not the binding law is recorded, this is done because it contains a truth that we must learn, or, as the Mishnah in Eduyot says, so that if we encounter such an opinion we will know to whom to attribute it. But to record such an error, there is no reason in the world.

Here it is clear that this is not an editor's mistake, since the error itself and its correction are both documented. Nor is it a printer's error, or anything of that sort.

The scholar will explain that a corruption entered the text, and will explain how it developed, and so forth. None of this provides an adequate explanation for the preservation of the matter.

Now in the book Panim Yafot on Parashat Vayishlah, ch. 37, verse 27, s.v. 'and there is', and likewise in Beit HaOtzar, section A, rule 179, s.v. 'and likewise' (which cites the introduction to Shomer Emunim), and likewise in the Ya'avetz there on Bava Kamma, and I have also heard that this appears in Rema MiPano (though I have not found it), all of them write that there is a great secret in this wording.

As we saw above, both principles of Jewish law and events in the world are interpreted in all these ways. Anyone who thinks that the plain-sense interpretation, when it conflicts with the esoteric interpretation, is the correct one, is mistaken. If they do not accord, the esoteric is correct.

People of the plain sense interpret every principle and every event (in Torah and in science) literally, and in terms of development. Usually, for them, a developmental explanation is considered a substitute for an essential explanation. When there is a problem in the plain sense, there are two possibilities: to decide that this is an error, or to move to the esoteric. Scholars decide that it is an error, and explain how it developed. Esotericists understand that there is a secret here, and whoever understands it will understand the secret as well.

It should be noted that the confrontation takes place both on the plane of the plain sense versus homiletic interpretation and on the plane of the exoteric versus the esoteric. Reflection on events in reality, like interpretation of the Torah, can be carried out in all four modes of Pardes. A deeper kind of reflection, requiring broad and comprehensive analysis and descent to the philosophical root, belongs to homiletic interpretation. Reflection in a higher world belongs to the esoteric. Both kinds of reflection are unpopular in the world of 'rational' scholarship. Both characterize the 'esoteric person'.

This type of argument is not accessible to people from the world of action (Avner). The same is true of studying the Maharal. If we do not struggle against this phenomenon, we almost inevitably become people of the exoteric (= householders, whose entire world is this-worldly), and the esoteric (and also homiletic interpretation) is locked away from us. It appears childish and unconvincing to us. In fact, there is a defect in faith here. This is something spiritual supervisors say, but that itself too appears to exoteric people as absurd and childish. They see themselves as very rational.

In fact, once one understands the esoteric, and only if there is clear faith in the esoteric explanation can one arrive at understanding it, even in our terms, it often turns out to be a truer plain sense than the route of 'plain sense' that appears at first glance. Today, mainly following Rabbi Kook, who drew from the esoteric, the plain sense has become more sophisticated. Hasidism too contributed to the fact that concepts from the higher worlds receive meaning and relevance in our world.

See my article on hermeneutics. The strange explanations are the true plain sense, and even within the plain-sense framework they are more persuasive. 'Rationalists' reject such interpretations out of hand, as though they were 'mystical'. In the final analysis, what we have here is also a better plain sense (it should be noted that they reject both the esoteric and homiletic interpretation when applied to reality).

In the future, the process will be exactly this: the esoteric will be understood by way of the plain sense. The break between the two layers will disappear (the Torah of the Land of Israel). The concepts of the esoteric will receive meaning in our language (and as we have seen, this is what is happening today, following Hasidism and Rabbi Kook).

One must, however, beware of the Ramhal phenomenon as understood by the Leshem: that the interpretation may become the esoteric itself, instead of serving as an aid to understanding the esoteric. People are no longer prepared to accept lofty concepts that have no meaning or relevance in our world. This is the demand for 'connection' with things. Usually, however, this demand means a desire to see everything on our plane. In fact, the process that ought to occur is that the plain sense, after becoming more intelligible to our reason, should ascend back up (together with us) to the esoteric, and not that the esoteric should descend to the plain sense. This is the process of refinement described in the writings of the Ari (people of the exoteric are not prepared to accept this. For them everything exists and happens here. There is nothing at all in higher worlds, which for them are at most symbolic surroundings of this world).

Perhaps this is the intent of Midrash Tanhuma, Parashat Vayera, section 6:

Another interpretation: “And the Lord said, Shall I hide…”—this is what Scripture says: “For the Lord God does nothing unless He has revealed His secret to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). At first, the Holy One, blessed be He, would reveal His secret to those who fear Him, as it is said: “The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him” (Psalms 25:14). Then He gave it to the upright, as it is said: “In the council of the upright and the congregation” (Psalms 111:1). Then He gave it to the prophets, as it is said: “Unless He has revealed His secret to His servants the prophets.”

In this midrash we see that the Holy One, blessed be He, reveals the esoteric in stages: at first only to those who fear Him, great Torah scholars. These are people of faith, who alone can understand the esoteric and place trust in it (as explained above). Afterwards it was given to the upright, and as we explained in the article introducing Genesis (the one for the students), 'upright' means one who understands the Torah by his own reasoning, like the patriarchs (Genesis is the 'Book of the Upright'). At this stage the esoteric is understood even through simple reasoning (Hasidism, Zionism). But in such a state people may err and think that this is the whole of esoteric teaching itself (as with Ramhal).

Therefore, after the esoteric has been given over to intuitive understanding, it must return to being given to prophets; that is, it must be understood in worlds accessible only to prophets (and perhaps in such a state All the Lord's people are prophets will be fulfilled).

[1] See the Zohar on Parashat Beha'alotekha, cited by the Leshem in Sefer HaDe'ah on fol. 1, where it is stated that the Torah has four parts, and these appear to be the parts of Pardes. However, I have not found this classification explicitly before the Ari. See also Uriel Eitam's article in MiMidbar Matana on Parashat Behar-Bechukotai, 5761.