Q&A: Between Homily and Pilpul
Between Homily and Pilpul
Question
There is a homily on the beginning of the book of Leviticus that Moses our teacher wrote a small aleph because of humility, and the idea is that by turning the regular aleph into a small one, several Jewish laws were “lost,” since when the aleph is interpreted one way or another the laws change. And Moses our teacher wanted to teach us that it is worthwhile to “lose a few laws or insights in the Torah” in order to attain the virtue of humility. Do you think this is just a homily and not real exposition, or is there some truth to it?
Answer
It seems to me that I once told you what the difference is between a homily and pilpul: a homily is a nonsensical inference that leads to a true conclusion (that one should be humble and righteous, etc., etc.). So nobody argues, even though everyone understands that the inference is nonsense. Pilpul is an inference that seems correct, but its conclusion is nonsense (if a four-cornered garment, which is not obligated in a mezuzah, is obligated in tzitzit, then a doorpost, which is obligated in a mezuzah, all the more so should be obligated in tzitzit). Pilpul is basically a riddle for the reader, to point out the mistake in an inference that appears correct. A homily is just a didactic way (which I don’t like) of stating the conclusion. In that terminology, what you brought here quite obviously looks like a homily (whose purpose is to express the conclusion, which is correct in itself).