Q&A: The Parameters of Torah Study
The Parameters of Torah Study
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
First of all, I have to thank you for the posts, books, lectures, and all sorts of excellent things you share with us — “one with a generous eye will be blessed.”
In the Talmud and the medieval authorities (Rishonim), one often finds the explanation: “not this, but even this, is taught,” or “this, and it goes without saying that this.”
After looking into the rules and so on, I understood that “this, and it goes without saying that this” is really a forced reading, and they prefer to explain it as “not this, but even this.” I also understood that “this, and it goes without saying that this” means exactly what it sounds like — that there is no need to state the second clause, because it contains no novelty at all, unlike “not this, but even this,” where there is some novelty and added point.
My question is: if there is no need at all to write the clause, why was it said in the first place?
That is, if it really is “this, and it goes without saying that this,” then let that second case not be stated! Why was it stated?!
Answer
With pleasure.
It seems to me that this kind of answer basically says that if you have a reasonable explanation, you give it, and if not — then apparently something here was written just for rhetorical flourish. In other words, the Mishnah can be written in this manner of “this, and it goes without saying that this,” since sometimes that is simply a nice rhetorical formulation. We would prefer a substantive explanation of the Mishnah, but if there isn’t one, we can make do with that kind of explanation.
By the way, I’m not familiar with the claim that in the structure of “this, and it goes without saying that this,” the second point contains no novelty at all. That also doesn’t seem correct to me.
Discussion on Answer
I disagree on both counts. First, “this, and it goes without saying that this” means that after you have stated the first one, there is no need to state the second. That does not mean that the second contains no novelty. Not at all. On the contrary, the simple meaning is as I wrote here — that in principle there actually is a need for it.
Beyond that, even if there were no novelty in it at all, there is nothing preventing it from being brought for rhetorical flourish and to sharpen the point and the message. There are scribal embellishments even in the Torah itself.
I’m not really familiar with the Rebbe’s words, so I can’t express an opinion.
If there is a novelty in the second one, why is there no need to say it? After all, it contains a novelty.
Because after the first law has been introduced, the second one is already redundant. But taken on its own, it does contain a novelty (just less than the first one). Exactly like the case of “not this, but even this,” only in reverse.
Thank you very much for the reply; have a good and blessed week.
My question is actually based on the assumption (which I’ll explain below) that in “this, and it goes without saying that this,” there is no novelty at all — and if so, why should it be written?
The answer of rhetorical flourish would be acceptable if there were some novelty and some effect to it, but if there isn’t, then it is really a superfluous clause or word (- depending on Tosafot on Kiddushin 41a).
I first saw the claim that in “this, and it goes without saying that this” there is no novelty at all in the writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in the Likkutei Sichot series, volume 14, Vaetchanan, in the notes. I’m sure the Rabbi knows the Likkutei Sichot series; there are many surprising and curiosity-provoking insights there, and most of them sound very plausible.
After looking into it, I saw that his claim fits very well with a number of cases, for example the Talmudic passage about a shofar that cracked, in tractate Rosh Hashanah 27a, and more. But of course not everyone learns that way, for example the author of Kappot Temarim there in Rosh Hashanah.
I don’t want to go on too long lest the Rabbi be busy with more serious topics and so on, so I’ll just ask: why does he think it is incorrect to say that in “this, and it goes without saying that this” there is no novelty at all? Isn’t that the plain meaning of the phrase “it goes without saying”?
I’d also be glad to ask more generally what impression the Rabbi has of the style of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s novellae. Not politics and not worldview — just his insights and his very original style of learning.