A small observation from R' Chatzkel Levenstein (Ohr Emunah):
Rashi quotes the Midrash that in response to Pharoah's decree to kill all the male children, Amram went ahead and divorced his wife. When Klal Yisrael saw what Amram had done, they followed suit and separated from their wives as well.
If you pause to think about this for a moment, it's incredible. You can have gedolim galore who tell us that smartphones are evil, and what's the typical reaction (I'm speaking about myself)? -- they are fanatics, they are out of touch with reality, they don't know what life is all about. This is in response to giving up something small like a phone! Imagine if the gedolim were to tell everyone to give up living with their wives -- can you imagine the outcry? (Sadly, some people may actually be happy, but that's a different story : )
R' Chatzkel goes a step further and points out that Amram did *not* in fact order anyone to stop living with their wife. Amram simply separated from his own wife. Klal Yisrael so believed in and trusted in Amram that they immediately followed suit without having to be told anything. The people emulated his behavior without having to be given explicit instructions. If Amram did it, it meant it was the right thing to do.
Amram in the end took the advice of Miriam and reversed his position, and here again, Klal Yisrael followed suit. One could easily imagine the potential accusations of Amram flip-flopping, of his being unsuited to lead because he was so inconsistent, etc. But that's not what happened.
Despite, according to some views, Klal Yisrael falling to tremendously low levels in Mitzrayim, the people still retained their basic emunah -- including their emunas chachamim.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isn't this post justifying not just what I was raised to call "emunas chakhamim", but actually what the 20th century terms "da'as Torah"?
ReplyDeleteThe same argument would praise those who imitated R CO Grozhinsky and stayed in Vilna rather than applying for a Japanese visa.
I don't know what you mean by the terms.
DeleteI am using the language of emunah because that's what R' Chatzkel uses.
But to R Chatzkel, "emunas chakhamim" includes trusting their guidance on questions where the variable is about metzi'us, not Torah. What we today call "da'as Torah".
DeleteArguably it is only because of that belief that RCL gives this decision by Amram as an example. Were people looking to Amram for "halachic" or hashkafic input, or for a way of knowing whether it statistically paid to try to have children?
Actually, now that I wrote that out, I could see it going either way.
In any case, RCL goes much further with emunas chakhamim than I believe you would agree with.
"Arguably it is only because of that belief that RCL gives this decision by Amram as an example. Were people looking to Amram for "halachic" or hashkafic input, or for a way of knowing whether it statistically paid to try to have children?"
DeleteI don't understand this at all. Pharaoh made a genocidal decree, and it appears they started carrying it out. So how is there a question of Metzius? The question is whether it is appropriate to bring children into the world when that is the situation, or whether one should refrain and wait until the decree subsides. (Which is not so speculative. Pharaoh's reasoning, acc. to the Midrash, is that his astrologers predicted the savior of the Jewish people was about to be born among the boys. Which is why he spared the girls. After a few months, presumably that reasoning would go away and they would let the newborn boys live.)
"After a few months...they would let the newborn boys live." (Tal, son of schar)
Deleteor in the principal case, after a few hours: how is it Yocheved could >safely< nurse Moshe on the same(?) day he was found, and keep him safe until weaned (Shemos 2:9-10)? learn from here that the wages bas Paro paid Amram's wife were used to buy off Egyptian inspectors {alternately, learn that once the decree of infanticide extended to Egyptian newborn males too(?), not one hand was raised against one pool of babies or the other...}
An alternative explanation would be that the Jews, on their own, wanted to separate from their spouses based on the decree, but were hesitant to do so because it seemed unethical. Once they saw a great leader doing it, they followed their original inclinations.
ReplyDeleteThis has its parallel today where certain ostensibly unethical behavior is justified by saying, "But Rabbi/Rosh Yeshiva/Admor Ploni did it."
And it is worth noting that this "emunas chachamim" was misplaced. As it turned out, Amram was wrong. [Although Eldad and Meidad were certainly positive results of this action]. Which raises the question: since he was a Novi, why didn't he consult with HaShem before doing this? Or did he? Another point I ponder: is "da'as Torah" possible before Matan Torah?
And in response to R' Berger, I have a reliable mesorah that R' Chatzkel said of the Mir survivors: Just because they were successful doesn't mean they were right.
DeleteKind of my point.. The message of this thought is not consistent of what I know of RCB's beliefs.
Delete>>>why didn't he consult with HaShem before doing this?
DeleteWas he a navi or "just" the gadol hador?
He also seemed to think Miriam's advice was nevuah, but then bopped her on the head when he thought baby Moshe would be lost and questioned what happened with her prophecy. So I don't know what is going on here -- did he think his daughter was saying false prophecy? Misinterpreting her prophecy? Did he not want to risk the same happening to himself? I have no idea.
>>>is "da'as Torah" possible before Matan Torah?
I would say to the contrary -- kodem matan Torah there was even more room for daas Torah. Post matan Torah we have a text. There is only so far that anyone can go in claiming what the Torah demands before they have crossed outside the boundaries of reasonable interpretation. Pre-mattan Torah everything came from the "klayos" or the brain or the heart or something like that of the individual. You could not, l'mashal, go to Avraham Avinu and say "This cannot be what G-d has in mind because it says in Shulchan Aruch..." Judaism was defined by the "daas" of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov's understanding alone.
"then bopped her on the head" (Chaim, 10:12pm)
Deletebetter he bop than yarok yarak b'fa'ne'ha (Bam. 12:14)
The Rav Zal said Miriam Ha-NEVIA WAS THE GREATEST TSADEKET,PERHAPS AS SHE WENT AGAINST A SEEMING DA'AS TORAH, TO SAVE THE WHOLE EXISTENCE OF AM YISRAEL.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand. Miriam *HaNeviah* would be a conduit of Devar Hashem even greater then da'as Torah. How could she seemingly go against daas Torah rather than be seen as providing it?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete