The Netziv has a vort on the 4 sons of the haggadah which is interesting because it's not the sort of thing you would expect from him. He writes that the phrases of "baruch haMakom" parallel the sons:
Baruch haMakom = the chacham
Baruch Hu = the rasha
Baruch shenasan Torah = tam
Baruch hu = aino yode'a lishol
The chacham is most atttuned to Hashem's hashgacha and presence in the world, hence baruch haMakom.
The rasha is denies Hashem's presence, hence the switch to third person, baruch Hu, as if speaking of someone distant.
The aino yode'a lishol is oblivious, so the phrase used is the same as that used for the rasha.
The tam, unlike the chacham, is unable to recognize Hashem's presence if not through Torah. Therefore, baruch she'nasan Torah...
I would have thought the Netziv would see recognizing G-d through torah as the ideal, but no -- ahavas Hashem and kirvas Hashem stand apart from torah and should be valued in their own right, as the chacham does. It is because the tam is not on such a high level that he requires torah to help him see yad Hashem.
The Netziv writes that this is pshat in Pesachim 68 that tell us that Rav Yosef would make a special celebration for Shavuos saying that if not for that day he would just be like any other Joe, any other Yosef in the marketplace. R' Yosef was a big anav, as the gemara tells us at the end of Mes Sota. Therefore, in his humility he said that if not for Torah, how would he connect with Hashem? He is just a simple tam, not a chacham.
Lulei d'mistafina I would suggest that this is the meaning of the pasuk (I checked Ha'amek Davar and the Netziv does not say it there) that describes Yaakov as "ish tam yosheiv ohalim," which Chazal interpret to mean he was learning in the yeshivos of Shem v'Eiver. Yaakov was still young, and therefore he was a tam and needed the torah of Shem v'Eiver, the beis medrash, as a means of connecting to Hashem. This perhaps is why Yitzchak, who heard Eisav ask shaylos in halacha, favored Eisav, who he perhaps saw as able to connect to Hashem even without and outside the 4 amos of halacha. It was Rivka who had greater insight into Eisav's character and realized that that connection was a facade.
Barukh shekim'at kivanti! My version:
ReplyDeleteThe Chakham is studying Retzon haBorei, is according to Nefesh haChaim powering creation, and thus connects to the RBSO as "Maqom ha'olam [ve'ein olamo meqomo]".
The Tam relates to G-d through narrative, at a pashut level. We generally assume the Bavli's "Tam" is the Yerushalmi's "Tipeish", but he might even be Tam as in "temimus". In which case, the Rambam's ideal of Chokham is balanced with the Kuzari's ideal -- who uncoincidentally also defines HQBH in terms of history first, and only then in terms of Creator.
-- [even] within the "chacham" classification, there are in fractal fashion four:
ReplyDelete"Baruch haMakom" = Rabbi Akiva
"Baruch Hu" = Acher, Elisha ben Avuya
"Baruch shenasan Torah" = ben Azzai
"Baruch Hu" = ben Zoma.
-- derech eretz before Torah (Vayikra Rabbah, 9:3)
can we infer a difference between the initial derech eretz of the eventual chacham, and the initial derech eretz of the eventual tam? as in Avraham walking before G-d (manual steering), and Noach walking with Him (power steering)? comes talmud Torah and each* attains his fuller status...
*both bnei Yisrael of course (ie. not a Noachide tam)
Very nice vort. Great hosafa about ish tam yoshev ohalim. Stay safe out there!
ReplyDeleteSass
Wonderful vort. Your hosafa is perfect. I share your surprise at the Netziv! What can that mean? Obviously, such a madreiga is beyond our comprehension. So what would be the point of talking about the Chacham at all? Nobody can be Adam Harishon, or Avraham Avinu. So what does that mean Kneged arba dibra torah? Who is the torah talking to?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I understand that we're talking allusions and semiotics, but since when does the appelation "Makom" mean clear and apparent? It seems to always mean incomprehensible, inscrutable. Ayei? All they can do is "l'umasam," because mekomo is unknowable.