We have a small parsha of the Beis Din Hagodol, which contains a shoreshdik havanah in Chochma, Torah, and Yiras Shomayim.
Questions:
The Passuk (17:8) says
כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין דָּם לְדָם בֵּין דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ:
Devarim 17:8When something is a Pelah, when you don’t understand it, you go to the place Hashem chose – meaning to the Beis HaMikdash where the Sanhedrin haGadol sits.
The not-knowing is described as a Pelah – a wonder. The word Pelah is usually reserved for something that is beyond understanding, like “mafli la’asos” – how Hashem can put neshama and guf together. We see it, we can say the words, but we don’t understand it. That’s taka a wonder! But by court cases, what exactly is a Pelah? If you don’t know or understand something you just ask someone wiser, and once they explain it to you, now you understand it. What’s so “pelah-dik?” The use of Pelah seems out of place.
“וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם” – You should go up to the “place.” Why is this described as going to a place? Aren’t you going to the Sanhedrin Hagadol? So say you’re going to the Sanhedrin Hagadol! It’s true the Sanhedrin Hagadol sits in that place, but is the place the ikkar or is the Sanhedrin the ikkar? Why is this described as going to a place?
Chazal explain this court case of Pelah is describing the Zaken Mamreh, a chacham defying Beis Din. The defiance, Chazal say, is a specific type of rebellion. It’s not when Beis din is saying “we have a mesorah of a” and the zaken mamreh is saying “I have a mesorah of b.” It’s not even B”D saying “we think m’svara that a” and the zaken mamreh saying “ I think m’svara that b.” Chazal say it’s a case where B”D say “we have a mesorah” and the zaken mamreh saying “I have my understanding – kach nir’eh b’eynai.” Why is this the specific form of defiance that the Torah says we need to go to the makom of the Sanhedrin Hagadol?
Answers:
The passuk says “Reishis Chochma, Yiras Hashem.” The foundation of wisdom is Yiras Hashem. Why? Why is Yiras Hashem the Reishis of Chochma?
You can say balabatish, that you need Yiras Hashem, because otherwise, all that wisdom is for naught. But to call that Reishis is not accurate. The person is still a chacham, he acquired wisdom, but unfortunately he misuses it. So yirah wasn’t needed to acquire chochma. Yirah just preserves it. That’s nice but that doesn’t seem to be Reishis, the foundation.
Another balabatish pshat – You can say it means Yiras Hashem is needed to acquire wisdom, but again, that simply puts it in the category of a prerequisite. You know, you need a lot of things in place in order to learn. You need a quiet place. You need zitsfleish. And you also need Yiras Hashem. Those may be prerequisites, but they are not Reishis.
The Havana in Reishis means the starting point that everything else is built off of and everything else gets calibrated to.
For example: When someone asks you what’s wrong with doing x? And you say “well, because it says not to do so in a passuk.” They may respond “well, what makes the passuk authoritative?” And you say “because it was given by Hashem!” They may respond “well, how do you know it was given by Hashem?” You’ll say because millions of people witnessed it. They’ll say “maybe they were all hallucinating.” Such a conversation is going nowhere, because there’s no fixed starting point that is accepted as the given where everything else is built off of and calibrated to.
In order to have some sense of knowledge, there need to be an axiomatic beginning that is immovable and everything else finds meaning by being anchored into that axiom. That’s the way of wisdom, to build a consistent worldview, which rest on a foundational point, and everything connects and extends from that foundational point. That’s is the starting point of wisdom and it also gives endurance to the wisdom.
However, once you detach from the Reishis, your chochma has nothing to stand on. If I build a whole theory based on an underlying assumption, and that assumption proves false or changes, then all the “wisdom” I constructed collapses.
Real wisdom rests on, is built upon, and is calibrated to a fixed point that exists, and cannot shift or change.
Real wisdom needs Yirah. Yirah as opposed to Ahavah. As wonderful as both of these middos are, there’s a fundamental difference between Ahavah and Yirah. With Ahava, I am the starting point – I relate to something because I want to. As opposed to Yirah, I am not the starting point. I defer to an other. Even if I don’t want to, I can’t ignore it.
For example: If you want to have a relationship with someone, there’s a difference if it’s Ahava vs yirah. If it’s Ahava, so long as you like the person, you’ll hang out with them, but once the interest fades, you’re gone. But if that person is your boss, even if your interest fades, you’re still going to do what he wants, because your metzius rests upon him.
HKBH established a world on a Reishis. In the physical world the Reishis is the makom Hamikdash where the Sanhedrin HaGadol resided. The Mikdash is on the Even Hashesiya. It’s called Even Hashesiya because “memena hushtas ha’olam” “Hushtas” meaning the rest of the world was built on and around and extends and expands from that location.
That is the location of the Sanhedrin HaGadol – for a reason. It’s not that we just needed office space for the Sanhedrin Hagadol and look! What a great, chashuvah piece of real estate, right by the Beis Hamikdash! No. The Sanhedrin Hagadol is the source of Torah for Klal Yisroel. It is the Even Shesiya of Torah for Klal Yisroel. The Sanhedrin is tapped into the Reishis of the world. They draw Torah from the bedrock, where everything gets build on and calibrated to that Reishis. The Torah that comes from that makom is the Reishis of Torah.
We asked: Are people going to the Makom or to the people in that makom? The answer is they are going to the makom – to the point of Reishis. The Sanhedrin draws its authority not from being so smart, but by their deference and connection to the makom as the Reishis. The Reishis that resides there is the level of axiomatic truth. In the level of Reishis there are no questions – it is the givens, the axioms, the starting point where everything gets calibrated to.
We asked: What’s the pelah? Once someone explains it to you, you now understand – what’s pela-dik? The answer is we’re not looking for an explanation to a hard-to-figure-out question. We’re looking for axiomatic knowledge. It’s not a question that gets answered with a svara or applications. Svara and applications come after the givens have been established. No, it’s seeking to clarify whether something has shaychus to the Reishis. Is this shayich to the source of Torah or not? It’s a pelah because it’s not going to be answered with darchei chachma, svaras and applications. We need to see it as axiomatic in the Reishis.
We asked what’s so significant about the specific form of defiance of the zaken mamreh. Remember, it’s not when Beis din saying “we have a mesorah of a” and the zaken mamreh saying “I have a mesorah of b.” It’s not even B”D saying “we think m’svara that a” and the zaken mamreh saying “ I think m’svara that b.” Chazal say it’s a case where B”D say “we have a mesorah” and the zaken mamreh saying “I have my understanding – kach nir’eh b’eynai.” We’re talking about a person who detached the hemshech from the shoresh. We have the Torah she’bal peh which is part of the Reishis. But this zaken mamreh ignores the Mesorah, ignores the Reishis and builds his own understanding “kach nireh b’eynai.” He severed the hemshech from the Reishis.
There’s no chochma when you ignore the Reishis. There’s a gemara in brachos that says this perfectly.
מרגלא בפומיה דרבא תכלית חכמה תשובה ומעשים טובים שלא יהא אדם קורא ושונה ובועט באביו ובאמו וברבו ובמי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין שנאמר {תהילים קיא-י} ראשית חכמה יראת ה'
Brachos 17a
B’diyuk! Listen to Rava’s words. “He kicks aside his father and mother and Rebbi …” This is exactly the point. The father and mother and Rebbi are his Reishis, his source, and he kicks them aside to offer his unfounded, ungrounded opinion.
Let’s bring this into our worlds, because this is a dangerous tendency people struggle with. The tendency to take poetic license and say any pshat they conjure up and claim it as Torah-dik. It stems from how they relate to Torah:
Do you relate to Torah as poetry or as a metzius?
For example – when you see a work of art, or hear a song, or read poetry – if the majority of poets translate the meaning in one direction and you go in a different direction, there’s no foul. It’s a matter of taste and you had your interpretation.
But when it comes to science for example – if the majority of scientists conclude an honest study one way, and you conclude in a different direction, do you dismiss their stance as mere interpretation? Or do you second-guess yourself? You defer to them, not vis versa. If that’s the case by science, then l’havdil elef havdalos, there should be even greater deference by Torah.
Are you allowed to argue with Rishonim and Achronim? Technically, yes. And some gedolim did. But where is this coming from? Is there any loyalty, fealty to the Reishis?
You may say – “Listen, there’s 70 panim to Torah, isn’t there? I have my interpretation!” When someone has that attitude, their Yiras Hashem is suspect. Not just we suspect that this person does aveiros. It’s much deeper than that. This person has nothing keeping them honest! Anything goes!
But there’s more than that. Knowing there’s a reishis drives a person to seek that reishis. If you read a book where it’s clear the authors thoughts are baseless and whimsical, you’ll have no interest in delving deeper, because there’s nothing deeper – it’s all build on mental quicksand. However, if you know the author is a chacham, you’ll be interested in digging deeper and discovering new depths, because the depths are bringing you one step closer to the Reishis, once step closer to the real metzius.
Yehi Ratzon that we approach chochma with yirah, an emeseh Yiras Hashem that allows us to anchor ourselves into the Reishis of the briya, and may Hashem transform our “ki yipaleh” into “hareini nifla’os mi’torasecha!”