The Commentator

Some students of Aggada mistakenly think that our tradition contains a paucity of good commentary on their subject.  In a variety of forums that include my teaching at Yeshivat Hamivtar and two years of written shiurim for the Yeshivat Har Etzion VBM, I have tried to show that our rabbinic tradition contains a good deal of insightful commentary on aggadic material.  I hope that my forthcoming book entitled Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine: Aggadic Readings will help enable the reading public to judge the veracity of my claim.  In what follows, I attempt to highlight a neglected source of aggadic commentary. 

Most yeshiva students know about the classic works of aggada interpretation including Maharsha, Maharal and the commentators found in the Ein Yaakov.  These well-known aggadic commentaries do not need my advertising.  Good interpretation harder to locate appears in works that are not page-by-page Talmudic commentaries as in the writings of R. Zadok haKohen of Lublin, R. Yizhak Hutner, R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg and R. Meir Simha haKohen from Dvinsk.  Of course, finding this material provides a greater challenge, as students have no ready way of knowing where these rabbinic writers address particular Aggadot.

A third source of fine commentary is easily accessible yet often overlooked.   The page-by-page Talmudic commentaries of the last few hundred years address aggadot much more frequently than their medieval counterparts do.   Giants of halakhic discourse, such as Tosafot and the Hakhmei Sefarad focused almost all of their interpretative energies on the Talmud’s legal section, rarely commenting on a story or ethical maxim. However, the case differs considerably when we turn our attention to the aharonim.  Great works from this period including Keren Ora, Sefat Emet, Hatam Sofer and Gevurat Ari (or Turei Even) contribute to aggadic, as well as halakhic, analysis.  As many yeshivot skip aggadic sections altogether, and as some yeshivot utilize the rishonim far more than the aharonim, students remain unaware of the gems available in these works.

In a recently published article,ⁱ Chaim Eisen argues that the sixteenth and early seventeenth century brought an explosion in aggadic interpretation.  The previous half- millennium saw almost no comprehensive treatment of aggadot but only some general programmatic statements and treatment of isolated aggadot scattered through philosophic and homiletical works.  Between 1516 and 1631, R. Shmuel Edels (Maharsha), R. Yehuda Leow (Maharal) and R. Yaakov Ibn Habib (Ein Yaakov) all attempted to further the interpretative process for the majority of Talmudic non-legal material.  Eisen makes some interesting suggestions as to why this historical period produced such literature.  If my argument is correct, the increased focus on aggada continued into modernity as the later authorities wrote Talmudic commentaries equally focused on aggadic and halakhic sections.  

Though the question of which historical factors influenced the turn to aggada deserves treatment, I would like to focus on the basic fact that the aharonim are more likely to confront aggadot.  Realization of this fact alone can provide significant help for the learning community.  Three Talmudic sections will help buttress my claim.  Though the sample I use certainly does not qualify as a scientific study, I believe that my examples still prove quite striking.  Furthermore, many years of aggadic study lead me to conclude that my examples are representative.   

The third chapter of Ta’anit incorporates many important aggadot.  In particular, a number of famous stories appear in between pages 19b and 23a.  These stories include a miracle occurring that enables Nakdimon ben Gurion to pay back the water he borrowed for the olei regalim, R. Elazar insulting an ugly fellow he meets on the road, Ilfa and R. Yohanan deciding whether or not economic distress should motivate them to abandon the study hall, Nahum Ish Gam Zo’s responding to travails with equanimity, Eliyahu haNavi showing R. Broka which people in the market are destined for the world to come, and Honi haMe’agel standing in a circle and demanding rain.  These stories are classics of rabbinic literature.

If we were studying the halakhic issues in Ta’anit such as the recital of prayers for rain or the liturgy on a public fast day, we would no doubt utilize Tosafot and Ritva as the pillars of our analysis.  What happens when we look for help with these stories?   Ritva does not comment on a single one of these tales.  Tosafot make two very brief comments – one on the etymology of Nakdimon and the other identifying the ugly fellow with Eliyahu haNavi.   I think it fair to say that these giants of Talmudic thought channeled their efforts elsewhere.    

Let us contrast the above with the commentaries of R. Yizhak from Karlin (Keren Ora) and R. Aryeh Leib Gunzburg (Gevurat Ari).  The latter makes several comments on these stories, two of particular significance.  In the Honi story, Shimon ben Shetah says that he had considered excommunicating Honi.  What aspect of Honi’s behavior might have merited such a response?   The Gemara states that had the drought continued, Honi would have violated his oath and this would constitute a desecration of the Divine name.   Rashi suggests that Honi exhibits an arrogant posture towards God when Honi responds to the initial rain by saying “this was not what I asked for.”  Gevurat Ari points out these two possible explanations and attempts to reconcile them.  

A number of the stories raise issues with regard to relying on miracles.  Ilfa and R. Yohanan sit beneath a ruinous wall.  Nahum brings dirt to the king instead of precious stones.  In both instances, Geuvrat Ari insists that these scholars did not rely upon miracles.   He asserts that Ilfa and R. Yohanan did not realize the nature of the wall they sat under.  He also says that Nahum did not discover the fact that thieves had switched his stones for dirt until in the king’s presence.ⁱⁱ 

Keren Ora’s contributions are even more dramatic.  In the Nakdimon story, the lender claims that the rains fell after sundown when the time for returning the water had passed; therefore, Nakdimon owes him money.  When making this claim, he states “I know that God has only shaken up the world for you.”  At first glance, it seems that he concedes Nakdimon’s righteousness even as he tries to claim the cash.   Keren Ora suggests that this wealthy lender taunts Nakdimon.  If the rains came a mere few moments too late for Nakdimon to repay his debt, then God must truly want to torment Nakdimon.  His reading fits in beautifully with the fact that Nakdimon then prays to God to show that “You have those You love in the world.”  In other words, the rain could indicate God’s like or dislike for Nakdimon, but only the sun’s return to the sky that enables rain to cancel the debt reveals that God truly loves Nakdimon. 

His reading of R. Elazar’s encounter with the ugly person also shows ingenuity and insight.  The story certainly revolves around the dangers of arrogance and how we talk to others.  Keren Ora views this story as a metaphor for the meeting between Torah and the broader world.  Those engaged in Torah study can depict the broader world as undifferentiated ugliness not worth relating to beyond the occasional insult.  Conversely, they can understand that the broader world is a complicated place and that the ideal Torah would inspire those engaged in it to attempt an ennobling of the broader world.  According to R. Yizhak from Karlin, this story instructs the Talmudic scholar to do more than see ugliness upon leaving the walls of the study hall.ⁱⁱⁱ

The second chapter of Shabbat also has wonderful aggadot, including some famous material between pages 30a and 31a.  In these pages, we encounter the story of King David’s death, the contradictions in Sefer Kohelet, the bettor who attempts to anger Hillel and the three prospective converts who approach both Shammai and Hillel.  Tosafot’s only comment on all of the above refers to a halakhic discussion about gambling.   Ramban, Rashba and Ritva do not comment at all on these aggadot. 

How different the situation is when we open up Sefat Emet and Hatam Sofer!  The former makes a profound point about why David learned Torah each second of Shabbat once David discovered that he would pass away on Shabbat.  Rashi explains that David studied in order to forestall death.  Sefat Emet suggests that David was not trying to achieve some form of special protection.  Rather, the thought that he had few moments left to live made it imperative that David use those moments in the best possible way.  Therefore, he studied each moment.

  Sefat Emet also wonders why Hillel responds to a foolish question in the wager story when the Gemara counsels against responding to silly questions regarding worldly matters.  He answers that the person who asks, “why do the Babylonians have round heads” intends to ask an inane question about something insignificant.  Hillel responds that attempting to understand the variation in God’s created order is a worthwhile field of study.               

Hatam Sofer adds quite a few meaningful comments.  He offers a fresh perspective on why one potential convert wanted to become the high priest.  The simple interpretation views this convert as interested in the glory and finery of fancy garments.  Hatam Sofer explains that this non-Jew felt guilty about his previous misdeeds and saw the priestly garments as his quick route to atonement.  This convert later hears that David himself could not achieve atonement though the priestly garb and comes to a deeper understanding of atonement.   He also has an innovative reading of the prospective convert who wants to receive the entire Torah while standing on one foot.  Hatam Sofer explains that this gentile wants religion to be either about harmonious society or about communion with God.  He wants the Torah to revolve around a singular principle.  Hillel’s response states a principle that combines both bein adam lamakom and bein adam lehavero.

In my final example, an aharon intentionally attempts to compensate for the absence of a rishon.  In his Be’er Sheva, R. Yisasher Beer Eilenburg adds commentary for sections of Talmud that lacks Tosafot.  This work includes a running commentary on the last chapter of Sanhedrin as that chapter is fully aggadic and Tosafot remain silent throughout the chapter.  Note also that Rabbenu Nissim’s Hiddushei haRan on Sanhedrin skips from 99a to 110b while R. Yaakov Ettlinger’s Arukh leNer comments on almost every page in the chapter.^iv         

Space limitations preclude more examples but I suggest that you will find similar attention to aggada in several other modern commentators.  Excellent material that can be located easily exists for those interested in aggada.  Open the aharonim and enjoy their wisdom.   

Rabbi Yitzchak Blau is a Rebbe at Yeshivat Hamivtar               

ⁱ Maharal’s Be’er ha-Golah and His Revolution in Aggadic Scholarship” Hakirah 4 Winter 2007

ⁱⁱ The latter assumption requires some textual emendation as some versions of the Talmudic text have Nahum seeing the dirt and saying “Gam zo le’tova” before he reaches the palace.   

ⁱⁱⁱ Keren Ora also adds some interesting comments on the Honi story. 

^iv  However, R. Meir haLevi Abulafia’s Yad Ramah does comment on the last chapter in Sanhedrin.  Clearly, my claim is about general trends and not that no rishon comments on aggada or that every aharon does so.

Article Tools