038 Rav Twersky 900AM Mussar Rav Hutner Letter 30 June 10 2020

Hi good morning Rabosai. So let's take a look here in מכתב ל אות ב. Rav Hutner is dealing with a fascinating question בנוגע לשאלה מעיקר שהמשכן. The Gemara in Hazorek has a difference of opinion what the, the krashim, the boards in the Mishkan actually looked like. Did they, were they thinner on the top than on the bottom or was the thickness uniform? The, and the question that the shoel had posed to Rav Hutner being how can, how can such a machlokes be considered eilu v’eilu? Like this, when we learn machlokes in Shas, so where we, we assume that both sides of the machlokes, each side of the machlokes is Torah based on what the bas kol in the Gemara in Eruvin, recorded in the Gemara in Eruvin yud-gimmel tells us אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים. But how is that possible when, when dealing with a historical reality? I mean there were actual physical krashim and the actual physical krashim either were of uniform thickness throughout their entire height or they were not. בנוגע, so here again in os bais in michtav lamed

בנוגע לשאלה מעיקר שהמשכן. הנה בודאי יודע אתה כי סוגיות כאלו נמצאות הן בתלמוד במספר מרובה.

There are many such sugyos.

ועל כן הנני דן בפשיטות דנקטת סוגייתא דקרשי המשכן בתור דוגמא.

You meant this as an example. וממילא מובן שהתשובה תהיה כללית מקיפה כל הסוגיות הדומות. It's the same question that, that surfaces in many sugyos and it's going to be the same answer.

אלא מכיוון שאתה המצאת את קרשי המשכן לדוגמא גם דברי יתייחסו לאותה עובדה בתור משל.

So I'll also use it as a representative example. Maybe as a word of introduction to, I guess it probably this word of introduction would have been in place before we undertook this whole limud of, of Rav Hutner's letters but it's, I don't know, maybe a little bit more bolet at this point. I once heard the following he'arah from Rav Hartman, the, the one who's the, the, the one who puts out the blue Maharals with the incredible bekius in, in the, in the notes. So he, he once suggested that he thinks the Maharal is underappreciated because people are not sufficiently familiar with his vocabulary. His vocabulary is a different vocabulary and therefore at first glance what, what he says is inaccessible and as long as it's inaccessible obviously it, it can't be rightfully appreciated. And, and what he suggested is if people invest the, the, the effort and time to make that breakthrough to master the Maharal's vocabulary, so then they would see that the ideas he's saying are ideas which actually they are familiar with that type of conceptual thinking and the ideas would very much resonate. So every mechaber has his sort of his vocabulary. Sometimes the difference in vocabulary reflects a, a different way of thinking which may or may not resonate with someone. But sometimes the difference in vocabulary is, is not as indicative of substantive differences. Rav Hutner also very much had his own, heavily influenced by the Maharal, had his own vocabulary and if, if that's not one's own vocabulary so sometimes to appreciate it it needs to be translated. You know the same way I suppose if, if you don't speak or read French so there may be some ideas that one can appreciate in, in something that's written in French but, but it needs to be translated. Okay. הנה ידוע לך שהיו בישראל כמה וכמה גניזות. Things that were hidden away: Nignazu haluchos, Nignaz hamishkan, Nignaz ha-aron vechulu.

ובודאי שמכל גניזה היו תוצאות בדרכי התורה ועבודה ומפורש הוא הדבר בכתוב בדברי יאשיהו המלך בשעת גניזת הארון שאמר שגניזת הארון הולידה חידוש באופיה של תורה ועבודה.

So the geniza often is a turning point in terms of having an effect or an influence.

והוא הדין והיא המידה בכל הגניזות. והנה כשם שאפשר לגנוז חפץ,

just as a physical object can be consigned to geniza, כמו כן אפשר להסתיר ידיעה. You can have geniza on a historical point of information, on a historical fact.

ועליך לדעת כי בשעה שפלוני אלמוני סובר כי קרשי המשכן נעשו באופן ידוע שונה מכפי שהיתה המציאות באמת הרי זה אינו אלא טועה. אבל בשעה שחכמי המסורה של תורה שבעל פה שהתורה ניתנה על דעתם,

Lashon ha-Maharal,

שהם הם אנשי עצתו של יוצר בראשית, כשהוא סובר שקרשי המשכן נעשו באופן שונה מכפי שהיתה המציאות באמת הרי זה אינו אלא גניזה בכוח הדעת.

Let's again, this is all rather abstract but maybe let's read through and then im yirtzeh Hashem try to process.

כשם שגוף המשכן נגנז לפי רצונו של מקום, כמו כן יש מהלך שגם הידיעות על עניינו ובניינו של משכן ידונו לגניזה. אלא שבזמן שמקום גניזתו של גוף המשכן הוא בחללה דעלמא,

physical objects are the geniza is some place in space, meaning the aron is hidden in a physical location, you know maybe taka underneath the Kodesh Hakodashim but again a physical object is hidden is nignaz in a physical space, but a yediyah,

הרי גניזת הידיעה אודות המשכן הוא בכוח הדעת של חכמי המסורה. וממילא במקום שהידיעה אודות פרט אחד מבנין המשכן נוגעת לנו היום להלכה,

kegavna as is the case,

דסוגיא דשבת דקרשים שהלכה הן הנדון, אז אם חכם מחכמי המסורה של תורה שבעל פה לא כיוון אל מציאותו של גוף הבניין הרי דווקא על ידי זה כיוון לרצונו של מקום. מפני שבאופן זה רצונו של מקום הוא לצרף את גניזת הידיעה לגניזת הגוף וממילא ההלכה היוצאת מסברתו של חכם זה היא היא ההלכה האמיתית. וכל מציאות יש לה אמת משלה. וגם המציאות של תורה יש לה אמת משלה. והאמת של מציאות תורה הוא הכיוון ורצון השם. וכששני אמוראים חולקים באופן עשייתם של קרשי המשכן פירוש מחלוקתם היא כיצד נגלתה לפנינו עכשיו תמונת קרשי המשכן, מפני שההלכה היוצאת מנקודה זו אינה תלויה לגמרי במציאותם של קרשי המשכן אלא באופן גילויים.

So kemidumeh this is what Rav Hutner means. Let's begin with eilu ve-eilu again in its more common setting. Let's take מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, the first מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל in Shas about beshochbecha uvekumecha. So according to Beis Hillel beshochbecha uvekumecha only designate zman shchiva and zman kima. They don't designate the posture. That's Beis Hillel's shitta. According to Beis Shammai's shitta, no, they also designate posture, that when you say Krias Shema at night you're supposed to be lying down, when you say Krias Shema in the morning you're supposed to be standing up. Okay now, how is it that אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים? Because when Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the Torah, Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the Torah in such a way that again there are many things, right, we've been talking about the perushim mekubalim a lot, the gezeira shava of henna henna, zimma zimma etc. So there are many many things in Torah that Hakadosh Baruch Hu... He told Moshe Rabbeinu black and white. He told Moshe Rabbeinu that again in the Torah shebichtav that ervas bas habas is asura. He also told Moshe Rabbeinu in the perush hamikubal that you can find in the pasuk that ervas habas with gezera shava you'll also find that in the pasuk is asura and is dina besreifa etc. That's what's black and white. Some parts of the Torah Hakadosh Baruch Hu intentionally left gray and said that based on knowing all of the white and black of Torah, based on immersing oneself in Torah and training one's mind to think as the Torah thinks, so then one is supposed to interpret the gray areas of Torah. Within those gray areas of Torah, you can have two different interpretations which are equally well-founded, equally cogently, compellingly argued, and they can oppose each other, but they can be equally valid and therefore equally true. אלו ואלו דברי אלוהים חיים. Now in the realm of halacha l'maaseh, so again continuing with the example of מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, so they're not equally true. Beis Hillel is the normative opinion and Beis Shammai is not accepted l'halacha. And

כדאי היית לחוב בנפשך על שעברת על דברי בית הלל.

And the Mishna says that they told Rabbi Tarfon that when he made a point of lying down to say Krias Shema at night, and he was almost killed by listim as a result, they told him serves you right for violating what Beis Hillel said. Okay, so now let's process. In the abstract world of interpretation of the Torah, so in that world, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are equally true. Again, in the abstract world of interpreting the Chumash, in the abstract world of halacha, not halacha l'maaseh, in the abstract world of interpreting Chumash, of talking about halacha, Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai are equally true. In the concrete world of halacha l'maaseh, so in the case of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel where we have a bas kol, so then Beis Hillel is true, Beis Shammai is not true. So in different worlds, you can have different emes. Right? In different worlds, you can have a different emes. In the abstract world of thought and study, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are equally true, but in the concrete world of halacha l'maaseh, only Beis Hillel is true. Now says Rav Hutner as follows: you have a similar, not identical, but what we want to take away from this is again is the idea hopefully that sort of stretched our minds to how it can be that in different worlds you have a different emes and that's totally coherent. Not only is there no inconsistency in that, but it's something which is very, very rich concept. So now as follows: In the historical world, in the world of history, in the world of historical fact, the kerashim, the actual, there were actual kerashim of the Mishkan and they weren't miraculous kerashim that if you looked at them they weren't, you know, from one side they looked uniformly thick and if you looked at them from another side they weren't uniformly thick. No. They were kerashim. They were either one way or the other. Either the thickness of the kerashim was uniform throughout the height of the kerashim or not. And in the world of historical fact, in the world of archaeology etc, one opinion is emes, the other opinion is not emes. If a person, not one of the chachmei hamassora, if a historian, if an archaeologist will spin a theory as to what the kerashim looked like and klapei shamaya galya or maybe even klapei bnei adam it's nisgala that that doesn't correspond, well let's just say klapei shamaya, klapei shamaya galya that that doesn't correspond to what the actual historical kerashim were, so then that's pashut wrong. It's wrong. It's mistaken. However, when the historical fact, and kol zman, okay, when however the historical fact is concealed from us, right? What Rav Hutner is referring to as a concealed When that historical yediya is lost, so then the psukim of the kroshim are intended to be interpreted and are subject to the same potential multiplicity of meanings as the psukim of beshochkvecha uvekumicha and others. Dehainu that that they can be two equally legitimate valid and therefore true albeit opposing views of how to read the psukim, how to understand the psukim. Kol zman that the historical yediya is accessible to us, so then a person can't say, well no, I think I think this is the way to read the psukim. No, kol zman that that that the chachmei hamasora are given that historical yediya, so then that historical yediya determines the pshat. But the very moment that, and and you know Rav Hutner says that there's nothing accidental about this, there's a hashgacha for this also, the very minute that historical yediya is nignezas, so then, so then the psukim of the kroshim are subject to the same dynamic of אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים as as other psukim in chumash. And that's why, cause, and and that's retzono shel makom. That's retzono shel makom is, as it were, when when we lose the historical yediya of what the actual kroshim looked like, so then one chapter in torah sheba'al peh closes and a new chapter in torah sheba'al peh opens and in this new chapter, so then the psukim of the kroshim are not to be understood in light of the historical evidence, we have no historical evidence, we don't know, to be understood based again on מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן, based on on the way a person chachmei hamasora would understand chumash. And that's how you have an אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים. So again, in the world of historical truth, there's no elu veelu. In the world of historical truth the kroshim looked a certain way, again, somewhat similar, obviously not totally similar, somewhat similar to in the world of halacha lema'aseh of normative halacha, there's one truth, beis hillel is true, beis shamai, again in context of of that example, isn't true. But just as over there in in the world of abstract havana of abstract torah, so then there's a different emes where both beis hillel and beis shamai are also true, so you have something similar over here. In the world of historical fact, so there's one truth about the kroshim, there's no elu veelu. But in the world of abstract understanding of psukim and even in the world of halacha lema'aseh if there's some halacha lema'aseh fallout from the from that understanding of the psukim, so then here once the historical yediya has been concealed from us, so this chelek of torah is intended to be understood and and explained by the same and is governed by the same potential for אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים. It's a fascinating fascinating explanation. Okay so we'll we'll stop here בלי נדר אם ירצה השם, I hope we'll we'll reconvene at twelve o'clock in some fashion or other. Okay rabosai.