A Thought on Parshas Re'ae

A Thought On Parshas Re'ae

"...ae'leh ha'chukim v'ha'mishpatim..."
"...these are the statutes and rules..." (12:1)

For those who attend my Shabbos shiur following kiddush, the format of starting with a brief idea from the weekly parsha is familiar. We have a rule, however, following that short vort, which precedes my formal halacha interactive shiur, that no questions or embellishments are to follow the introductory parsha vort. It is too easy to get distracted from the central focus of the ensuing shiur. I often have to invoke the oft-quoted adage "ain mei'shivin al ha'drash" ('we do not challenge homiletic interpretations') in order to get the chavrei ha'minyan to focus on the shiur.

Now, that adage is almost colloquial. Most of us have heard it before and assume that it originates in some Talmudic tractate or other. After all, there are a number of adages which also begin with the phrase ain mei'shivin ('we do not challenge, or refute, or respond to...') in the words of Chazal and this one sounds much like something that our sages would say. Yet, when you stop and ponder it, the adage needs clarification. We Torah Jews thrive on being able to analyze, critique and question everything we hear. The entire process of Talmudic study is built on such razor-sharp inquiry. Why can't we challenge a thought which is derived through midrashic exegesis?

According to our reference books (see Michlol ha'Mamarim v'ha'Pisgamim), the saying does not appear in the Talmud at all. It originates, apparently, in a medieval commentary known as Pane'ach Raza which was written by one of the Baalei Tosafos, Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Rabbeinu Yehuda HaLevi. It appears in later sources as well. What is not clear, however, is how or where the notion or principle came to be.

To my delight, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel looks at our verse and cites a Talmudic interpretation of the words aeleh ha'chukim - these are the statutes - which instructs us that the word chok here refers to midrashos or those laws which are derived from homiletic interpretation (see Kidushin 37a). Apparently, those halachic principles which are not explicitly stated (unlike a mishpat such as "do not steal", which makes sense to us without requiring any delicate means of inferential derivation) and which we derive through intricate exegesis are called midrashos. The gemara says that our verse's use of the word chukim juxtaposed to the other word mishpatim, is making that distinction between the explicit and the derived.

Now, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel points out, we know that the "classic" case of a chok is the Para Aduma (BaMidbar 19:2). The laws of the Red Heifer mystify us because they exceed our conventional limits of logic and predictability. The Torah captions those laws as a chok, and we know from there that a chok (or chuka) is a statute which is beyond and impervious to our usual critical analysis and logic. So, our master Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel reasons, if the aforementioned gemara asserts that our verse's word chukim refers to midrashos, and we know that the classic chok is one that cannot be critiqued or refuted with any tools of logic or reasoning, no matter how compelling, we now have a Biblical source for the adage which proclaims ain mei'shivin al ha'drash! Since a drash is called a chok here and a chok is not subject to challenge or critical analysis, the Torah alludes here to the idea that we respect a legitimate interpretation derived from proper tools of midrashic exegesis, and we do not attempt to challenge or refute it.

It is hard to say whether Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel came up with this brilliant insight before Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Rabbeinu Yehuda HaChasid did, but we will not concern ourselves with that question. After all, ain mei'shivin al ha'drash. Good Shabbos. D Fox