Are there any rules for when a rishon may disagree with an explicit statement in the gemara about an issue of historical fact? If the gemara states that the marriage between Dovid and Michal was a taus by Shaul why can the Radak say that in fact Dovid had divorced Michal and therefore she was not really an eshes ish when she was with Palti.ben Laish (who did not agree with the psak of Shaul/Doeg) if the gemara gives an explicit explanation?
David Goldman, NY
Sometimes, later authorities disagree with the Radak concerning instances where he departs from the maintstream approach of Chazal. (See Teshuvas Radbaz 3:641 [1066] cited in Teshuvas Tzitz Eliezer 21:63:2, DH v'Gam, and see Teshuvas Ya'avetz 1:108 at the end, and Teshuvos Sho'el u'Meshiv 1:2:5, DH Mah.)
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Although that by Halachic matters we say (Choshen Mishpat 25:1) that one cannot argue with the Gemara, nevertheless by Agadah we see that Rishonim do explain differently than the Gemara/Midrash.
An example that comes to mind is II Shmuel 2:2, where Rashi takes issue with the Midrash which says that the person who informed David Hamelech of Shaul Hamelech's death was Doeg. See also Ramban on Bereishis 8:4, where he takes from Rashi that we have permission to explain a Pasuk differently than the Midrashim because of 'Shiv'im Panim Latorah'.
Meir Zirkind
See also the famous words of Tosfos Yom Tov in Nazir 5:5, who makes the following radical statement: Just as we may suggest any acceptable explanation for Pesukim even if it contradicts the Gemara, as evidenced from the words of the Rishonim on the Torah, so too we may suggest any acceptable explanation for a Mishnah even if it contradicts that given by the Gemara - so long as we do not come to Halachic conclusions based on our own novel explanation.
The Ohr Same'ach does this quite often. A case in point is his comment to the Gemara in Chulin 21a (Chidushei Ohr Same'ach).
Best regards,
Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Why would Tosafos Yomtof say that offering alternatives is permitted if it is merely a theoretical possibility since one cannot posken from such alternatives? Same for the Ohr Somayach?
(b) In any case, don't we assume that the pshat offered in the midrash or gemara is the only choice on the fact of history - unless they suggest it's only bederech efsher? The gemara and midrash presumably know the sources better than a Rishon, which is why we know about yeridas hadoros......
(c) One the other hand, a person could offer these two ideas not brought in chazal but which do not contradict chazal:
"Al tikra MI DINA shel gehennom, ela MEDINAH SHEL GEHENNOM" (!!)
Another one:
"Dovid Hamlech min Hatorah m'ayin?" --- In parshas Vayetse "Vayimtza DUDaim Ba'sadeh".....i.e. that Reuven had a hasoga that Mashiach and Dovid were supposed to come from him because he was the bechor, but Rochel wanted them because she had the hasoga that Dovid and Mashiach were supposed to come from Yosef, her bechor, etc. etc.
(a) We do not derive Halachic rulings from every verse in the Torah. Nevertheless, Rishonim have compiled thick volumes to explain the simple meaning of the Torah's every word. The same applies to the Minyan ha'Mitzvos - what possible Halachic benefit could come from discussions of how to count the 613 Mitzvos? Yet Rishonim and Acharonim have spilled pools of ink on that subject.
The Mitzvah of Talmud Torah applies to any part of Torah equally ('even Achos Lotan Timna'). And if we are Zocheh, we may even find Musar and Derech Eretz in such explanations. In addition, the Vilna Gaon was quoted as saying that one cannot understand the secrets of the Torah without first understanding the Pshat.
The Torah is much broader than we could possibly imagine.
(b) Chazal tell us "Ein Mikra Yotzei m'Yedei Peshuto" (Shabbos 63a - Daf ha'Yomi!), which the Tosfos Yom Tov seems to apply to Mishnah as well. Often, glimpses revealed to us by the Midrash and Gemara are on the level of Drash, not Pshat; that is, they are derived from extra words or fine nuances. But it is still meaningful for us to know the Pshat. (The Vilna Gaon does this very often; see for example his Shenos Eliyahu to Kelim 1:8, about the Chatzer ha'Chadashah.)
Besides, once the Pshat is revealed we find a deeper understanding to the Drash as well.
(c) Until now, we have only discussed suggesting new approaches to Pshat - not Drash.
There is apparently room to suggest original Drash as well - as we find occasionally in the words of Acharonim or even Rishonim. But the rules of how and when this can be done are so intricate that a person must be a truly experienced scholar to do so - and he must build on the foundations of his predecessors. I certainly am not qualified to list guidelines for creating personal Drash; if you have questions bring them up with your Local Orthodox Rabbi.
bi'Berachah,
Mordecai Kornfeld
I would just like to add one insight to what has already been written. This concerns question (a) above, about why the Tosfos Yom Tov says that offering alternative explanations is permitted only when it is a theoretical possibility from which one could not rule in practice.
1. A view similar to that of the Tosfos Yom Tov was presented much earlier by Rebbi Shmuel ha'Nagid in his Introduction to the Talmud, printed at the end of Maseches Berachos, page 90, DH v'Hagadah. He writes that no one may add to or detract from any Halachah that Chazal upheld concerning practical Mitzvos. In contrast, when Chazal explained verses, each Sage did so according to his own personal opinion and according to the idea that occured to him.
2. It seems that Rebbi Shmuel ha'Nagid is teaching us that Halachah is fixed and never changes at different times in history. This belief is the ninth of the 13 Principles of Faith recorded by the Rambam: "This Torah will never be changed and there will never be another Torah which comes from Hashem." In contrast, the way of understanding the hidden aspects and allusions of the Torah is something which can and does change from generation to generation. The Ramban teaches that in Parshas Ha'azinu is hinted everything that will ever happen or has already happened to all the people in the world. If this is true about merely one Parshah of the Torah, then certainly the entire Torah is full of hints which are applicable and timely to every period of history and teach us how to behave at every different time. Therefore, it is clear that the way the Sages (who understand how to expound the Torah in every generation) teach what lessons are contained in the Torah for every time will change from generation to generation since the events of every period of history are different. For this reason, the way one explains the Torah's Agadaic hints will also vary for every unique time period. (See Teshuvos Mishneh Halachos 5:164 and 5:169.)
Hatzlachah Rabah,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. But don't chazal have actual mesoras in matters of historical fact? For example whether Dovid Hamelech gave a get to Michal or not? It is a question of fact. So shouldn t even the Radak assume they had a mesora and therefore no other suggestion is necessary unless the gemara or midrash indicates it is only a sevara rather than mesora??
The same question could be asked about the identity of Og. Is it a mesora that he was Eliezer? Because apparently there was more than one Og from the time of Noach to Moshe Rabbenu.
David Goldman
(a) Regarding *historical facts*, there is no reason to presume a Mesorah unless Chazal refer to one explicitly. In fact, Tana'im very often will argue about the historical facts, implying that there is no clear Mesorah on the matter. See for example Gitin 6b, regarding the story of Pilegesh b'Giv'ah.
The case in Gitin is particularly instructive. The Gemara concludes that Eliyahu told the Amora'im that both opinions were correct. That is, even our original suggestions (which differ with those of Chazal) may reveal another part of the full truth. If our suggestions are based proper inferences from verses etc. then it can be said about them "Eilu v'Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim..."
With regard to Chazal's *approach* to history, it is different. One must presume that Chazal's approach is indeed Masoretic. That is, we must rely on Chazal to determine whether or not Kings David and Shlomo should be looked up to or looked down upon; whether what seems like a description of Reuven's adultery truly refers to such an extreme sin or not. In general, Chazal's approach to such matters seems to be consistent across sources - and when there seem to be differences of opinion, they can be reconciled upon careful examination.
(b) Thus, we may make assumptions such as "Palti was a Tzadik" or "Og was subservient to Avraham, but was not a Tzadik in his own right" etc.
Regarding Og, there are indeed numerous Midrashim as to his, and Eliezer's, identity. An excellent article by Rav Chaim Eisen has been printed in Jewish Thought (edited by R. Moshe Chaim Sossevsky).
Best regards,
Mordecai Kornfeld