 |
| Artwork: Brainstorm, by William Murai |
Parashas Devarim: Chochmah, Binah, and Daas
Chochmah, binah, and daas. We encounter these terms all the time, in our tefilos and in our learning. What do they mean? This is a difficult question that I have taken up from time to time – most recently, this morning. My investigation was triggered by a comment from Rashi, and I decided to confine my research to Rashi’s view. Although my understanding is far from complete, I thought I’d present to you the sources I found, along with a few observations.
In this week’s parashah Moshe Rabbeinu begins recounting the events that transpired during the 40 years in the Midbar. One of the first incidents he mentions is the appointment of judges over Bnei Yisrael: “Provide for yourselves distinguished men, who are chachamim, nevonim, and well-known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your leaders.” [1]
“Chacham” refers to a person who possesses chochmah, and “navon” refers to someone who possesses “binah.” Rashi defines “navon” then provides an analogy to define the difference between a chacham and a navon:
nevonim: this refers to those who “meivin davar mitoch davar” (infer one thing from another). Arios asked R’ Yossi this question: “What is the difference between chachamim and nevonim?” R’ Yossi answered: “A chacham is like a rich money changer. When they bring him coins to examine, he examines them; when they don’t bring him coins to examine, he sits and does nothing. But a navon is like a merchant money changer. When they bring him money to examine, he examines; when they don’t bring him money to examine, he goes and brings in business on his own.” [2]
On a basic level, the main difference between the chacham and the navon is that the chacham is a dependent learner, whereas the navon is an independent learner. In other words, the chacham relies on other people to provide him with knowledge, whereas the navon is capable of deriving new insights based on what he already knows.
This basic understanding of Rashi’s view is confirmed by his comments on the introduction to Mishlei. Shlomo ha’Melech writes that Mishlei will help the “chacham to increase his learning, and the navon to acquire strategies.” [3] Rashi explains that a chacham is a “baal shemuah” (“a master of the teachings he has received”), whereas a navon “adds to what the chacham knows, since he knows how to infer one thing from another, and to add upon the teachings he has received.” [4]
Presumably, the navon is able to independently derive new knowledge because he possesses a deeper level of understanding than the chacham. This allows us to take another simple step, namely, that binah is a higher level of knowledge than chochmah.
So far, we've only examined Rashi’s view of chochmah and binah – but what about daas? This brings us to cryptic statement in Avos: “If there is no binah, there is no daas; if there is no daas, there is no binah.” [5] Once again, Rashi uses a money changer as an analogy:
“daas” is greater than “binah,” for if someone is asked a question, and he can respond, “Yes” and show his reasoning. This is “daas.” This is analogous to a person who shows a coin to a money changer and asks, “Is this coin counterfeit or authentic?” whereupon the money changer takes out of his pocket an [authentic coin] of the same type [thereby demonstrating authenticity of the coin presented to him]. “binah” refers to someone who knows how to understand, but is unable to show his reasoning. [6]
Rashi’s comments here enable us to take another step. Daas refers to complete comprehension of a certain truth, to the point where you can explain the underlying concept and support your explanation. Binah, on the other hand, refers to a more intuitive grasp of a truth, without the ability to explain you got there or why you maintain that your conclusion is correct. This level of comprehension is, by nature, incomplete – but it is a level of comprehension, nonetheless.
Rashi only defines the terms in Avos, but he doesn't explain the actual statement in the mishnah. Presumably, “if there is no binah, there is no daas” means that daas is a further development of binah, as opposed to qualitatively different type of thinking. Consequently, it is only possible to reach daas in a given area of knowledge by first attaining a binah-level of understanding. I have no idea what “if there is no daas, there is no binah” means.
That’s my current level of understanding of these terms according to Rashi. I haven’t yet reached a level of daas on these matters, but I have increased my binah, thanks to the chochmah I've received from Rashi’s comments. If you have any insights on this topic, please feel free to share them with me!
[2] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 1:13
[3] Sefer Mishlei 1:5
[4] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Mishlei 1:5
[5] Maseches Avos 3:17
[6] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Avos 3:17. There are several different commentaries on Avos whose authorship is attributed to Rashi. It is not clear which of these commentaries were written by Rashi, which were written by his students, and which are forgeries or misattributions. In this case, I’m going to assume that Rashi is the author of these comments, since other Rishonim take this to be the case here. I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment