Even If We Are All Wise, Understanding, Elders, Those Who Know Torah

The content on this podcast has been sponsored by my Patrons on Patreon. The total cost of maintaining my five podcasts in 2021 amounted to over $2000 - all of which would have come out of my own pocket were it not for your generosity. Thank you for helping me make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone!

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version. Note that there are hyperlinks to PDFs of the two essays referenced in the article.

Cairo Geniza manuscript, date unknown

Even if We Are All Wise, Understanding, Elders, Those Who Know Torah

In the Avadim Hayinu section of the Haggadah we say: “Even if we are all chachamim (wise), all nevonim (understanding), all zekeinim (elders), all yod’im es ha’Torah (knowers of the Torah), we are commanded to recount Yetzias Mitzrayim (the Exodus from Egypt).” What do each of these terms mean? Moreover, what is the hava amina? In other words, what might we have otherwise assumed if the Haggadah did not include this statement? The Rashbatz (R’ Shlomo ben Tzemach Duran, 1361-1444) answers both questions:

Lest you [erroneously] say that this mitzvah is only for the tinokos (kids), to teach them what they don’t know, but this telling is unnecessary for one who knows this – therefore we say: “even if we are all chachamim,” who have heard this from our fathers; “even if we are all nevonim,” who can understand (i.e. derive or infer) one principle from another; “even if we are all zekeinim,” who have known this for many years; “even if we are all yod’im es ha’Torah,” who think deeply into Torah every day, and from our reading of the Torah, we recount Yetzias Mitzrayim – even with all this, we are obligated in this telling on this night.

According to the Rashbatz, people can be classified into five levels based on their knowledge of Yetzias Mitzrayim:

1) tinok: one who is utterly ignorant of and unacquainted with the basic facts of Yetzias Mitzrayim

2) chacham: one who has been taught ideas about Yetzias Mitzrayim; this person is a dependent learner

3) navon: one who is capable of going beyond the level of chochmah (i.e. received knowledge) by deriving chidushim (novel insights) on their own; this person is an independent learner, or a creative thinker

4) zakein: one who has engaged in these ideas on the level of chochmah and tevunah for many years; this person has internalized these ideas, and made them real by “living” them

5) yode’a es ha’Torah: one whose knowledge of these ideas is so thorough and so deep that even their daily Torah study connects back to the principles of Yetzias Mitzrayim

Of these five, the last is the hardest to grasp. What does this type of Torah study look like? Thankfully, I have learned Torah from two individuals who exemplify this level, and they’re both named Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.

The first Rabbi Sacks (a.k.a. Rabbi Yoni Sacks) was my Chumash rebbi in yeshiva. His approach to Torah is like nothing I’ve ever seen. He approaches Torah as a unified system, with the Rambam’s Thirteen Ikkarim as the foundation and the Mishneh Torah as an organized Torah regimen. His “Level 5 Torah” can best be seen in his essay, Torah’s Place in Redemption and the Quest for Malchus Shamayim. There he explains how Chazal’s injunction “in each and every generation a person is obligated to see himself as though he left Egypt” applies not only on the night of the seder, but to the way we conceive of ourselves year-round. Rabbi Sacks endeavors to show how the entire Torah system, in all its manifold detail, connects back to the first principles embedded in the Yetzias Mitzrayim narrative, as part of the ongoing mission to redeem ourselves from Egypt in every generation.

The second Rabbi Sacks (a.k.a. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks zt”l) served as the Chief Rabbi of the UK from 1993 to 2013. He has published dozens of books, written hundreds of articles, and given countless shiurim. His unique approach to Torah, which he refers to as Torah v’Chochmah, seeks to harmonize the teachings of the God-given Torah with human wisdom – “the universals of man’s intellectual quest” – using our God-given intellect. His “Level 5 Torah” is best exemplified in The Jonathan Sacks Haggada: Collected Essays on Pesaḥ. In each of these essays, Rabbi Sacks explains how the principles of Yetzias Mitzrayim shaped the Western World throughout history, and how its ideas continue to be relevant today. My favorite of these essays is Building a Society of Freedom.

These are but two examples of what it means to be yode’a es ha’Torah. The challenge posed by this line in Avadim Hayinu is to develop our own way of seeing the ideas of Yetzias Mitzrayim in our daily Torah study.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

Parashas Devarim: Chochmah, Binah, and Daas

Originally posted in July 2013.

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!

[1] Sefer Devarim 1:13
[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.