Uncovering Chazal’s Picture of the World
חז“ל had a profound understanding of the world and the way human beings fit into it. This understanding may have been a composite from many sources - a מסורה from משה רבינו, from hands-on knowledge, or from having learned already the entire תורה. We, who lack much of this, will (usually) have different initial הנחות from חז“ל’s.
They viewed each part of תורה, each מצוה and each מקצוע, in terms of this understanding. They formed a picture of the nature of the מקצוע, its purposes and characteristics. This picture, agreed upon by all of them, precedes any דרשות and is independent of them, remaining true throughout the גמרא’s discussion.
For instance: The basic nature of all marriage, its operation, formation, and dissolution, were clear to חז“ל, even though many details, large and small, were subject to discussion. Thus, when they dealt with כי יקח איש אשה or וכתב לה ספר כריתות ונתן בידה, knowing that these deal with marriage and divorce served to locate them within חז“ל’s framework of understanding and determined the picture חז“ל had of them.
לשונות of חז“ל will make use of their picture, and fit it perfectly.
Every ה“א and מסקנה, whether from פסוקים or in משניות, represents a reasonable חילוק within this picture. That is, the picture itself suggests which חילוקים make sense, whether or not we would have said them without פסוקים. Even laws termed גזירת הכתוב must be reasonable חילוקים, just that חז“ל are saying that they would certainly not have said them themselves מסברא without a פסוק. This is a relative term - any דרשא would also not have been said without a פסוק.
Cases where the חילוקים do not seem reasonable to us are merely warning signals that the picture that we are using is not the same one as חז“ל’s. That same is true for לשונות that do not seem to fit well.
Since the entire discussion in a גמרא should fit into חז“ל’s picture, חקירות by the אחרונים should not be translated into חקירות in the גמרא. Chazal knew exactly how an issue operated, even if we don’t, and are discussing fine points within that understanding. Thus, חקירות can generally be decided by finding even one place in a discussion which clearly requires a certain צד in the חקירה.
Almost all דרשות חז“ל must use their picture in order to operate, as it is a rare דרשא where the פסוקים tell us explicitly what to be מרבה or ממעט or to learn out. Usually, דרשות are (more or less) ”אם אינו ענין“, where the דרשא demands a shift, and חז“ל choose the smallest reasonable shift. And what is reasonable could have been known to חז“ל only from the picture they were using. This is true even for the system of the Malbim, detailed though it is. How much more so for the methods of Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch.
Thus, no גמרא can be fully understood without knowing חז“ל’s picture. Conversely, the גמרא is the best tool available to us in figuring out what that picture is.
Even were we to have one of חז“ל’s pictures correct, we still would not usually be able to decide which possibility is the סברא פשוטה or to determine the next best alternative choice to make because of a given דרשא. That choice procedure is a difficult task, and not really our task today. It was the task of חז“ל (or the Malbim).
Whenever we discuss פסק הלכה, we also must use the picture חז“ל used, in order to be able to correctly מדמה מלתא למלתא. (See מהרש“א on מבלי עולם).
Our picture of reality is vastly different from חז“ל’s, as evinced by the fact that the דרשות, ה“א’s, and לשונות are often so mystifying to us. Thus, one of our main tasks in learning תורה and in applying it to our lives is to find out the picture חז“ל had of each part of the תורה, and change our own viewpoints to match.
This is how I understand the term used by the Sefer haChinuch, שרשי המצוה. He is not trying to explain why the Torah says what it says. Hashem could have commanded more, or less, could have chosen any of the חילוקים that חז“ל considered reasonable. Rather, he is describing the understanding of the world, the roots of the situation on which the Torah is giving guidelines, so that we can understand how the laws of the Torah properly fit into that picture.
Words in Lashon haKodesh
The world was created with Lashon haKodesh, and the meaning of a word in Lashon haKodesh reflects the true reality of the thing described. This is the same as חז“ל’s understanding of that thing.
Each word in Lashon haKodesh has not a single meaning, but a whole range of possible meanings. Some are more general. Some are more specific. Thus several different words can be synonyms in the right context, and very different in meaning in others. For example, if synonyms are used together (חוקים ומשפטים ותורות), they will reflect more specific meanings to distinguish each of them from the others.
The range can also have different dimensions, depending on the issues associated with that word in חז“ל’s understanding. In a given dimension, some meanings will be closer to one end of the range, and some to the other.
The word may be different in Torah, in Nach, in Mishnayos (loshon chachamim).
Still, all its meanings have a commonality, a single basic overriding meaning that works in all contexts that it appears.
Depending on the context, a word will have a particular default meaning.
Every drasha of Chazal redefines the use of the word involved in that context, so all droshos, even rejected ones, must fit into the basic meaning of the word.
The role of droshos is to shift the meaning of the word along the range of possible choices, a little or a lot, so that finally the posuk can be read correctly with the words it has. That is what the words mean.
Our job: To use the examples from Tanach and Chazal
1) To determine the basic overall meaning of a word.
2) To mark out the full range of possibilities for that word.
3) To understand what its default meaning will be, depending on the context.
4) To understand exactly how the default meaning is changed by droshos.
A very large task! I’m not aware of even one example of a word completely worked out in this way. It could be that the last two tasks should be left to חז“ל.