Beautiful exposition prohibition[1]
ויקח קרח בן-יצהר בן-קהת בן-לוי וגו’
Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehas, the son of Levi, took something[2]
This week’s parsha describes the rebellion of Korach. It starts off by recounting that Korach took, but it doesn’t specify what he took. To this, Rashi comments that: “This parsha is expounded beautifully in Midrash Tanchuma.” While this statement sounds innocuous[3], it bothers many commentators[4]. Why? We are taught by our Sages[5] that it is forbidden to say, “this teaching is good, this teaching is no good”. If so, how could Rashi say that this parsha is expounded beautifully by our Sages? Shouldn’t this be a forbidden thing to record?
One could perhaps suggest that only saying both expressions, saying that teaching A is good and teaching B is no good, is forbidden. However, only praising a teaching without comparing it would be permissible, and this is what Rashi is doing. Rav Dovid HaLevi, known as the Taz, rejects this approach[6]. He says that since it’s obviously forbidden to simply say “this teaching is no good”, then the other statement of “this teaching is good” should similarly be forbidden. The reason is simple, since saying “this teaching is good”, implies that other teachings are not good.
Another suggestion for Rashi’s intent is also the implication, albeit a different one than we thought. Usually when we analyze verses, we have two ways to look at them: What’s known as peshat, the simple understanding of the verse, and derash, the homiletic meaning[7]. Rashi is teaching us that this verse[8] is expounded very well in the Midrash, as a way of conveying that that’s the only way to understand the verse. The simple reading of the verse, the peshat, is only the derash, the homiletic meaning. There’s no way to understand the verse simply, since the verse doesn’t specify what Korach took. As a result, we are told that the verse is expounded very well in the Midrash[9].
The problem is, if we look at Rashi’s explanation of the words of our Sages[10], that it’s forbidden to say, “this teaching is good, this teaching is bad”, the question doesn’t get started. Rashi there says explicitly that the prohibition is only if both are said together, comparing teaching A, which is good, to teaching B, which is bad. Saying a teaching is good on its own is totally fine[11]. Therefore, Rashi is justified in saying that this parsha is expounded well in Midrash Tanchuma[12].
Good Shabbos
[1] Based on Pardes Yosef HaChadash to Numbers 16:1 § 3
[2] Numbers loc. cit.
[3] Rav Dovid Avraham Mandelbaum, who put together the Pardes Yosef on Bamidbar and Devarim, quotes his friend Rav Yechiel Baum, who notes that the gematria of יפה, beautiful, is 95, the same as the number of verses in this parsha
[4] Divrei Dovid ad. loc. See the sources below. See also Pardes Yosef to Exodus 21:6 § 20, citing Sifsei Tzedek parshas Mishpatim § 10
[5] Eruvin 64a. Rav Mandelbaum notes that the Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch didn’t bring down this prohibition, although the Rif and Rosh ad. loc. did
[6] Divrei Dovid loc. cit. The Maharsha and Ben Yehoyada ad. loc. understood the the gemarra same. See Rashash ad. loc. who asks on the Maharsha from Berachos 14b and Kesubos 21a where we see the Sages praising teachings that they heard
[7] I’m not sure why the Taz ignores the other two ways of analyzing verses: remez and sod, which are part of the acronym Pardes (apparently the first usage of this acronym was used by Rav Moshe di Leon, the publisher of the Zohar. His usage appears in Shaylos UTeshuvos L’Rav Moshe Di Leon BeInyanei Kabbalah, published by Professor Yeshaya Tishbi in Chikrei Kabbalah U’Shluchoseha I p. 64 and Kovetz Al Yad XV p. 31). Perhaps he means that Rashi only comes to explain the peshat of the Torah, and will use derash when necessary, but not sod and remez
[8] I’ll note that Rashi says parsha, yet the Taz understands Rashi meant verse
[9] See Yeriyos Shlomo with Mizrachi ad. loc., who seems to understand Rashi like the Taz (the Yeriyos Shlomo was written by the Maharshal, who actually preceded the Taz)
[10] Rashi to Eruvin loc. cit.
[11] See Einei Kol Chai Kesubos 85b by Rav Chaim Palagi, who discusses if saying “this teaching is good” alone is forbidden or not. He doesn’t note the above dispute in how to understand the gemarra
[12] See Yabia Omer Yoreh Deah 2:16 who notes this as well and goes through the whole sugya in depth with all the relevant sources, some of which were brought above. He also brings a different answer to the Taz’s question, and comes out with a clear ruling in the end