Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) on Right-Wing, Left-Wing and Jewish Unity, Part I

I love coming across random responsa by accident. Yesterday I accidentally came across Meishiv Davar 1:44, and I was floored that I had never heard of this responsa. This is Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin’s response to an editorial that promoted separation of observant Jews from less observant Jews.

I expect to translate the responsum in the next several posts, as I make time. (It’s more than 4500 words in the Hebrew, so give me time…) Here’s Part I:

I saw an editorial called “Right and Left” in the journal Machzikei haDat [“Those who hold on to religion”], #3, in which they came to address a question requiring reply. Since we are obligated to participate in strengthening religion in Israel, I cannot flee from this. I will present before the nation of Gd, those who hold on to religion, may Gd bless them, that which is in my heart in this analysis, and if someone else can reply and clarify the issue in some other way then may his words come and illuminate the path of life. Even if we are far from each other in dwelling, we are close to each other in our desire and yearning to come to the right target, with the help of Gd who provides intellect.

They arranged the question as: (1) Could the Jewish religion divide into three streams? (2) Is there a right, left and center in the path of our faith? They added that in their view, the elements of right, left and center in religion existed in years past, and perhaps in Israel there were three such groups, meaning righteous people who distanced themselves from the world’s issues and did not benefit even a pinky’s worth from this world, and opposite them were wicked people who threw off the yoke of Torah and awe, whether out of ignorance or wanton ill-intent, and that the middle people were those who were simple in their ways, traveling in the way of the world and not rejecting the Torah.

I saw, with all due respect to the editor, that he did not conclude with that with which he began. He began to investigate whether there is right, left and middle in religion and in the path of our belief, and he concluded that the left is an abandonment of the yoke of Torah and awe of Gd – but this is not within religion, it is outside of the path of our faith! Also, the language of, “Are there three groups like this in Israel” is unclear – what is the question? Regarding three groups, perfectly righteous, perfectly wicked, and intermediates?

Rather, this would be the way to analyze: Are there among the guardians of faith and religion, who do not break the fences, right, left and center. This is the question which requires proper clarification.

In truth, there are three groups in Israel, and according to our explanation, with our humble abilities, those are the ones identified in Torah as “to the right” and “to the left”, as will be explained.

-
The Hebrew for this section:

ראיתי בעלה מחזיקי הדת גליון ג' מאמר נערך ממעריכי העלים, הנקרא המאמר בשם ימין ושמאל ובאו בזה לדרוש בתורת שאלה הנדרש לתשובה, ובאשר עלינו להשתתף בהחזקת הדת בישראל לא יכולתי מלט נפשי ולהציע לפני עדת ה' בעלי מחזיקי הדת יברכם ה' את אשר בלבי בחקירה זו, ומי שיש בידו להשיב ולברר הדברים באופן אחר יבאו דבריו ויאירו דרך חיים כי איך שהננו רחוקים זמ"ז במקום דירה הננו קרובים זה לזה ברצון וחשק לבא אל המטרה, בעזר הא-ל דעה מורה:

הן העריכו לשון החקירה, (א) היוכל דת ישראל להחלק לשלשה גזרים, (ב) הנמצא ימין ושמאל ואמצע במהלך אמונתנו, והוסיפו כי לדעתם ענין ימין ושמאל ואמצע בדת היו לפני שנות קדם, אולי נמצאו בישראל שלש כתות כאלה, היינו הצדיקים אשר התרחקו מכל הויות העולם על אשר לא יהנו מעולם הזה אפילו באצבע קטנה, ולעומתם נמצאו רשעים פורקי עול תורה ויראה אם מחסרון ידיעה אם בשאט נפש ובזדון, ואמצעים תמימים בדרכיהם הולכי בדרך העולם ולא בעטו בתורה:

והנני אומר במח"כ המעריך, לא במה שהחל לחקור סיים, הוא החל לחקור אם יש ימין ושמאל ואמצע בדת ובמהלך אמונתנו וסיים כי השמאל הוא פריקת עול תורה ויראת ה' והרי זה אינו בדת והוא חוץ ממהלך אמונתנו, וגם אינו מובן לשון אולי נמצאו בישראל שלש כתות כאלה מה זו שאלה, על שלש כתות, צדיקים גמורים, ורשעים גמורים ובינונים, אלא כך יש לחקור, אם נמצאו בשומרי אמונה ודת ואינם פורצי גדר ימין ושמאל ואמצע, זהו שאלה שנדרש לברר יפה:

אמנם גם בזה יש ויש שלש כתות בישראל, ולפי ביאורנו בעניות דעתנו המה הם מכונים במקרא בשם מיימינים ומשמאילים כאשר יבואר:

Daf: Nazir 2a-4b

Here we go with some comments on the beginning of Nazir. As always, these comments will be a lot more intelligible (if not intelligent) to someone with a Gemara open...

2a
As at the beginning of Nedarim, we note here that the commentary published on the inside margin is not from Rashi. Rav Soloveitchik would comment in his Tisha b’Av shiurim that the line in Kinos of מי יפליא נזירות ומי יערוך נדרים, "Who will clarify Nazirism and who will evaluate vows?" is a reference to the destruction of Rashi’s manuscripts on these volumes of Nedarim and Nazir. And see the Gilyon haShas here.

Of particular interest are Tosafot Ha’Omeir and Tosafot Hareini.

See also Tosafot “מאי טעמא תני נזיר” and compare with Tosafos at the start of Sotah, and the Rosh here.

2b
See Tosafot “Amar Shemuel”

Is the Nazir a sinner, or not? Depends on whom you ask. See Tosafos “v’Amai” here, and the Tosafos in Bava Kama and Taanit footnoted here as well. On a peshat level it seems clear to me that, as the gemara says with a Yoledet, the “chatat” is called a “chatat” because its rites match those of a chatat, and not that it is actually a sin-offering. Otherwise, one cannot escape the fact that the same Gd who permitted wine also licensed the Nazir to abstain from wine, including the Nazir in the Torah explicitly.

3a
It seems to me the gemara in Nedarim also had a debate about translating human speech to match Tanach-speech, but I don't recall precisely where.

3b
The right and left here are reminiscent of the line in the Yamim Noraim davening, עוז בידך וגבורה בימינך.

The next to last word, קדושתא, should probably be קידושא, I think. קידוש is masculine.

4a
The issue of whether Havdalah is biblical or not is a huge issue. See the Rosh here, and see the Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 296:1-5 and 296:18. The major ramification is whether women must/may recite Havdalah.

See Tosafot “kiShimshon”

On קווצותיו סדורות, see Gittin 58a on R’ Yehoshua ben Chananiah and R’ Yishmael ben Elisha – 'ordered hair' is a reference to Torah knowledge, not simply beauty?

בבואה here seems to be a reflection, but note that in Gittin 66a Rashi translates it as צל, shade.

Logically, “gemiri” here does not have its normal meaning of Halachah l’Moshe miSinai, in defining Nezir Shimshon? But see Tosafos ומביא before making up your mind.

4b
Tosafos here renders מלאך as prophecy, which is consistent with the view of midrashim that the “malach” who appeared to Hatzlelponit and Manoach was actually Pinchas, as a prophet. See Vayyikra Rabbah 1:1 and Midrash Tanchuma Shelach 1:1. See also the Rambam in Moreh haNevuchim 2:42.

See Tosafos and the Rosh on whether this was a real ‘goses’ or not, and why that matters.

On the details of the Nazir Olam’s license to shave, see Tosafot 4a נזיר עולם and pseudo-Rashi at the bottom of 4b.