Halakhified Parsha

By: Jonathan Seidel

Minchat Asher: sugya in the Torah

Rav Asher Weiss’ commentary on the Torah is very unique. Instead of focusing on textuality or conceptualism, he brings a sugya. A way of bringing briskerism straight to shas. 

He brings a verse and then turns to rabbinic literature whether it is a Gemara or a Rashi to begin his analysis. Dividing the analysis into various sections intended on deducing the halakha. Divulging a sugya from the biblical text. Further his breath of poskim and other commentators is truly magnificent. The ability to apply the law in all its various angles. A depth analysis of the law. This is truly revolutionary in the commentarial chain. Like a professional posek, he catalogues the halakha from the biblical text through rabbinic history. R Weiss has written derashot but it is impeccable that he wrote his commentary on sugyot. He appealed to a modern lens that cared more for talmudic exegesis than textual or conceptual philosophy. 

Looking at his piece on Mitzvah bo u'shulcho and Hidur Mitzvah from Parshat Vayichi. He brings the verse that surrounds the law. The Gemara in Sukkah mentions the profundity of Joseph’s part since had Joseph not accompanied, his brothers’ wouldn’t. He then brings Shulchan Aruch about a proficient mohel father passing up the honour. Tevuot Shor permits but R Weiss questions this as the brothers’ were obligated to engage in their father’s burial yet Joseph did it himself like a king not a layman. With this R Weiss links to doing a mitzvah himself more than a messenger. He brings Chayei Adam and Pro Migadim on the parameters of a messenger. Returning to Gemaras, Midrashim and other rabbinic sources. He even quotes his analysis in different parshiyot. The first section is presenting the issue to then engage it on different fronts as he continues to deduce. 

The fascinating part is the analogical reasoning. His deductive reasoning to pull from various sources is the mode of an expert at work. The logic begins with Joseph burying his father to a mohel father aligning the messenger law to distinguishing burying the dead. Using the messenger model to analyse through every model. This is only in the first section. Countless commentators and poskim to draw more insight. R Weiss inserts his own analysis as a posek disagreeing and providing his own nuance to the complexity of the subject. By the end of the first section he quoted five different Gemaras and also added his own personal notes from elsewhere to bolster his position. He focuses on the Tevuot Shor, a book I have never heard off. Written by R Alexander Shor. The book consistently referred to was a book on slaughter not Gemara. Yet this is the brilliance of R Weiss to use a work popularised in slaughter laws to the case of messengers.

In the second section, he returns to the Chayei Adam who mentioned briefly to fully analyse his point. As Chayei Adam remarked about beautifying in relation to a messenger. Providing his own insight to then analogise with other Gemaras to back up his thinking. While in the third section he focuses on the mohel father. In this section, he includes far less sources. Using his own reasoning to buttress his point. Based on the Tevuot Shor how do we move forward. He is modest when providing his own opinion but is brazen in his analysis. As further into the sugya he adds more of his own identity into it. He has brought the resources. He has classified and catalogued. He has backed up information and defined his terms. Now he must further the point through his own logic. The first half of the third section is poskim but in the final two paragraphs he returns to the Gemara and his interpretation against his predecessors. Bold and calculated. 

Finally, the last section comes full circle. Using all the data attained to read into the narrative. What is the biblical narrative teaching by the halakha? Interestingly, he adds a nice machshava piece to only add to his profound analysis. Yet examining the forefathers and their personalities gives a clearer picture of this law. Context is important especially for the legal ramifications. Simply what was the context surrounding Joseph and his fathers as well as Joseph and his brothers? Reading this back with the law (a little aggadic novelty) elevates the legal persuasion. Yet the last section has little to do with the law. The third section finalised the halakha. The last section was the aggada. The narrational prose that inspires. The machshava that teaches. The Torah provides the halakha based on the narrative. The textual basis is a realistic paradigm that is then imitated by their successors. R Weiss seeks to use the halakha to empower the story of Joseph burying his father. 

The big question is after finishing the lecture, does the halakha matter? Does the halakha play a prominent in role in the story or is a nice referral? R Weiss begins with the biblical text and then derives through Gemaras and poskim the law of messenger and beautification. At the end of the third section it is finalised. When returning to the biblical story, he flips the script. The word “messenger” nor “beautification” are mentioned in the last section. Nice halakhic shuir and here is a nice point to leave on. To some extent it seems it leaves much to be desired. Many may be happy combining the halakhic shiur with an empowering point at the end. Yet there is a disconnect between the two. Having a halakhic shuir lead to a nice point without any further relation seems odd. He may have derived the messenger law from the biblical text but upon returning full circle he didn’t bring the messenger idea with him. He crossed the finish line without the baton. 

R Weiss could have called his book sugyot in Chumash but he called it al ha Torah. He could’ve left on the third section naming the halakha and called it a day but he continued back. Some may see this as just trying to fit in a little machshava but instead he is tying it back in just without the key terms. The machshava is a continuation and presumably the entire point of the law. R Weiss’ inquiry is Chazal’s motive in deducing from this narrative. What is Chazal’s goal. He went through the halakha to realise its purpose. The supercharged machshava is a summation of the sugya. It is not only about the law but its meaning and message. The law of not using a messenger is embedded in Joseph’s mentality of recognising the agony caused to his father and troubles with his brothers. Joseph coined it God’s will to accept fate and dismiss hostility and bury his father himself with honour.

The ability to shtim halakhic analysis and machshava is no easy feat. The Rav is the only true heir to the phenomenon. Yet even his style was more philosophical. His lectures in his father’s memory trend more in this way but his philosophy was embedded. Here, R Weiss spends the majority giving a shuir until he returns back to the text for a good message to take in. It is an art and genuine look at a professional posek bringing sources and analysing it subjectively with his intellect for the reader to see. It is peculiar and unique but fascinating and enjoyable to read.