Parashat Korach

A Guten Erev Shabbos!

This week’s question is as follows:
Is it permitted to say on a vort or a shtikel torah; “This is an amazing vort,” or “This is a beautiful shtikel Torah”? Seemingly, what could be the issue with saying so? On the contrary, it should maybe even be encouraged. Can saying so lead to a lack of kavod haTorah?
Rashi at the beginning of this week’s parsha, Parshas Korach (5786, according to the Torah reading in Eretz Yisrael), writes:
Rashi, Bamidbar, Parshas Korach 16:1

“Vayikach Korach” - This parsha is beautifully explained in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.

Now, we find in the Gemara in Eiruvin 64a 

that Rav Yehuda said two halachos in the name of Shmuel to Rav Nachman. Regarding one of them, Rav Nachman said:
“Kamah ma’alya ha shema’ata” - how great is this teaching.
But regarding the second halacha he said:
“Lo ma’alya ha shema’ata” - this teaching is not so great.
Rava asked him:
Why did you say such a thing, to say that one teaching is great and the other is not? Did Rabbi Acha bar Chanina not teach us from a passuk that anyone who says, “This teaching is beautiful” will end up losing the respect for Torah and will ultimately forget what he learned.
Rav Nachman answered:
“Hadri bi” - I retract what I said, and I will not say this again.

The Question
We see from the Gemara that one is not allowed to say about a certain Torah teaching, “This one is beautiful.”
If so, how could Rashi write about Midrash of Parshas Korach:
“This parsha is beautifully explained in the Midrash”?

We could say that this question would depend on the machlokes between the Rashash and the Maharsha in understanding the Gemara.
The Rashash explains that the prohibition is only when a person says both statements: “This teaching is beautiful and this teaching is not beautiful.”
The proof is that we find in many places throughout Shas that the Amoraim praised divrei Torah that they heard. Therefore, says the Rashash the issue is only when one compares one dvar Torah to with another by saying - this one is beautiful and the other one is not.
Therefore, according to the Rashash, we can explain that since Rashi only said that this parsha is beautifully explained... and did not compare it to something else, it was permitted.
However, the Maharsha argues and writes that the prohibition applies even when one only says “this teaching is beautiful,” because it sounds as if specifically, this teaching is beautiful, but other ones are not as nice.
Therefore, according to the Maharsha, the question still remains.
(Although from Rashi himself in Eiruvin it seems that he learns like the Rashash. When Rava asked:
“Why did you say this?”
Rashi explains:

“(By saying…) This one is beautiful and this one is not beautiful.”

This implies that Rava did not question Rav Nachman when he only said “Kamah ma’alya ha shema’ata.” The problem only was when he continued and said about the second halacha, “Lo ma’alya ha shema’ata.”
Therefore, it seems from Rashi, like the Rashash, that the prohibition is only with both statements. According to this, Rashi in our Parsha would be following his own opinion, that just stating how beautiful it is, is not an issue.)
However, Baruch Hashem I found that the Divrei Dovid (written by the holy Taz) asks this very same question on Rashi and explains as follows:
Rashi did not mean to say that this parsha is explained beautifully and another parsha is not, chas v’shalom.
Rather, Rashi’s intention was that the words “Vayikach Korach” cannot be understood according to the simple meaning alone, because the Torah does not tell us what Korach actually took.
Therefore, this parsha is explained beautifully through the Midrash, because through the Midrash we are able to understand the simple meaning of “Vayikach Korach.”
This is a quote of the Divrei Dovid:

Seemingly, there is a difficulty, since Chazal said that one may not say, ‘This halacha is beautiful and this halacha is not beautiful.’
One cannot say that the prohibition is only when saying both together, because saying ‘this halacha is not beautiful alone is certainly forbidden. (We see from the Divrey Dovid’s question that he learned like the Mahrsha)
Rather, the meaning must be that just as one may not say ‘this halacha is not beautiful,’ so too one may not say ‘this halacha is beautiful,’ because it implies that other halachos are not beautiful, chas v’shalom.
If so, why did Rashi say ‘this parsha is beautifully explained’?
The answer is that here too Rashi is coming to exclude something. In other places there are two ways to understand a pasuk: one according to the simple explanation, and one according to the Midrash.
But here there is only one way, because the Midrash itself is the simple explanation. There is no separate pshat, rather the Midrash is beautifully explained even according to the simple meaning, because there is no explanation according to pshat of the word ‘Vayikach’ - what did Korach take?

Halacha L’maaseh:
We asked our Morinu HaGaon HaRav Amrom Fried shlit”a what the practical halacha is would there any issue with saying about a vort or a dvar Torah, “This is an amazing vort,” or “This is a beautiful shtikel Torah”?
The answer of Morinu HaRav shlit”a:
L’halacha, the prohibition mentioned in Eruvin 64 is only to say, “This teaching is nice and this teaching is not nice.” However, to just say, “This teaching is nice,” is permitted, like the opinion of the Rashash in Eruvin there, and the Yachin U’Boaz in the introduction to Maseches Eduyos.
(See also: Brachos 14b, Shabbos 138b, Kesubos 21a and 85b, Shevuos 45b, and see further Bava Kamma 20a, Bava Basra 51a, Zevachim 2b, Shabbos 10b, and Bereishis Rabbah Parsha 91, section 12).

On Behalf of the entire Sheilot staff, we wish you a Shabbos Shulem Umevorach.

For the benefit of those learning the sugya, we have brought here the sources that HaGaon HaRav Amrom Fried shlit”a mentioned from different areas of Torah.

The Yachin U’Boaz in the Introduction to Maseches Eduyos
The Yachin U’Boaz writes that the name of the masechta is pronounced “Eduyos” with a chirik, from the word “idis”, meaning “the choicest and most superior,” since this masechta contains Mishnayos that were accepted as the halacha.
He then asks from the Gemara in Eruvin mentioned above: how can one call a certain piece of Torah “superior” if Chazal say that one may not say about Torah teachings, “this teaching is good”?
Tiferes Yisrael, Yachin, Introduction to Maseches Eduyos
My father, the Gaon zt”l, wrote that this masechta is called Eduyos with a chirik. The proof is from the fact that the Gemara says many times, “The halacha follows so-and-so, since it was taught in Bechirta (the chosen masechta).”
Regarding what it says in Eruvin (64a), that one who says, “This teaching is nice and this one is not nice,” is forbidden, this only applies when he concludes that the other teaching is not nice.
The first part of the statement is only said to teach a greater novelty: even if he first says “this one is nice,” implying only that the other is not as nice, nevertheless it is forbidden.
But this explanation is certainly true, since we find that Chazal themselves said: “How excellent is this teaching.”

Places Where Chazal Praised a Torah Teaching
1. Gemara Berachos 14b

Rav Yosef said:
“How excellent is this teaching! For when Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came, he said: They say in Eretz Yisrael that in the evening one concludes Shema with: ‘Speak to Bnei Yisrael and say to them, I am Hashem your G-d, it is true.’”

2. Gemara Shabbos 138b

Rami bar Yechezkel sent a message to Rav Huna:
“Tell us those excellent teachings that you told us in the name of Rav.”

3. Gemara Kesubos 21a

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:
“A witness and a judge can combine together.”
Rami bar Chama said:
“How excellent is this teaching!”

4. Gemara Kesubos 85b

Rava said to the son of Rav Chiya bar Avin:
“Come and I will tell you an excellent teaching that your father would say.”
The teaching was:
Shmuel said: If one sells a loan document to another person and later forgives the debt, it is forgiven, and even an heir can forgive it.
However, Shmuel agrees that if a woman brings a loan document into her marriage and later forgives it, it is not forgiven, because her husband’s rights are like her own.

5. Gemara Shevuos 45b

Rav Menashya bar Zevid said in the name of Rav:
This law was only said when he hired him with witnesses. However, if he hired him without witnesses, since he could have claimed, “I never hired you,” he is believed to say, “I hired you and already paid your wages.”
Rami bar Chama said:
“How excellent is this teaching!”

6. Gemara Bava Kama 20a

Rav Chisda said to Rami bar Chama:
“You were not with us last night in the study hall, when we discussed excellent matters.”
He asked:
“What excellent matters?”
He answered:
“The case of one who lives in another person’s courtyard without his knowledge…”

7. Gemara Bava Basra 51a

Rav Nachman said to Rav Huna:
“You were not with us last night in the study hall, when we discussed excellent matters.”
He asked:
“What excellent matters did you say?”
They answered:
“If one sells a field to his wife, she acquires it, and we do not say that his intention was merely to discover where she was hiding her money.”

8. Gemara Zevachim 2b

Ravina said to Rav Pappa:
“You were not with us last night in the study hall of Bei Charmach, where Rava compared excellent teachings to one another and resolved them.”
He asked:
“What excellent teachings?”
They answered:
“We learned: All korbanos that were slaughtered without the proper intention…”

9. Gemara Shabbos 10b

Rav Chisda was holding two portions of ox meat and said:
“Whoever comes and tells me a new teaching in the name of Rav, I will give these to him.”
Rava bar Mechasya told him:
“This is what Rav said: One who gives a gift to his friend must inform him, as it says, ‘To know that I am Hashem Who sanctifies you.’”
Rav Chisda gave him the meat.
Rava bar Mechasya asked:
“Are the teachings of Rav so beloved to you?”
He answered:
“Yes.”
He then told him another teaching:
“This is what Rav said: A garment is precious to the one who wears it.”
Rav Chisda replied:
“Did Rav really say this? The second teaching is better to me than the first! If I had another portion of meat, I would give it to you.”

The Question we Asked to HaGaon HaRav Amrom Fried shlit”a
We asked the Rav shlit”a:
Seemingly from here there is a proof to the opposite, since Rav Chisda said, “The second teaching is better to me than the first.” According to the Rashash, should this not be forbidden?
The Rav’s Answer:
This can be answered based on the Maharsha there. Since he was Rav’s primary student and was accustomed to his teachings, there is no prohibition, as explained by the Chasam Sofer (Rosh Hashanah 15b)
Chasam Sofer on Rosh Hashanah 15b.
However, there is a difficulty with this from what we say in the fifth chapter of Eruvin (daf 64) … Since he was his primary rebbi (rebbe muvhak) and was accustomed to his teachings, they were especially beloved to him, and therefore this is not included in the prohibition of one who says, “This teaching is pleasant…” etc. Therefore he said to him: This is what Rav said, “A matter is precious to those who are accustomed to it.”
Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggados, Shabbos 10b
“The second teaching is better to me than the first.”
Even though the first teaching was based on a pasuk and the second was only based on a common saying, the meaning is that the second teaching was personally more precious to him, since it related to himself and to his love for the teachings of Rav.
The first teaching, however, was a general idea relevant to everyone.

10. Bereishis Rabbah, Mikeitz 91:12

Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Marinus both said in the name of Abba Nehorai:
Whenever a person would say a correct statement before Rabbi Tarfon, he would say:
“Kaftor VaFerach!”
(Meaning: “Beautiful and correct!”)
But when someone would say something incorrect, he would quote a possuk:
“My son shall not go down with you on the journey that you are going.”
In this case it was permitted to say that something was incorrect, because the purpose was to correct the person from his mistake.