07 Jun WHICH PARASHAH IS YOUR FAVORITE?

I. Singling Out a
Teaching
When you say
something, sometimes
the loudest part is what
you leave unsaid. The
Gemara (Bava Basra
164b) warns against praising someone
because that can lead to criticizing
him. While this needs to be limited, as
commentators explain, the basic idea
retains power. Even positive speech can
have negative implications.
The Gemara (Eruvin 64a) quotes Shmuel
as saying that if a rabbi drinks a revi’is
of wine, he is not allowed to rule on
halakhic matters. Rav Nachman says that
this teaching is not good at all because
he personally only thinks clearly after
drinking a revi’is of wine. Rava objects
to Rav Nachman. How can he say that
the teaching is not good? Rav Acha Bar
Chanina teaches, “Anyone who says,
‘This teaching is pleasant’ or ‘this is not
pleasant,’ loses the fortune of Torah.” In
response, Rav Nachman withdraws his
statement.
In context, the specific objection is to
Rav Nachman’s disapproving statement

about an earlier teaching. However, Rav
Acha Bar Chanina’s teaching has broader
significance. He objects even to praise of
a teaching: “This teaching is pleasant.” It
would seem that we are not even allowed
to pick a favorite teaching – a verse, a
Mishnah or a rabbinic saying. Is that
really what this passage implies?
Rashi (ad loc., s.v. mai ta’ama) says that
the problem is contrasting teachings,
saying “this is pleasant and that is
unpleasant.” If so, just praising a teaching
would be allowed. According to Rashi,
you can have a favorite teaching as long
as you don’t also list teachings that you
dislike.
II. Improper Praise
However, Rav Shmuel Eidels (Maharsha,
17th cen., Ukraine; Commentary, ad loc.)
points out that the biblical prooftext for
this teaching (Prov. 29:3) seems to refer
only to praise. Therefore, he concludes
that it is forbidden to choose a favorite
teaching. According to this understanding,
choosing a teaching as a favorite implies
lesser appreciation for other teachings.
Even if you don’t say that other teachings
are unpleasant, you imply at least that they
are less pleasant. That, in itself, insults the

Torah teachings.
Rav Yosef Chaim of Baghdad (20th cen.;
Ben Yehoyada, ad loc.) adds that if you say
about some teachings, “this is pleasant,”
then your silence is meaningful. If you
are someone who often praises teachings,
then when you fail to say “this is pleasant,”
you implicitly say that the teaching is
not pleasant. The silence of someone
who regularly praises speaks loudly.
Therefore, you should not praise Torah
teachings to avoid implicitly denigrating
other teachings with your silence.
At the beginning of Parashas Korach,
Rashi (Num. 16:1) says: “This section
is beautifully expounded in the Rabbi

Tanchuma’s midrash.” Rav David Ha-
Levi Segal (Taz, 17th cen., Poland; Divrei

David, ad loc.) asks how Rashi could
violate the Talmudic teaching against
saying that a teaching is pleasant. He
disagrees with the suggestion that you are
only forbidden to say that this is pleasant
while that is unpleasant. This can’t be, he
argues, because certainly it is forbidden
to say that a teaching is unpleasant. That
seems evident from the criticism of Rav
Nachman above. If you can’t say that a
teaching is unpleasant, then the Gemara
must be teaching that each saying on
its own — “this is pleasant” and “this is
unpleasant” — is improper. Rather, he
finds a different explanation of Rashi’s
words to avoid the problem of saying
that a teaching is pleasant.
Rav Ovadiah Yosef (21st cen., Israel;
Ma’or Yisrael, Eruvin, ad loc.) quotes the
(questionable) 17th century work Kitzur
Shelah as warning that when people sell
aliyos in a synagogue, they should be
careful not to say that the Torah reading
containing the Ten Commandments
is pleasant and good. Doing so would
contradict the Gemara that disallows
choosing a favorite teaching.
III. How to Praise a Teaching
However, as already mentioned, Rashi
on Eruvin seems to forbid only saying
“this teaching is pleasant and that
teaching is unpleasant.” Similarly, Rav
Yisrael Lipschitz (19th cen., Germany;
Tiferes Yisrael, introduction to Eduyos)
points out that the tractate of Eduyos is
called Bechirta, the chosen or preferred
one. His father explained that when it
comes to monetary laws (Bava Kamm
6b-9b), there are three types of land —
idyis (high quality), beinonis (average)
and ziboris (low quality). Rav Lipschitz’s
father suggests that the name of the
tractate Eduyos is related to the term
for high quality land. Just like that kind

of land is preferred, the teachings in this
tractate are favorites. Rav Lipschitz adds
that this does not contradict the saying in
Eruvin (64a) because that only forbids
praising a teaching while denigrating
another. Here, we are only praising the
teachings in the tractate. Effectively, Rav
Lipschitz agrees with Rashi and disagrees
with Maharsha and the others.
Rav Shmuel Strashun (19th cen.,
Lithuania; Glosses, Eruvin 64a) points out
how the language across the Talmud seems
to contradict this teaching. We often see
scholars praising a teaching (e.g. Shevu’os
45b – “Rami Bar Chama said, ‘how
excellent is this teaching’”). Similarly, we
often find scholars denigrating a teaching
(e.g. Ta’anis 4b – “Ulla said, ‘that which
Rav Chisda taught is difficult like vinegar
to the teeth and smoke to the eyes.’”).
Rather, he suggests that praise is only
improper if it includes denigration as well,
like the view of Rashi and Rav Lipschitz.
Additionally, denigration of a teaching is
only improper if you are not involved in
the back-and-forth argumentation. If you
are disagreeing with a teaching, then the
rules of beis midrash battle allow for harsh
evaluations. However, if you are merely
a passive observer, then unfavorable
judgment is disrespectful.
Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv,
19th cen., Russia; Meromei Sadeh, ad loc.)
takes a completely different approach.
He distinguishes between human benefit
and objective truth. If you say that a
teaching is pleasant or unpleasant, you
are commenting on whether or not it is
beneficial to people. You are assessing its
utility to human joy. That is a confusion
of categories and a denigration of Torah
in general. However, you can say whether
you think a teaching is correct or incorrect,
is brilliant or not. A teaching is either true
or not, and you are allowed to say that.
It is not useful or physically beneficial,
and it is wrong, to say that a teaching is
pleasant or unpleasant.