כל דבר של כשרון אין ראוי לשאוף שיהיה אבוד מן העולם, כי אם להיפוך, ראוי להשתדל בהרחבתו ושכלולו, אפילו אם יהיה דבר קל וקטן, אל תהי מפליג לכל דבר שאין לך דבר שאין לו מקום. הקלקול מתהוה רק בחילוף הערכים ובהעלם עין ממקום השימוש הראוי. למשל, היו ימים שרבים מלומדי התלמוד בעלי הכשרון נטו לפלפולים מאד רחוקים, רחוקים הם מנקודת האמת מצד הדרישה המדעית של העיון ההלכותי, על כן צדקו אותם שהתנגדו על מהלך זה. אבל אימתי ההתנגדות צודקת? בזמן שיהיה השימוש של הפלפול הרחוק עומד במקום הדרישה והעיון, במקום הבירור והליבון. לא כן הוא כאשר ידע המשתמש בו יפה את ערכו, שאין בו ערך של חיקור דין, כי אם הוא חפץ לתן לו ערך אסתתי, זהו דבר התלוי בטעם. היופי הוא מעדן, ומרחיב את הלב. אמנם החומר של היופי תלוי לפי קרבתו של אדם להמושגים, עד שיש אדם שכל כך נפשו דבקה בעיון התורה ואהבתה, עד שגם צורת היופי שהחומר שלה הוא ערוך מסדרי ענינים של דברי תורה והלכות תלמודיות הוא מרגיש בזה יופי שלם וערב לנפש. אם כן, זאת הנטיה איננה כי אם הוראה נכבדה על דבקות הנפש באהבת התורה עד שהחוש האסתתי מבקש גם כן ממנה חומר. על כן, למטרה כזאת התירו חכמי הדורות להשתמש במהלך הפלפול הרחוק. וראוי באמת לתן לו מהלכים, במדה כזאת שלא יהיה עומד במקום ההעמקה המחקרית. ונמצא שמקבלים ממנו תועלת של שמחת הנפש למי שחושו הפנימי מתאים לזה, נוסף על חידוד התלמידים והרחבת כשרונם, כשנעשו הפלפולים באופן של כשרון. על כן, אין ראוי גם לישר שבבעלי הגיון להביט בשאט נפש גם על דרך הפלפול היותר רחוק, ובלבד שיהיה ערוך בכשרון הגון. ואם יש אדם שאיננו נהנה מאותם הציורים, הנה כל דבר התלוי ברגש וטעם לא ניתן לכל אדם בשוה, וראוי גם לאותו הרחוק מהתענג מציורים רחוקים כאלה שלא לבזות את העוסקים בהם במדה הראויה. ויכיר לטובה את השתדלותם בדבר שבכללו הוא מביא תועלת וענג רוחני כזה שכל שיתרבו הנהנים ממנו תתרבה גם כן אהבת התורה וכבודה. ומזה תוצאות טובות נכונות. וראוי לכנס גם כן דברים כאלה בערך המאמר המפורסם: קוב״ה חדי בפלפולא דאורייתא.
For any positively useful thing, it is not appropriate to desire that it be gone from the world. Precisely the opposite, it is appropriate to expand it and perfect it, even if the matter is seemingly a trifle. Do not dismiss anything that does not have its place. Corruption occurs only when values are misplaced, one ignores the appropriately useful setting for a matter. For example, there was a time when most of the talented Talmud scholars inclined toward far-fetched dialectics distant from the point of truth from the perspective of objective considerations of halachic analysis. Therefore, those who objected to it were correct, but when is that objection correct? At a time when the use made of these far-fetched dialectics stand in place of investigation, analysis, and clarification. This is not so when one who uses it knows well its value that it does not have the value for investigating legal rulings, but rather when he wants to give it an aesthetic content and this is a matter that is dependent upon taste. Beauty refines and expands the heart. The substance of beauty depends upon the closeness of a person to the Torah concepts such that there is one who is so attached to the love of Torah and its investigation such that also the form of the substance of beauty is comprised of rays of Torah teachings and Talmudic laws and he feels in this complete beauty sweet to the soul. If so, this inclination is nothing more than a substantial indication of a soul clinging with love to the Torah to the extent that the aesthetic sense also seeks its substance there. Therefore, for such a goal, the sages of the generations permitted using the path of far-fetched dialectics and it is appropriate in truth to give it its due to the degree such that it does not stand in place of profound halachic analysis and it will turn out that one whose inner sense is attuned to it will derive from it the benefit of great joy in his soul in addition to sharpening students and expanding limits when these dialectics are carried out in a skillful manner. Therefore, it is not appropriate to the most austere rationalist to look with disgust at even the most far-fetched dialectics as long as they are carried out with appropriate skill. If there is someone who does not enjoy those depictions, behold, anything which is connected to feeling and taste is not given equally to everyone, and it is fitting for one is who far removed from taking pleasure in such far-fetched depictions and not to disparage those who engage in it appropriately, and he should give them credit for their efforts in a matter that the end result is bringing benefit and spiritual delight such that the more there are who enjoy it, the more love and honor of Torah is increased. There are good and well-founded outcomes from this. It is appropriate also to bring such words under the famous rubric: The Holy One, Praised Be He, takes delight in the dialectics of Torah.
Summary:
The text emphasizes the importance of cultivating and utilizing all talents, regardless of their apparent insignificance, striving for their expansion and perfection. "Every talent should be developed and not wasted." The author cautions against misplacing value and losing sight of appropriate application, using the example of Talmudic scholars who engaged in excessively remote interpretations ("pilpul"). "The corruption arises only in the exchange of values and in the concealment of the eye from the place of proper use." While such "pilpul" was criticized for straying from the scientific pursuit of Halakhic truth, the author argues that its value lies in its aesthetic appeal and its ability to deepen one's connection to Torah. "The beauty is delicate, and expands the heart." For those deeply devoted to Torah study, even intricate analyses can evoke a sense of beauty and spiritual fulfillment. "There is a person whose soul is so attached to the study of the Torah and its love, that even the form of beauty whose material is arranged from the order of matters of Torah and Talmudic laws, he feels in it a complete beauty and pleasant to the soul." This inclination, the author suggests, reflects a profound devotion to Torah, where even the aesthetic sense seeks sustenance from it. "This inclination is but a noble instruction on the soul's devotion to the love of the Torah until the aesthetic sense also seeks material from it." Therefore, the author contends that such "pilpul" should be permitted, provided it doesn't impede rigorous inquiry, offering joy and intellectual stimulation to those attuned to it. "For such a purpose, the sages of the generations allowed the use of the course of distant pilpul." Even those who don't appreciate these intricate analyses should respect the efforts of those who do, recognizing their potential to foster a love of Torah and spiritual enrichment. "And if there is a person who does not enjoy this approach, behold, everything that depends on feeling and taste is not given to every person equally, and it is also appropriate for that person who is far from delighting in such distant pilpulim not to despise those who deal with them to the appropriate extent." The author concludes by suggesting that such endeavors contribute to the overall benefit and spiritual delight, increasing the love and honor of the Torah, ultimately leading to positive outcomes. Hashem takes pleasure in Pulpul!!
