I once heard a lecture from Rav Moshe Wolfson shlita, where he said in the name of the Chasam Sofer that the Megillah has more kedushah (holiness) than Toras Moshe. Does anyone know the source for this?

Also I found this trying to look it up quoting the same in his name, but still without source.


| improve this question | | | | |
  • 2
    Welcome to MiYodeya E and thanks for this first question. Can I recommend you take the tour to get a sense of how the site works? Great to have you learn with us! – mbloch Feb 12 '19 at 17:35

The statement you are looking for is in his Derashos I p. 164 column 2 s.v. אמר חז׳ל פ׳ק

כיון דקבלת תורה בימי מרע׳ה היה באונס והדר קבלוהו בימי אחשורש, על כן אור קדוש הכלול במגילה הוא ממש יותר גדול נכבד מתורתינו הקדושה בעצמה.‏

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • 1
    This quote from the Chatam Sofer is not saying the holiness of Megillat Esther is greater than Torat Moshe. On the contrary, he argues the opposite. He does say that the acceptance of the Torah as revealed in the Megillah was more beautiful & in a complete way than the acceptance by the Jewish people at Sinai. And for this reason Megillat Esther will not be nullified in the time to come like the other books of Nach. – Yaacov Deane Feb 14 '19 at 1:55
  • 2
    The quote says (my translation) "Since the acceptance of the Torah in the days of our teacher Moses, God's servant, was forced, and then later they accepted it [voluntarily] in the days of Ahasuerus, therefore the Holy Light that is included in the Megillah is really more big and honored from our holy Torah itself." Seems like a slam dunk, @YaacovDeane. It says the Megillah has more inherent Holy Light than the Torah. If that's not "greater holiness" then I don't know what is. – Double AA Feb 14 '19 at 2:19
  • @DoubleAA "is really more big" how about greater? – wfb Feb 14 '19 at 2:27
  • @wfb I appreciate his choice of words. Considering the obstinate disbelief of his intended audience, anything less than a direct literal translation, however rough a read, is necessary. – user6591 Feb 14 '19 at 2:32
  • 2
    Slow down @YaacovDeane. Chazal develop the notion “הדר קיימו וקבלו”. CS has a take on it and so does the Lubavitcher Rebbe have a take on it; numerous others (rabbis or not) do it. No one take is beholden to another. This isn’t a legal issue or something Judaism depends on. – Oliver Feb 14 '19 at 2:43

I can't speak for what Rav Wolfson said, but it would seem to be based upon a statement from the Sfat Emet who in one of his drushim for Purim in 5646 explained in the name of his Grandfather, the first Rebbe of Gur, Rabbi Yitzchok Meir Alter (1799-1866), a contemporary of the Chatam Sofer (1762–1839), that the Megillat Esther, because it is referred to as both a letter and a sefer, is in the status of an intermediary between the written Torah and the oral Torah.

שמעתי מפי מו"ז ז"ל על הגמרא רבי נטע נטיעה בפורים ומסקינן נטיעה של שמחה נטע. שרמזו בזה כי בפורים יכולין ליטע נטיעת שמחה בלב האדם לשמוח בעבודת הבורא ית' כו'. דהנה כתיב ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה כו'. וחז"ל דרשו על התורה ויו"ט ומילה ותפילין כו'. והענין הוא כי כל המצות הם הדרכות לאדם למצוא הארות המיוחדים לכל מצוה ומצוה. ובאמת העיקר כשהאדם עצמו מוצא אלה ההארות בלבו. והוא בחי' תורה שבע"פ. דחיי עולם נטע בתוכינו היא בחי' תורה שבע"פ. וכמו שמצד תורה שבכתב יש זמנים שנותנים שמחה כמו ושמחת בחגך. וכמו כן ע"י רשימת מילה ותפילין מתגלה הארת הקדושה בנפש האדם. כמו כן נמצא בנפש האדם עצמו לעורר אלה הדברים. וז"ש ליהודים היתה אורה כו'. בעצם נפשותם. כענין שאמרו בשבת אין צריך תפילין שהם עצמם אות ובחרנו במ"א באורך. ומגילה זאת נקראת אגרת ונקראת ספר כדאיתא בגמרא והיינו שהוא ענין ממוצע וחיבור מתורה שבכתב לתורה שבע"פ שהרי אז התחיל שורש תורה שבע"פ אנשי כנה"ג ובית שני:

To clarify what the Sfat Emet is emphasizing, as is discussed in many places within Chassidut, a connecting intermediary (a Memutzah HaMechaber), because it is between two opposite, extreme categories and connects them, actually contains both extreme aspects and is greater than either one.

This same principle is used in regard to Moshe Rabbeinu, himself, who is called Ish-Elokim, literally Man/G-d. He is comprised of both things. This is also the idea that Moshe stood between G-d and the Jewish people at Har Sinai and served as the Connecting Intermediary.

In this context, what Rav Wolfson said would make sense.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • 4
    -1: I find it very unlikely that the Chasam Sofer was basing himself off of the S'fas Emes. – msh210 Feb 12 '19 at 18:43
  • 3
    This doesn't answer the question at all! The OP asked for a source in Chasam Sofer. You found one in a completely different place, not to mention that it can't have even been a source for the Chasam Sofer. – רבות מחשבות Feb 14 '19 at 0:09
  • FTR, the Sfat Emet says “ממוצע וחיבור”; without the descriptive ה [you (accidentally?) inserted]. (I don’t think SE intended to coin a pseudo-semantic phrase.) – Oliver Feb 14 '19 at 3:01
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; conversations about timelines and whether the S'fat Emet used the descriptive ה have been moved to chat. Please continue those conversations there. – Monica Cellio Feb 14 '19 at 17:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .