Shemos 4:11, Pikchus Means Different Things to Different People.

In a previous post I mentioned something I saw in the name of the Baal Shem Tov. I was thinking that if this were the only thing said over in his name, the Gaon would have adequate basis to declare war.  

Since then, two things happened. First, I realized that I should change my historical understanding of Chasidus, and second, I saw that someone else, someone very different, asks the same question, and there's no possibility that it was falsely attributed to him.  All of this reinforces the truth of the message of the Besht's vort - don't be such a wise guy.

Here is what was said in the name of the Besht.

A sheet called "א חסידישע גליון", a chasidish parsha sheet, is distributed in my shul. Someone said it was worth reading, so I took it home. The first thing I saw was attributed to the Baal Shem Tov, and I quote:
ד. יא.  אלם או חרש או פקח.  מדוע מונה הכתוב את הפיקח בין שאר בעלי המומים? אלא שמכאן ראיה שגם פיקח יותר מדי נחשב לבעל מום, וכפי שפירשו צדיקים על דברי רש״י בפר׳ קורח: קורח שפיקח היה מה ראה לשטות זו׳ דהיינו שאסור להיות פיקח יותר מדאי. I  think this is a classic example of drush that harkens back to the first days of Chasidus, the days when they wanted to let people know that ahavas Hashem or emuna peshuta is worth more than gadlus batorah. It has nothing at all to do with the pshat in the passuk. Obviously, pikei'ach in that passuk means having normal vision, as opposed to blindness (מי שם פה לאדם או מי ישום אלם או חרש או פקח או עור). Second, pikchus is not "IQ." PIkchus means seichel, recognizing what's going on and doing something about it. Third, Pikchus is not a handicap. It can be used badly, just like you can take a Faberge egg and throw it through a masterpiece stained glass window. But genius is not like missing a leg. The point that this vort is meant to convey is that if a person is too smart, if he jumps to conclusions, if he doesn't work or think carefully, if he is excessively proud of his gifts, this can be harmful to him and to others, but it's not a challenge like being deaf or mute. As I said, the message of the vort is that there are things that are more worthy than genius, whatever you want to put in - Simcha, or Emuna Pshuta, or Yiras Shamayim. 

But after some thought, I realized that it doesn't matter what Chasidus was in its first stage.  I believe that Chasidus quickly shed its more revolutionary hashkafos, because the tzadikim and gedolim of Klal Yisrael took what was good in Chasidus and incorporated it into normative Yiddishkeit.  Whether it was the Gaon's opposition, or the wisdom of Klal YIsrael, or Hashgacha Pratis, it is really not the same Chasidus. Judging Chasidus on strange things we find in the early years is dishonest and false.


And then I saw something unexpected. I saw that Rav Schwab in his Maayan Beis Hashoeiva on that passuk asks exactly what I saw in the name of the BShT:

וצריך ביואר, איך שייך לכלול "פיקח" בחשבון המומים. ואף שלפי פשוטו הפירוש הוא שנזכר כאן פקח מפני שהוא היפוכו של עור, אמנם אין זה נוח כל כך שהרי לא נזכרו כאן ההיפוכים לשאר המומים.

Rav Schwab answers that we find by Adam, before the sin, he saw, like Moshe Rabbeinu, באספקלריא המאירה, and after the sin he lost that profound supernatural vision and was left with mere ותפקחנה עיני שניהם.   Compared to Moshe's אספקלריא המאירה, mere physical vision - mere פקחות העיניים - is a severe handicap. It's a great vort - or I should say "insight." Mere physical vision is a handicap compared to deep and spiritual understanding. Reality is not synonymous with truth.

When I saw this from Rav Schwab, I thought to myself, boruch hashem he doesn't say like the other answer, because if he did, I would have to put my affairs in order. Additionally, I see that even a non-chasid can sometimes ask a kashe that absolutely fangt zach nit ohn because it leads to an excellent teretz.  It's kind of like an asmachta b'alma.  If you need a hook to hang a vort on, bent is fine.




NOTES AND COMMENTS

Avrohom Wagner
.......there is a more fundamental reason why the Besht's vort is not pshatoveh. You (and the Besht) are explaining פקח according to its vernacular meaning, ah kluger. The actual meaning of the word, however, is simply "open" as in ונפקחו עיניכם, לאסירים פקח קוח etc. As such it is a contrast to חרש אלם and עור, whose respective organs are "closed" whereas one not suffering those mumim is "open". (Even in Chazal's parlance pikeiach is the counterpart of cheresh, while shoteh contrasts with shofuy)

Eliezer Eisenberg
Come on, you found the one occurrence where it does not appear in contradistinction to blindness. More important is that in the passuk, peh is used as a contrast to ileim and cheireish (both of whom lack the utility of speech,) and pikei'ach as a contrast to iveir. So, yes, to put it mildly, it's "not pshatoveh." I would call it "a violence to pshat." I'm flummoxed the Rav Schwab says it.

Avrohom Wagner
Because of that occurrence, I think the seder of the possuk is beautiful - peh:ileim->cheresh:pikeiach:iver. A cheresh needs tikkun on two levels, a peh for his ilmus as well as a pikuach of his charshus.

Menachem Shafran
I think the Chizkuni there is learning exactly like Reb Avrohom is saying.

Eliezer Eisenberg
Yes! With Sefaria, it's so very easy to find all the mefarshim, but I missed the Chizkuni.
Here is the Chizkuni.

אלם כנגד מי שם פה. פקח הטילו הכתוב בין חרש לעור לפי שהוא נופל על שניהם כמד״‎א (ישעיה מב,כ) ״‎פקוח אזנים ולא ישמע״‎, (ישעיה מב,ז) ״‎לפקוח עינים עורות״‎.