From the Chevrah Lomdei Mishnah, they lead off with the following warning:
Sometimes it happens that an individual attending a d’rashah (Torah lecture) may not be enthralled with the speech. Upon its conclusion, he takes the liberty to share his critiques of the speaker with his peers. The Chofetz Chaim decries this somewhat prevalent practice (Hilchos Lashon Hara, footnote to 2:12). Amongst the numerous reasons he supplies in condemning such slanderous behavior, the Chofetz Chaim makes a poignant observation: Simply put, people vary in their tastes. Some prefer to hear a novel interpretation of a verse; others are more eager for an intricate theoretical discourse; and still others favor a nice parable or an interesting story. The end result is that it is nearly impossible for any speaker to satisfy the particular interests of all listeners. That being the case, where is there room, really, for complaints about a given speech? Perhaps the very thing that this individual didn’t like was actually quite appealing to someone else; and had the speaker curtailed his remarks to appease the complainer, someone else would be equally disappointed! Against this backdrop, we have a clear illustration in this week’s parshah of the multifaceted nature of Torah exposition. When appearing in the Burning Bush, Hashem tells Moshe, וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-תִּקְרַב הֲלֹם; שַׁל-נְעָלֶיךָ, מֵעַל רַגְלֶיךָ--כִּי הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עוֹמֵד עָלָיו, אַדְמַת-קֹדֶשׁ הוּא. "Remove your shoes from your feet, for the place upon which you are standing is holy ground." (Shemos 3:5). In keeping with the theme of people’s varied interests, this passuk can be understood on a number of levels: practical, philosophical, halachic and inspirational. It is our hope that each individual will find an approach suited to his unique preference.My guess is that the reason for issuing this warning is the last explanation they offer, from Rav Kanievsky, and against the backdrop of the viral video "Yeshiva guy says over a vort". If you haven't seen this video before, here it is:
Krumbagel, the author of this video, explained his intentions in this Hirhurim post. As part of the post, he noted the following:
One final point about the d’var torah that the yeshiva student repeats in the video. It can be found on the internet and is cited in the name of R’ Chaim Kanievsky. So doesn’t that mean my video is poking fun at R’ Chaim? No. As I mention above, it is my firm belief that this vort belongs to a certain genre of d’var torah referred to as “shalosh seudos torah.” Their main goal is to be playful and clever rather than to explain p’shat in the pasuk. What makes me confident that this is the case? The vort makes no sense as p’shat even if one accepted the maximalist position. As the tan bear herself asked, if Yaakov knew the whole Torah, how can he be uncertain about the bracha on lentils? Also, the vort isn’t even about Yaakov’s mitzvah observance. It is about Esav’s. So the d’var torah goes beyond even the maximalist position. In fact, a sefer of R’ Chaim’s divrei torah on Chumash was recently (?) published. It is filled with short questions and answers somewhat similar to the yeshiva guy’s dvar torah. I recently perused it quickly and noticed that one of the questions asked about some inconsistency between a certain story in Bereishis with halakha (I don’t recall the details) and his answer was simply “we don’t learn halacha from the stories in Bereishis,”Given that the final explanation of the pasuk given in this parsha sheet is a vort from Rav Chaim Kanievsky, and indeed along the same lines as the vort by the Yeshiva Guy, it makes some sense that this was the prompting of their warning to the reader.
Their final explanation, from Rav Kanievsky, is as follows:
This is actually not so bad as assuming that Yaakov would keep to a machlokes in the gemara as to the beracha on lentils, but does seem to assume that Moshe would keep halacha. Of course, we can say like the Rashba (in his "maximalist" position) that halacha was laid out explicitly later, but reflects an underlying reality. So too here, washing hands after touching a shoe reflects a spiritual value, and the same would have held true in the time of Moshe. And so, Hashem might have insisted on this method.Based on its phraseology, R’ Chaim Kanievsky perceives additional halachic undertones to this directive. There is another term – bypassed by our passuk -- that is commonly used in the context of shoe removal: חַלִיצָה. This would have indicated a more hands-on approach, where the wearer removes his shoe manually. Instead, the word שַׁל was employed.here, implying a mere sliding off of the shoe without actually touching it. Hashem purposefully instructed Moshe in this manner, to facilitate the communication. Had Moshe actually touched his shoe, he would first have had to wash his hands before engaging in such sacred activity. (Derech Sichah, vol. II)
(One could argue, wondering whether shal means the same thing in sefer Rus, and what basis there is to assert that this is the precise meaning of shal as opposed to chalotz, as well as this general trend of the avos, etc., keeping the Torah. Also, this is a neo-midrash which Rabbi Kanievsky is creating here.)
Without mocking it, still, there is room to question such divrei Torah, and to wonder from what perspective Rav Kanievsky is approaching this. Is this shaleshudes Toirah, meant as an intellectual and enjoyable exercise within the framework of halachic assumptions? Is this an attempt at peshat? Does he believe that this is literally true. These are things to consider, surely. Are we operating in the same universe of possibilities and plausibilities that Rav Kanievsky (and indeed, the chareidi word in general) operates in? Is this a bar towards communication?