Pirkei Avos 1: Torah b’Ksav & B’al Peh

In the opening phase in Pirkei Avos, Moshe kibel Torah mi'Sinai. Then he on the comments, ben Torah she-bikhtav, ben Torah she-ba'al peh. The Rambam in the Hakdama to Mishneh Torah begins as follows: כל המצות שניתנו לו למשה בסיני בפירושן ניתנו. Shene'emar, V'etna l'cha - right before that in the pasuk it says alei eilay ha-har - and then the pasuk continues ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה. The last three words the Rambam doesn't quote: asher kasavti l'horosam. So Torah the Rambam says zo Torah she-b'chsav, u'Mitzvah zeh peirushan.

וצונו לעשות התורה על פי המצוה ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה.

Just in the pshuto shel mikra, the challenge to understand is what does Mitzvah mean as distinct from Torah? Torah consists of Mitzvos, Mitzvos comprise the Torah. So what does Mitzvah mean as distinct from Torah? So the Rambam says Torah is Torah she-bikhtav and Mitzvah zeh peirushan, ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה. Here in the Hakdama to the Yad, the Rambam doesn't give an illustration but in the Hakdama to Perush ha-Mishnayos he does. And the illustration he gives is as follows: He says when Hakadosh Baruch Hu, when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu dictated to him the pasuk of בסכות תשבו שבעת ימים. And then Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him what the basics of what materials are needed for the schach of a sukkah, what does - that it has to be gidulo min ha-aretz, etc., ayno m'kabel tumah, what's the minimum height of a sukkah? Rambam mentions the area of a sukkah also, which is interesting. What does yeshiva b'sukkah entail? To whom is the mitzvah of בסכות תשבו שבעת ימים addressed? So that's the peirushan - the basic understanding and elements and principles and details of the mitzvah. Not all of them, not all of them. For instance, in Hilchos Sukkah, the Rambam doesn't mention the din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. He doesn't mention that as Hakadosh Baruch Hu telling that to Moshe Rabbeinu, but the basic elements, principles, details of the mitzvah. כל התורה כולה כתב משה רבינו, continuing here in the Hakdama to Mishneh Torah for a moment,

כל התורה כולה כתב משה רבינו. קודם שימות בכתב ידו ונתן ספר לכל שבט ושבט וספר אחד נתנו בארון לעד שנאמר לקוח את ספר התורה הזה

sorry hazos

שנאמר לקוח את ספר התורה הזאת ושמתם אותו מצד ארון ברית השם אלוקיכם והיה שם בך לעד. והמיצוה שהיא פירוש התורה לא כתבה אלא ציווה בה לזקנים וליהושע ולשאר כל ישראל שנאמר את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אותו תשמרו לעשות לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה.

See, there's something very interesting in the Rambam at first glance it's very very jarring but as one would expect from given that the Rambam is explaining to us it's upon second upon reflection it's very compelling. There's when the Rambam refers to Torah she-bi-khtav he says תורה זו תורה שבכתב when he refers to Torah she-be-al peh he says מצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה. So Torah she-bi-khtav it is Torah she-bi-khtav. Torah she-be-al peh is called Torah she-be-al peh. He doesn't say Torah she-bi-khtav is called Torah she-bi-khtav. It is Torah she-bi-khtav. Torah she-be-al peh he doesn't say it's Torah she-be-al peh he says it's called Torah she-be-al peh. Again,

ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה תורה זו תורה שבכתב מצוה זו פירושה וציוונו לעשות התורה על פי המצוה ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה

and then later the Rambam explains why it's Nikret ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה. So it's Nikret Torah she-be-al peh. So what's the what's the pshat? So lichora again we're used to sort of thinking of those two phrases as parallel phrases but according to the Rambam it's clearly telling us that that's not a correct understanding. What's the pshat? Pshat lichora is as follows. Let's say you have someone who hadn't had the benefit of a chinuch and so for the first time in his life he's picking up a Chumash with Rashi. And he doesn't know what he's looking at. So you have the Chumash on the top and you have Rashi on the bottom. And you're going to explain to him what's what. So you're going to explain to him: here's the Chumash, that's the text, that's the text Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave us and here on the bottom is the commentary. Here's the commentary. Now, commentary could be written on the bottom, I don't know, maybe it's on a recording and it's be-al peh, right? But whether or not Rashi wrote his peirush whether Rashi would have, maybe Rashi could have hosted a podcast on Parashat HaShavua and each week he would have had a podcast on that week's parashah, it would be the same, right? Rashi would still be the same. Rashi if you were introducing what Rashi is, so Rashi is neither ksav nor be-al peh in terms of what the cheftza is. The cheftza is a cheftza of commentary, it's a cheftza of peirush. That's what the Rambam says: Torah she-be-al peh, the cheftza is a cheftza of peirush. What Torah she-be-al peh is, the cheftza of that is a cheftza of peirush. Now, it just so happens—don't take those words too literally—it just so happens that Hakadosh Baruch Hu said not to write the peirush down ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה. Right, that's clearly what the loshon of the Rambam is pointing to. So Torah she-bi-khtav again so the mitzhad the cheftza is Torah she-bi-khtav. Mitzhad the cheftza it is Torah she-bi-khtav. Torah she-be-al peh mitzhad the cheftza is peirush, is commentary. Hakadosh Baruch Hu said not to write it down and ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה. That's clearly what the Rambam is telling us. Now this notwithstanding a delicate balance here, there's no contradiction but it needs to be understood. This notwithstanding the fact that Torah she-bi-khtav is a cheftza of Torah she-bi-khtav and Torah she-be-al peh. Again, albeit a heftza shel peirush, but was lo nikhtevah, neither be-Sinai nor when Moshe Rabbeinu transmitted to Yehoshua and to and to Klal Yisrael has has repercussions. What does that mean? As follows. If you think of it in the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah, Perek Aleph, Halachos Yud Aleph and Yud Beis, the Rambam's quoting a Gemara in Kiddushin, Daf Lamed around, that the Gemara says אל תקרי ושיננתם אלא ושילשתם that a person should be meshallesh shenosav, shlish be-Mikra, shlish be-Mishnah, shlish be-Talmud. Shlish be-Mikra, shlish be-Mishnah, shlish be-Talmud. So the Rambam's quoting that Gemara. So in Chayav Perek Aleph Halacha Yud Aleph,

וחייב לשלש את זמן למידתו שליש בתורה שבכתב שליש בתורה שבעל פה ושליש יבין וישכיל אחרית דבר מראשיתו ויוציא דבר מדבר וידמה דבר לדבר וידון במידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן עד שידע היאך עיקר המידות והיאך יוציא האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן מדברים שלמד מפי השמועה ועניין זה הוא נקרא תלמוד.

We at some point hopefully will come back to that definition of Talmud. Halacha Yud Beis:

כיצד היה בעל אומנות והיה עוסק במלאכה שלוש שעות ביום ובתורה תשע.

So then he divides those nine hours, shlish be-Mikra, shlish be-Mishnah, shlish be-Talmud. Now, bameh devarim amurim, says the Rambam, halfway or so through Halacha Yud Beis, bameh devarim amurim

בתחילת תלמודו של אדם. אבל כשיגדיל בחכמה ולא יהיה צריך ללמוד תורה שבכתב ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה יקרא בעיתים מזומנים

Torah she-bi-khtav d'vrei ha-shmuah כדי שלא ישכח דבר, different nuschaos here, כדי שלא ישכח דבר midivrei dinei Torah ויפנה כל ימיו le-Talmud bilvad לפי רוחב ליבו ויישוב דעתו. Okay, fine. It doesn't say this in the Gemara, but it's clear the Ba'alei Ha-Tosafos, Rabbeinu Tam already asks, and it's clear that Talmud requires more time than Mikra and Mishnah, so how can it be that a person's entire life it's supposed to be shlish be-Mikra, shlish be-Mishnah, shlish be-Talmud? So Rabbeinu Tam answers the question by saying that shlish doesn't mean equal thirds. If you cut up the time into three parts, it doesn't mean that they're necessarily equal parts; they could be unequal parts. So shlish be-Mikra, shlish be-Mishnah, shlish be-Talmud means that that every day in a person's Talmud Torah, so Mikra, Mishnah, and Talmud have to be represented. But ein hachi nami, over the course of a lifetime, obviously a person's going to spend more time on Talmud than on Mikra and Mishnah because it's a bigger a bigger miktzoa. The way the Rambam solves the same problem is by saying no, there's a difference between what stage of of learning a person is at, bi-tchilas talmudo. So then it's takeh three equal parts and that's what the Gemara's talking about, and then keshe-yagdil be-chochmah, so then the Rambam says, well, so a person has his chazarah system that periodically he he chozer and he reinforces that he shouldn't forget anything in Mikra and Mishnah, and the the bulk of his time is is spent on Talmud. Okay, that's the context as what we want to try to understand is the lashon Ha-Rambam is again, bameh devarim amurim here the second half of Halacha Yud Beis, בתחילת תלמודו של אדם ve-che-she-yagdil be-chochmah so then he no longer needs that original schedule. So what was that original schedule?

ולא יהיה צריך ללמוד תורה שבכתב ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה.

So why those different leshonos? Initially, בתחילת תלמודו של אדם so a person is spending three hours in Mikra, three hours in Mishnah. And yet when the Rambam talks about when a person outgrows that, he says he no longer needs

ולא יהיה צריך ללמוד תורה שבכתב ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה.

So why is the his'askus in תורה שבעל פה described as something temidi, whereas the limud of Torah she-bi-khtav is not described as something temidi? They're both three hours. So the three-hour seder in Tanakh, שליש בתורה שבכתב, and the three-hour... the Seder in Mishnayos and Halacha, so that’s described as לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה. It’s the same same three hours. You hear the question of the Tosafot. Right? אבל שיגדיל בחכמה again, so now he’s outgrown that that initial שליש במקרא ושליש במשנה ושליש בתלמוד. So therefore he doesn't need the shalish be’mikra, לא יהא צריך ללמוד תורה שבכתב. He doesn’t need the shalish be’mishna, ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה. So the pshat is as follows. The Gemara at the end of the fifth perek in Bava Kamma says as follows:

שאל רבי חנינא בן עגל את רבי חייא בר אבא מפני מה בדברות הראשונות לא נאמר בהם טוב ובדברות האחרונות נאמר בהם טוב וכי נאמר בהם טוב גבי כיבוד אב ואם דכתיב בהם למען ייטב לך.

So how do you understand that that right there are a few differences in how the Torah presents Aseret Hadibrot in Yitro versus Va’etchanan. So he asked him: מפני מה בדברות הראשונות לא נאמר בהם טוב? Why why there the Torah doesn't frame מצוות כיבוד אב ואם as l’ma’an yitav lach but in Va’etchanan it does. So רבי חייא בר אבא answers him:

עד שאתה שואלני למה נאמר בהם טוב שאלני אם נאמר בהם טוב אם לאו שאיני יודע נאמר בהם טוב אם לאו. כלך אצל רבי תנחום בן חנילאי.

Says before you ask me to tell you pshat, ask me if I know what it says in the pasuk. So some of the acharonim don’t take this Gemara at face value, says no it means something different than it seems to be. Rabi Akiva Eiger is metzayein here a Tosafot in Bava Batra Yesh Nochalim and and the the point of of that tziyun from Rabi Akiva Eiger is that Tosafot takes this Gemara at face value, that רבי חייא בר אבא didn't know offhand that in Yitro it didn't say l'ma'an yitav lach and that in Va'etchanan it does say l'ma'an yitav lach. He didn't know that offhand. Bishlama he knew offhand in one yes one no, but whatever there was something about the pesukim that he didn't have at his fingertips. That's Rabi Akiva Eiger is metzayein the Tosafot in Bava Batra. Tosafot takes the Gemara at face value. How can you possibly take the Gemara at face value? The Gemara in Kiddushin says: Tanu Rabanan, Veshinantam levanecha,

שיהיו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיך שאם ישאלך אדם דבר אל תגמגם ותאמר לו אלא אמור לו מיד.

So divrei torah is supposed to be the mastery of divrei torah that we're supposed to aspire to that we're supposed to work towards is that emor lo miyad. So how can it be that he's saying I don't know the pasuk? How can Tosafot take this Gemara at face value? So lekhora the teretz is that there's a difference between Torah shebichtav and Torah she'baal peh. That the Gemara in Kiddushin is talking about Torah she'baal peh. That is in accordance with the fact that it's ba'al peh it's supposed to be mehudad beficha. Mah she'ein ken Torah shebichtav is not what it means Torah to know Torah shebichtav me'ikar hadin. No one is saying that it's bal tosif if you know offhand that it says l'ma'an yitav lach in Va'etchanan and it doesn't say l'ma'an yitav lach in Yitro. It's not a sha'al of bal tosif, it's okay. But in terms of me'ikar hadin, in terms of yedias hatorah, there's a different standard for what it means to know Torah shebichtav than to know Torah she'baal peh. And it reflects the fact that the Torah shebichtav anyway without an eis la'asos, without something else, so Torah shebichtav if you're going to learn that pasuk you're supposed to open a Sefer Torah and learn the pasuk mitoch haksav. Torah she'baal peh again without let's say without an Double check that that we're remembering or something. No, Torah Sheba'al Peh is supposed to be mechudad bepicha. So hagam, again, what the Rambam says in... so come back here to the shinuy leshonos in alef yud beis in Talmud Torah. So we asked, why is the Tanach seder described as lilmod Torah and the Torah Sheba'al Peh, the Mishnayos, the Halacha seder described as לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה? Because the answer is that the way one's learning during those three hours is different. In Torah Shebiktav, one isn't demanding of oneself to memorize the psukim. So in that sense, you're not describing it as tamid. You're not standing over the posuk of Bereishis bara Elokim until you have it memorized. Mah she'ein kein in the three hours of Torah Sheba'al Peh, so you're always with that Mishna in the sense that the person is looking to master it to the point, not just where a person knows where to open the Chumash for Parshas Challah and he knows what the key phrases are, but by Torah Sheba'al Peh, it's tamid in the sense that he's going over it again and again to reach that standard of mechudam bepicha. Hagam, hagam that it's נקרא תורה שבעל פה, right? Hagam that it's נקרא תורה שבעל פה, but אף על פי כן, that is reflected in Mitzvas Talmud Torah. The difference between Torah Shebiktav and Torah Sheba'al Peh is reflected in Mitzvas Talmud Torah. Why does the Rambam change the verb also when it comes to Torah Sheba'al Peh and Torah Shebiktav? Why by one he says lilmod and one he says la'asok? The question is whether that is a second diyuk or does la'asok go more naturally with tamid than lilmod? I'm not sure it's a second diyuk. La'asok means that there's a hissaskus that... When he learns the first mishna in Brachos, Me'aimasai, as it were, he's ossek with it, he can't get that line off his out of his mouth. He's replaying it again and again. So I'm not sure it's a second de'ah. Maybe, maybe. The Gemara in Brachos quotes this same pasuk with which the Rambam begins his Hakdama.

ואמר רבי לוי בר חמא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש מאי דכתיב ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם.

Luchos, Elu Aseres Hadibros, which were inscribed on the luchos.

תורה זו מקרא והמצוה זו משנה אשר כתבתי אלו נביאים וכתובים להורותם זה תלמוד מלמד שכולם ניתנו למשה מסיני.

So Chazal add, initially basically Torah and Mitzvah, the drashos Chazal is the same as the Rambam. But Chazal add that Asher Kasavti and Lehorosam, hamaramez respectively to Nevi'im u'Kesuvim and Talmud and Gemara. The sequence according to Chazal is unusual though, right? We would have expected the remez to be first Chamisha Chumshei Torah, then Tanakh, then Mishna, then Gemara. But the way Chazal show us the remazim in the pasuk, it's Mikra, Mishna, then back to Torah she'bichtav, Nevi'im u'Kesuvim, then back to Torah she'ba'al peh, Gemara. And I think we would have expected, no, the remez should be Chumash, then Tanakh, then Mishna, then Gemara. So I thought what it means is as follows. The Gemara says in Taanis on

דף ט עמוד א. אשכחיה רבי יוחנן לינוקא דריש לקיש דיתיב ואמר אולת אדם תסלף דרכו ועל ה' יזעף לבו.

So the child was learning Mishlei and he was learning this pasuk. That a person sins and it distorts his way and because of that he gets yissurim and then he gets angry at Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He blames Hakadosh Baruch Hu for what's his own fault, for what's really self-imposed.

יתיב רבי יוחנן וקמתמה אטו מי איכא מידי דכתיב. יתיב רב יוחנן וקא משתומם אטו מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא?

Everything, again, the lashon ha-gemara is kesuvei, Rashi explains it means nevi'im u-kesuvim. Everything in nevi'im u-kesuvim is hinted at in chumash. There's nothing in nach which isn't already encapsulated, which isn't already encoded in chumash. So that's what he's asking. So where's where's this? Where do you have this in chumash? אמר ליה אטו הא מי לא רמיזא? What's the kashya? This is also remize.

והא כתיב ויצא לבם ויחרדו איש אל אחיו לאמר מה זאת עשה אלהים לנו?

Right, the shvatim turned to each other and they say what did Hakadosh Baruch Hu do to us? What did Hakadosh Baruch Hu do to us? What did we do to ourselves? No, אולת אדם תסלף דרכו ועל ה' יזעף לבו. So the gemara here tells us that everything in nach is already encapsulated, is already inherent in chumash. It's already inherent in chumash. So the pshat is like this. Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, Hakadosh Baruch Hu gives them Torah u-mitzvah. Hakadosh Baruch Hu gives them Torah she-bichsav, Torah she-ba'al peh. Within the Torah she-bichsav of the chamisha chumshei Torah that Hakadosh Baruch Hu dictated to Moshe Rabbeinu is encapsulated the nevi'im u-kesuvim. What's all of gemara? All of gemara is focuses on mishna. All of gemara is focuses to understand the mishna, to apply the mishna, to understand the mekoros of the mishna. All of gemara is in here, is present in mishna. So that's what Chazal understand the posuk and that accounts for the sequence. Therefore the sequence is ואתנה לך את לוחות התורה והמצווה. Ha-Torah ve-ha-mitzvah, but you should know that inherent in the Torah, chamisha chumshei Torah is אשר כתבתי אלו נביאים וכתובים, and you should know that inherent in the mishna is le-horosam is Talmud. In terms of both again it's the Rambam's understanding is fundamentally the same as the gemara in Berachos here, that mitzvah refers to perush, refers to Torah she-ba'al peh. Question is is there something in the semantics of the word mitzvah that indicates Torah she-ba'al peh or just sort of by process of elimination? Like Torah, so what is it that comes with the Torah? What comes with the Torah is the perush ha-Torah, is the Torah she-ba'al peh and it's just sort of contextually clear and indicated that's what it means or there's also something in the there's a mashma'os in the word somehow that mitzvah has a sense of perush? I don't know, it could be that this next point is al derech aggadah, not al derech peshat. There is a teitch, I think it's found in Sifrei Chassidus, but the emes is you have it in Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah in Berachos. Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah, Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah, first perek of Berachos say that just as in Aramaic, what we find often that the meaning of a word in Aramaic is megaleh what the word means in Lashon Hakodesh, and it's a kind of cognate in Aramaic, so you're reconstructing what the word means in Lashon Hakodesh. So betzavsa in Aramaic means together. It means something which is attached, the tzavsa, that's what the word means in Aramaic. Rabbeinu Yonah takeh has it in Berachos, lu on the pasuk of לו הקשבת אל מצוותי, he quotes that it's lashon tzavsa. Rabbeinu Yonah says it there. So the question is that maybe in the lashon mitzvah, Chazal see not only mitzvah, lashon tzivuy, lashon commandment, but that which is together with the Torah, that which accompanies the Torah, that's which Torah she-bi-ksav, that which is betzavsa with the Torah she-bi-ksav. What is that? What comes with the Torah? What comes with the Torah? What comes betzavsa with the Torah is its peirush, that וכל המצווה שניתנה למשה מסיני בפירושה ניתנה. What comes with the Torah? What comes betzavsa with the Torah is the peirush. Okay, we'll stop there.