Talmud Torah

It's been a couple of weeks since we've had a chabura so I thought I'd go back a little bit and to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Gemara at the end of the first perek to discuss a little bit in inyanei Talmud Torah. The Gemara talking about the kavod that עשו לו במותו לחזקיה so what exactly was the unique tribute which was paid to Chizkiyah? So the Gemara has the different leshonos as you saw. Then the Gemara says that hadar amlan that Rabbi Yochanan told us that afillu kiyem amrinan למד לימד לא אמרינן that we can still pay to others, we can pay a tribute of קיים זה מה שכתוב בזה. We can say that someone was מקיים כל התורה כולה. However what they said about Chizkiyah which can't be said, that we can't say about others, is limmed lo amrinan. Says the Gemara והאמר מר גדול לימוד תורה שהלימוד מביא לידי מעשה. Answers the Gemara לא קשיא הא למיגמר הא לאגמורי. So what exactly is the shakla v'tarya here? So Rashi says mavi lidei maaseh alma maaseh adif meaning that according to Rashi the Gemara goes as follows: that you can pay a tribute to someone that kiyem but you can't say a higher praise, you can't upgrade the shvach and say that not only kiyem but even lamad limmed. We're not distinguishing at this stage in the Gemara between the two. So the impression you have is that it's a lesser compliment to say kiyem and that it's a higher compliment to say lamad. And so the Gemara says but that's not true because גדול תלמוד המביא לידי מעשה. If the way you accentuate the importance of Talmud Torah is because it's mavi lidei maaseh so it's implicit that maaseh is gadol from Talmud. Maaseh is gadol from Talmud. So the Gemara answers לא קשיא הא למיגמר הא לאגמורי that ein hachi nami and the hierarchy, the way Rashi learns pshat in the Gemara, is lamad, kiyem, and limmed. And therefore kiyem amrinan limmed lo amrinan. Lamad amrinan kiyem amrinan but limmed lo amrinan. And the hierarchy is there's lamad, there's kiyem, and there's limmed. And the highest is limmed, but ein hachi nami in the hierarchy kiyem is above is above lamad. That's the pshat that emerges according to Rashi. So the pashtus the pashtus we're not really going to come back to this to see whether or not this is really true at the end of the day but according to Rashi so the pashtus is that the Gemara here seems to be at odds with the other ma'amarei Chazal the famous Yerushalmi in Peah that the Gra and others quote of

אפילו כל מצותיה של תורה אינם שוים לדבר אחד מן התורה.

So the pashtus seems to be according to Rashi that this Gemara is at odds with it. Yesh l'ayen but anyway we'll leave it at that for the moment in terms of Rashi. Tosafos quotes from Rabbeinu Tam a different pshat in the Gemara. Tosafos says v'amar Rabbeinu Tam. Tosafos says the context of the Gemara in Kiddushin seems to be that the statement of גדול תלמוד שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה is highlighting, is spotlighting the fact that talmud ikkar because the debate was what's gadol, talmud is gadol or maaseh is gadol, so then nanu kullam v'amru that talmud is gadol. So the context of the Gemara in Kiddushin Tosafos ta'anos doesn't allow for Rashi's pshat. גדול תלמוד מביא לידי מעשה doesn't indicate that maaseh is gadol it indicates that talmud is gadol. So what's the pshat in the shakla v'tarya in the Gemara? So Tosafos says the pshat in the shakla v'tarya in the Gemara is this: heyos that talmud is mavi lidei maaseh once you say about a person that he was מקיים כל התורה כולה so it must mean that he's a baki in kol haTorah kulla. If he was mekayem all the mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz it means he knows Seder Zeraim backwards and forwards. And if he was shomer Shabbos k'hilchaso so then he's mamash a big baki in Hilchos Shabbos. So just just practically to say about someone kiyem so you're already assuming you're already... implying that it must be that lamad. So how can you say that kiyem amina but lamad lo amina, that you're withholding that shvach? Isn't it implicit because it's a necessary without it, it would be impossible to be לקיים כל התורה כולה if one hadn't learned hatorah kulah? So the Gemara answers, ein hach nami to be לקיים כל התורה כולה, a person has to be lomed everything halacha lema'aseh. But kiyem amina, limed lo amina. But the difference in terms of havana, in terms of hierarchy, is that for Rabbeinu Tam, this Gemara doesn't say that ma'aseh is gadol from talmud, right? The Gemara's kasha was not that the Gemara indicates that ma'aseh is gadol from talmud, but what it indicates is that talmud is a prerequisite for ma'aseh. So mimmeila if you said kiyem, how can you say that you can't say a lamad? You're implying lamad anyway. That's how Rabbeinu Tam learns pshat in the Gemara. Okay. The emes is even according to this pshat, and it's not so much Rabbeinu Tam, it's the etzem haGemara itself. So does even this pshat really reconcile this Gemara with the again, the understanding that we have of תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם or וכל חפציך לא ישוו בה, that אפילו כל מצוותיה של תורה? Even here, if the only way if Talmud Torah is just intrinsically greater, so why did the Gemara in Kiddushin have to say that נענו כולם ואמרו שהתלמוד גדול שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה? That's the question. So if you take a look in the just to read the few lines from the Gemara:

וכבר היה רבי טרפון וזקנים מסובים בעליית בית נתזה בלוד. נשאלה שאלה זו בפניהם תלמוד גדול או מעשה גדול? נענו רבי טרפון ואמרו מעשה גדול נענו רבי עקיבא ואמר תלמוד גדול נענו כולם ואמרו תלמוד גדול שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה.

That's the Gemara. So what was this question which was posed to the Chachamim? Was it a philosophical question? Stam, hashkafa? What's תלמוד גדול או מעשה גדול? The Gemara doesn't really give us a context. The Gemara tells us a story, right? That נשאלה שאלה זו בפניהם, so תלמוד גדול או מעשה גדול? It was again, it was just a machshava. It was a Thursday night, obviously it was a Thursday night. The Gemara forgot to fill in that detail, but obviously it was Thursday night after Maariv. So that was the deal. In case it wasn't Thursday night, so then what's pshat in the question? So then it must have been something more practical. So when Rambam quotes the Gemara, he has as follows: Perek Gimmel, Halacha Gimmel, then Halacha Dalet.

אין לך מצווה בכל המצוות כולן שהיא שקולה כנגד תלמוד תורה אלא תלמוד תורה כנגד כל המצוות כולן שהתלמוד מביא לידי מעשה. לפיכך התלמוד קודם למעשה בכל מקום. היה לפניו עשיית מצווה ותלמוד תורה אם אפשר למצווה להיעשות על ידי אחרים לא יפסיק מתלמודו ואם לאו יעשה המצווה ויחזור לתלמודו.

So the flow in the Rambam, it's quite clear that this wasn't a theoretical discussion which the Chazal were having, but it was a practical question was asked. Halacha lema'aseh, practical question was asked. What's the din of עוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה legabei Talmud Torah? תלמוד גדול או מעשה גדול, the Gemara wasn't clarifying here what's intrinsically more important, because the emes is despite the fact... Again, despite the fact that וכל חפציך לא ישוו בה, it's a halacha pesuka, the Gemara says in Mo'ed Katan daf tes. In Mo'ed Katan daf... well, let's begin first with the Yerushalmi. The Rambam is about to quote the Gemara. Yerushalmi says that even רבי שמעון בר יוחאי וחבריו, the famous Yerushalmi, even רבי שמעון בר יוחאי וחבריו she'torasan umnasan, are mechuyav to be mafsik to go into the sukkah, they're mechuyav to be mafsik to take a lulav. Aye, but aren't they osek b'mitzvah? So the Yerushalmi says no, it has to be that way, it has to be that way, because otherwise it would be שלא על מנת לעשות. Otherwise that talmud torah would be שלא על מנת לעשות. Okay. So now the question is exactly how far does this go? So despite the fact that talmud torah... again, let's assume the... again, the Yerushalmi in Pe'ah and the Nefesh HaChaim Sha'ar Daled. Despite the fact that talmud torah is the, the most important thing in the world, אף על פי כן, that doesn't necessarily mean that practically when you have to choose between talmud torah and another mitzvah that you're always going to opt for talmud torah. So when the Gemara in Kiddushin is talking about whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol, not gadol in the sense of axiologically more important or more significant, but what it means is in terms of a din kadima. In terms of taking precedence, so is it talmud gadol or is it ma'aseh gadol? In this context, so all the ma'amarim again which extol the, again, the uniqueness and the and the superiority of talmud torah, they're not going to settle, they're not going to settle the dispute necessarily, because that's what the Yerushalmi says, despite the fact that Torah is again is superior to everything else, there's going to be some limit, there has to be some line, because otherwise רבי שמעון בר יוחאי וחבריו she'torasan umnasan would never be mekayeim mitzvos and that would be a chisaron in their talmud torah. So what the Gemara is clarifying is whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol, what has a din kadima? Haya lefanav... and that's the context in the Rambam. That's, the Rambam says that talmud is meivi lidei ma'aseh, and therefore practically halacha l'ma'aseh, התלמוד קודם למעשה בכל מקום, and that's what he continues in Halacha Daled, and this is the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan daf tes, that

היה לפניו עשיית מצוה ותלמוד תורה אם אפשר למצוה להיעשות על ידי אחרים לא יפסיק תלמודו ואם לאו יעשה המצוה ויחזור לתלמודו.

That because talmud torah is meivi lidei ma'aseh, so therefore it's not a chisaron in לומד על מנת לעשות to continue one's learning as long as that other mitzvah is אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים. If that other mitzvah is אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים, so then it takeh is a chisaron in לומד על מנת לעשות. But kol zman that that second mitzvah is is אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים, meaning it's not a chovas gavra, it's a chesed that needs to be done, it's a tzorkei tzibbur which need to be attended to, not a chovas gavra. So the fact that it's אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים, so then, and given the fact that talmud is meivi lidei ma'aseh, so then there's no chisaron in continuing to learn. It's not that your talmud is lacking from not being al m'nas la'asos. And that's the context of the Gemara, and that's why when the Gemara sort of justifies or or the Gemara says that talmud is gadol because it's instrumental, it's because the Gemara is not dealing axiologically with which is most important. Ma lo, אפילו כל מצותיה של תורה לא ישוו בה. But what the Gemara is dealing with is a practical shailah. That notwithstanding, you have to be לומד על מנת לעשות, so that doesn't necessarily translate into being able to continue learning when there's a mitzvah that has to be done. Ah, but if the mitzvah is אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים and you you you keep in mind the fact that talmud is meivi lidei ma'aseh, so then that combination says that you'll continue learning and it won't be a chisaron of אין התלמוד מביא לידי מעשה. What about the mishna in Shabbos that says that if torasan umnasan they don't have to stop to daven? Right. So why why is that... why is that an... quotes a Sifrei. The Sifrei says on u'levado... let me just read it to you. Lashon Sifrei: u'levado zu tefillah ve'amru gam kein u'levado zu talmud. So the Sifrei says that just as tefillah is a kiyum of avodah she'balev, so Talmud Torah is a kiyum of avodah she'balev also. And that's a meforesh Sifrei that the Rambam quotes here. So the pshat in the mishna in Shabbos is that bameh devarim amurim that the Yerushalmi says that a person always has to be mafsik learning in order to be mekayem another mitzvah, because otherwise his learning will be שלא על מנת לעשות, is when that other mitzvah is a totally different mitzvah than Talmud Torah. So lulav is a kiyum lulav and Talmud Torah is a kiyum Talmud Torah. So then if שמעון בר יוחאי וחבריו wouldn't be mafsik, they'd never be mekayem mitzvas lulav in their life and it would be שלא על מנת לעשות. But heyos that tefillah has the same kiyum, at least to some extent, has has the same kiyum as Talmud Torah, so that's why you don't have to be mafsik the the Talmud Torah for the for the tefillah. And that's why the Yerushalmi that the Rishonim quote, the Yerushalmi says against the Bavli, the Bavli says by Krias Shema they do have to be mafsik and the Yerushalmi says they don't have to be mafsik even for Krias Shema because the Yerushalmi says כי האי שינון והאי שינון. It's the same svara because the Yerushalmi thinks that the ikkar of Krias Shema is just the shinun. So heyos that that it's again, it's the same kiyum as Talmud Torah, so then already it doesn't make the Talmud Torah שלא על מנת לעשות because they're not mafsik for the Krias Shema. And the Bavli says no, the Bavli says because of the element of קבלת עול מלכות שמים, so Krias Shema is more like lulav, it's not like not like tefillah. That's why the other context in which the Rishonim have this rule that if the other mitzvah is is comparable to Talmud Torah in terms of the same kiyum if not mamash Talmud Torah, so then you don't have to be mafsik the Talmud Torah of Torasoh Umnasoh is how the Rif says pshat in also in the Gemara in Brachos. The Gemara in Brachos says that Rav Sheshes during krias HaTorah was mahader api ve'garess. And he would say that אנן בדידן ואינהו בדידהו. So the Rishonim all ask the kasha: the Gemara in Sotah says that כיון שנפתח ספר תורה אסור לספר אפילו בדבר הלכה. From the time that they roll the sefer Torah open, so then you're not allowed to talk, not even during not even in in learning. So how could Rav Sheshes be mahader api ve'garess? So a few answers in the Rishonim. So the Rif, Tosfos quotes that the Rif's answer is because shani Rav Sheshes that he was Torasoh Umnasoh. Ai, but why does Torasoh Umnasoh help? Again, it has to be al menas la'asos. So the answer is because over here we're talking about krias HaTorah. krias HaTorah is a kiyum Talmud Torah. So for that, the the rule doesn't apply. What what does this Rambam mean here again in perek gimmel of Talmud Torah? In perek gimmel of Talmud Torah where the Rambam says that

היה לפניו עשיית מצווה ותלמוד תורה אם אפשר למצווה להיעשות על ידי אחרים לא יפסיק תלמודו ואם לאו יעשה המצווה ויחזור לתלמודו.

So Rambam says if the mitzvah is אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים, it's a tzorchei tzibbur but no one else is going to be able to accomplish what you can accomplish, so then you have to be mevattel night study to go to go do the mitzvah and then right afterwards yachzor letalmudo. So yachzor letalmudo lichora goes without saying. What, once once he had to go to the shul board meeting, so once he's out of the beis medrash so he'll whatever, do something else, he won't be yachzor letalmudo? So what does the Rambam have in mind with yachzor letalmudo? So so people quote from the Rav zichrono livracha a very beautiful pshat. The Rav explained there are two places, I don't think we're going to have time to discuss both of them, there are two places where the Rambam seemingly is soser the psak that he quotes in perek gimmel from the Gemara in Moed Katan. And again, the Gemara in Moed Katan says that if a mitzvah is אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים So then העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה doesn't apply to Talmud Torah. Now by definition any chovas gavra is אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים. I mean, someone else can take the lulav, but everyone has a chiyuv to take the lulav. Something is only אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים when it's a chesed, when it's a tzorkei tzibbur, when it's something of that variety. So the Rambam has in

פרק טו הלכות אישות: האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה אבל לא האישה ואימתי האיש נתחייב במצוה זו מבן שבע עשרה וכיוון שעברו עשרים שנה ולא נשא אשה הרי זה עובר מבטל מצות עשה ואם היה עוסק בתורה וטרוד בה והיה מתיירא לישא אשה כדי שלא יטרח במזונות בעבור אשתו וייבטל מן התורה הרי זה מותר להתאחר שהעוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה וכל שכן בתלמוד תורה.

So the Rambam says that if a person wants to postpone marriage beyond the age 20, so it's muttar to do that because if he's doing it because of learning, so העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה. So if that's true of any mitzvah, kal v'chomer if the mitzvah in which you're osek is Talmud Torah. Ay, but in פרק ג הלכות תלמוד תורה it says farkehrt. In פרק ג הלכות תלמוד תורה it says that Talmud Torah is inferior to all other mitzvos. Talmud Torah is more easily nidcheh for a second competing mitzvah. And over here the Rambam says a kal v'chomer, kal v'chomer that if a person's osek baTorah, kal v'chomer that he's patur from periya v'rivya. No, but in Perek Gimmel it's punkt farkehrt. Since the periya v'rivya is his chovas gavra, so it's אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים, so Talmud Torah vis-a-vis this is kal from all other mitzvos. So what does it mean? So it's quoted the Rav zichrono l'vracha said that that's what the Rambam was laying the groundwork for here in פרק ג הלכות תלמוד תורה. When the Rambam said אם לאו יעשה המצוה ויחזור לתלמודו, so the Rambam wasn't saying a mussar vort. He wasn't saying go to the shul board meeting and then quickly, quickly go through every yellow light, not the red lights, go through every yellow light and get back to the Beis Medrash as quickly as possible, v'yachzor l'talmudo. No, he wasn't giving a mussar vort. The Rambam assumed that the person would resume learning. What the Rambam was saying is, if the mitzvah is אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים, then he takeh has to be mafsik talmudo to do the mitzvah, provided that upon completion of the mitzvah he'll have the possibility of v'yachzor l'talmudo. What would be lu yetzuyar that a person will do the mitzvah and will never ever be able to resume learning the same way, resume the learning the way it was before? Then this din doesn't apply. Right? The din that a מצוה שאי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים a person has to be mafsik talmudo to do the mitzvah, the Rambam's v'yachzor l'talmudo is a condition, is a stipulation in being mafsik the Talmud Torah. So where do you have such a heicha timtza? So that's what the Rambam says in פרק טו הלכות אישות. A person is afraid, what's he afraid of getting married? He's not afraid of the week of sheva brachos. The week of sheva brachos is v'yachzor l'talmudo. He's afraid, he's afraid of the ol parnassa, of mezonos, so he's afraid that he's never going to be chozer l'talmudo. He's never going to be able to resume learning with the same hasmada and the same single-mindedness. So there's no possibility of v'yachzor l'talmudo, so then there's no din that you're supposed to be mafsik Talmud Torah for another mitzvah. Talmud Torah is protected by the din of osek b'mitzvah. When Talmud Torah, it's kal v'chomer, if Talmud Torah is protected by the osek b'mitzvah, so now factor in that Talmud Torah is gadol from all other mitzvos and you have the kal v'chomer. The other place where there's an apparent stirah, I'll just be mareh makom, we don't have time for it now, but in the beginning of Hilchos Megilla, we sort of laid the groundwork for it, but in the beginning of Hilchos Megilla the Rambam also seemingly is soisek because the Rambam says that you mafsik Talmud Torah for krias hamegilla and kal v'chomer that you mafsik any other mitzvah. That if Talmud Torah, which is chamur from all other mitzvos, you mafsik for krias hamegilla, kal v'chomer all other mitzvos. But it's the same problem again, right? It's the same problem that no, Talmud Torah is more easily interrupted and nidcheh because of a second competing mitzvah. So what do you mean that it's a kal v'chomer for all other mitzvos? It's sort of what we were discussing before is the basis for farenfering, but we'll stop there.