YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

PHILOSOPHY OF HALAKHA
By Rav Chaim Navon

LECTURE #11: Occupation in Torah and knowledge of TOrah

The biblical verses from which we derive the obligation to study Torah imply that there are two aspects of that obligation. On the one hand, some verses point to the obligation of knowing the Torah. For example, "And you shall learn them, and keep them, and do them" (Devarim 5:1). This verse emphasizes the consequence of study, namely, the knowledge of Torah that allows for proper and complete fulfillment of the mitzvot. Chazal interpreted the verse, "And you shall teach them diligently," (Devarim 6:7) in similar fashion:

 Our Rabbis taught: "And you shall teach them diligently" – the words of the Torah should be sharply impressed in your mouth, so that if a person asks you anything [concerning them], you will not need to stammer about it, but you can answer him immediately. (Kiddushin 30a)

As opposed to what they said about the previously cited verse, "And you shall learn them, and keep them," here Chazal relate to knowing the Torah as an independent value, without connecting it to the practical observance of Halakha. In any case, both verses emphasize the result of the learning process – Torah knowledge.

In contrast, other verses point to the obligation of occupation in Torah. For example, "And you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Devarim 6:7).  The verse, "You shall meditate therein day and night" (Yehoshua 1:8), is also mentioned in this context.[1] Here the stress is placed not on the result of study, but on the study itself. We have already seen that Chazal understood that the words, "And you shall teach them diligently," instruct us to know the Torah. The continuation of the verse, "And you shall speak of them," they interpreted as referring to occupation with Torah, without relating to the result of such occupation:

Rabbi Acha says: "And you shall speak of them" – make them your regular occupation, and not an incidental affair. Rava said: One who engages in mundane conversation violates a positive commandment, for the verse says: "And you shall speak of them" – of them, and not of other things. (Yoma 19a)

 Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin (Le'or ha-Halakha, pp. 205-206) notes that Chazal found in this verse, "And you shall teach them diligently, and you shall speak of them," the two aspects of the mitzva of Torah study: the mitzva of knowing, and the mitzva of occupation. Rabbi Sha'ul Yisraeli[2] derives the obligation to know Torah from another talmudic passage as well:

[An obligation rests upon a father with respect to his son] to teach him Torah. From where do we know this? For it is written: "And you shall teach them to your children" (Devarim 11:19). And if his father did not teach him, [the son] is obligated to teach himself. For it is written: "And you shall learn" (Rashi: This is a different verse – "And you shall learn them, and keep them, and do them" [Devarim 5:1]). (Kiddushin 29b)

Rabbi Yisraeli raises a question: Why does the Gemara deem it necessary to find a separate source for the law that a person must teach himself Torah if his father failed to teach him? Surely, the personal obligation to learn Torah that falls upon every individual is derived from the verse, "And you shall meditate therein day and night," as cited in Menachot 99b! He answers that here the Gemara is relating not to the obligation to occupy oneself in Torah, but to the obligation to know Torah. Basically, this obligation falls upon the father. A father is not required to see to it that his son occupies himself with Torah, but rather that he should know Torah, so that he will know how to conduct himself as a believing Jew. It was, therefore, necessary to find a special source to teach us that if a person's father failed to teach him, he himself is obligated to acquire Torah knowledge on his own.

	Torah study has two goals. The one, Torah knowledge, is reflected in the obligation to know Torah. The second, refinement of the personality through study, is reflected in the obligation to occupy oneself in Torah. In order to reach the goal of fashioning one's personality as a servant of God, the stress is not upon the acquisition of Torah knowledge, but upon the very effort and toil found in the ongoing act of study.

	Indeed, there were Rishonim who counted two mitvot of Torah study in their list of the six hundred and thirteen biblical commandments. Rav Yehudai Gaon, author of Halakhot Gedolot, lists the mitzva of "Torah study" (positive commandment 26), and the mitzva of "studying" (positive commandment 40). Rabbi Eliezer of Metz, author of Sefer ha-Yere'im, counts the mitzva "that the people of Israel should study the Torah and toil over it" (254), as well as the mitzva of "and you shall teach them diligently" (258). This duality reflects itself in the dispute among the Rishonim regarding the precise formulation of the blessings recited over the Torah. This is how Rambam rules regarding these blessings:

One who rises early in the morning to read in the Torah before he recites the Shema, whether he wishes to read of the written Torah or of the oral Torah, must first wash his hands, then recite the [following] three blessings, and afterwards he may read of the Torah. These are the blessings: "Who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and commanded us regarding the words of the Torah. Lord our God, make the words of Your Torah pleasant in our mouth, and in the mouth of Your people, the entire house of Israel, so that we and our  descendants and the descendants of Your people, may know Your name and occupy themselves in Your Torah. Blessed are You, O Lord, who teaches Torah to Your people Israel. Blessed are You, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who has chosen us from all peoples and given us Your Torah. Blessed are You, O Lord, Giver of the Torah." (Rambam, Hilkhot Tefilah, 7:10)

	Rambam's ruling is based on the reading of Rif (Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi) in Berakhot 11a. There is, however, also another reading:

What blessing does he recite? Rav Yehuda said: "Who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and commanded us regarding the words of the Torah." And in some places they say: "To occupy ourselves with the words of the Torah." (Rosh [Rabbenu Asher ben Yehiel], Berakhot, chap., 1, no. 13)

… And one must recite a blessing for [the study of] Scripture, Midrash, Mishnah, and Talmud. And this is its formulation: "Blessed are You, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and commanded us regarding the words of the Torah." And the reading of the Ashkenazim is: "To occupy ourselves with the words of the Torah." (Tur, OC, 47)

According to the Ashkenazic formulation, the blessing relates to the very act of Torah study, and not necessarily to the knowledge of Torah which results from that study. It should be noted that we are not dealing here with a fundamental dispute between Ashkenazim and Sefardim, for even Rambam mentions occupation with the Torah in the second blessing. Maharal (Rabbi Aryeh Loeb of Prague) had this to say about the wording of the blessing over Torah:

As for why we say "to occupy ourselves with the words of the Torah," and not "to study Torah," it would seem that were we to say the latter, it would imply that the blessing refers [exclusively] to Torah which is in accordance with the Halakha, for that is the essence of Torah. And if a person would not reach the correct Halakhic conclusion, that would not be called Torah. This, however, is not so, for even if a person does not reach the correct Halakhic conclusion, it is still a mitzva. Therefore we say "to occupy ourselves with the words of the Torah." (Maharal, Netivot Olam, I, P. 32)

Maharal relates to one aspect of the distinction we have been drawing: If a person erred in his study, reaching the wrong conclusions, did he nonetheless fully and properly fulfill the mitzva of Torah study? According to the approach that focuses on occupation with the Torah, the question whether or not a person has reached the correct Halakhic conclusions is less significant. A person who reaches the wrong conclusions has not fulfilled his obligation of acquiring Torah knowledge, but he has fulfilled his obligation to occupy himself with Torah.

	This distinction between the two aspects of Torah study has many other ramifications as well. Let us, for example, examine the Gemara in Menachot:

Ben Dama, nephew of Rabbi Yishma'el, asked Rabbi Yishma'el: Someone like me, who has studied the entire law – what is the law regarding studying Greek wisdom? [Rabbi Yishma'el] applied to him the verse: "This book of the Torah shall not depart out of your mouth; but you shall meditate therein day and night." Go and find an hour that is neither day nor night, and study therein Greek wisdom. (Menachot 99b)

Ben Dama fulfilled his obligation to know Torah, for he had already studied the entire Torah, and presumably he remembered all that he had learned, for if not, surely he would have been required to continue in his studies. Rabbi Yishma'el told his nephew that in any case he must continue to study Torah because of the mitzva to "meditate therein day and night," that is, the mitzva of occupation with Torah, which requires even one who has already mastered Torah knowledge to continue meditating on the Torah.

	The first Admor of Chabad, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady – who was also the first to point out the two aspects of the mitzva of Torah study – argued that there is a practical Halakhic difference between the two obligations:

Anyone of strong intellect and good memory, who is capable of learning and remembering the entire corpus of the Oral Law, should not marry a woman until he has first studied all of the Oral Law, which comprises all of the halakhot with their reasons in concise fashion … When [the Rabbis] said that one may interrupt Torah study in order to fulfill a mitzva that cannot be fulfilled through others, as will be explained, they were referring to a temporary interruption of limited duration, which only involves a cancellation of the mitzva to occupy oneself in the study of Torah at all times, but not a cancellation of the mitzvah to know Torah well along with its explanation, which includes all of the halakhot along with their reasons in concise form. (Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:1)

Rabbi Shneur Zalman distinguishes between the two aspects of the obligation to study Torah. The mitzva of occupation with Torah does not supercede the mitzva of procreation, but the mitzva of knowing Torah does. One who is capable of acquiring comprehensive Torah knowledge should, therefore, put off marriage until he has done so. This distinction allows for two explanations. Rabbi Shneur Zalman may be of the opinion that knowing Torah is more important than occupying oneself in it. Or perhaps he does not relate to the relative importance of the two obligations, but to their limits. The mitzva of occupation in Torah knows no limits; were it, therefore, to supercede the other mitzvot, those other mitzvot would never be observed. The mitzva of knowing Torah, however, has a clear limit, for which Rabbi Shneur offers a precise definition. Hence, it can certainly be said that the mitzva of acquiring Torah knowledge supercedes the mitzva of procreation until a person reaches a satisfactory level of Torah knowledge.

	Rabbi Shneur Zalman teaches us in passing his opinion regarding the definition of the mitzva of knowing Torah: remembering the entire Oral Law, "which embraces all the halakhot with their reasons in concise form." Knowing the talmudic dialectics is not included in this mitzva, and certainly not knowing those positions which Halakha has rejected. The mitzva of knowing the Torah refers exclusively to knowledge of the correct Halakhic conclusions.

 As suggested above, it is possible to interpret Rabbi Shneur Zalman as saying that the mitzva of knowing Torah has priority over the mitzva of occupation in Torah. Other Jewish thinkers have set a different order of priority. For example, Rav Chayyim of Volozhin writes as follows:

If so, all study has two elements. One element is the act that [study] involves. It is certainly good if a person studies Torah, relating to the study itself as his act. He directs his thoughts to the fact that God, may He be blessed, commanded us to study. Incidental to his study, he acquires knowledge concerning other actions to which study leads. Thus, the act of study is primary, and knowledge is incidental. This approach is very good and correct. If, however, he studies in order to acquire knowledge of the Torah, and not for the act [of study], this is not as good as the first approach. (Ru'ach Chayyim, Avot 3:16)

According to the tradition of Volozhin, Torah study is an end in and of itself. Torah study is not only a means through which to acquire Torah knowledge, but also the pinnacle of religious and spiritual activity. Taking the position of the mitnagdim to the extreme, we may say that even if a person were to forget every night all the Torah that he had learned the previous day, his learning would still be of great value. The very act of study refines one's personality, and draws the student closer to the worship of God.

 The value of the act of learning in and of itself, the act of occupation with Torah, follows from this ancient Midrash:

It is for his own good that a man learns Torah and then forgets it. For were a person to learn Torah and never forget it, he would involve himself in Torah study for two or three years and then devote himself to his own vocation. He would never again involve himself in Torah study for the rest of his life. Since, however, a man learns Torah and then forgets it, he never gives up [his involvement] in the words of Torah. (Kohelet Rabba, 1:1 [13])

The Midrash asserts that it is good that a person forgets what he has learned, because, as a result, he never becomes free of the obligation to occupy himself in the words of the Torah all the days of his life. Attention should be paid to the fact that the Midrash assumes that occupation with Torah is vital and necessary even after Torah knowledge has been acquired. Moreover, occupation with Torah is even more vital and necessary than knowing Torah. Thus, it is preferable that a person forget what he has learned and then learn it anew, rather than he know all the Torah, and never again occupy himself with it.

	This lesson may perhaps also be learned from another Midrash:

Rabbi Levi said: This is comparable to a person who hired workers to fill a basket full of holes. What does the stupid [worker] say? "What do I accomplish, I fill it here, and it comes out here." What does the wise [worker] say? "Do I not receive a reward paid for each and every barrel [that I fill]?" So too what does the stupid man say? "What do I accomplish studying Torah and then forgetting it?" What does the wise man say? "Does not the Holy One, blessed be He, reward me for my effort?" (Vayikra Rabba, 19:2)

This Midrash emphasizes the importance of occupation with Torah, even if it does not lead to Torah knowledge. The Midrash, however, focuses upon the reward that God dispenses for the very act of learning and for the effort, and not upon the spiritual benefit that a person may derive from his occupation with Torah.[3] This point is not clear: Why does God want His workers to draw water with a pail full of holes? An early commentary written by one of the Ashkenazi rishonim of the Tosafist period relates to this question:

He hired me to empty out the other barrels, and so I will do, and not be concerned if it flows out. (Early Commentary to Midrash Vayikra Rabba, ed. Lerner)

The commentary suggests that the employer benefits because the barrels that had once been full are now empty. It remains unclear, however, what parallel benefit is derived by one who studies Torah only to forget it. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik cites this Midrash is a slightly different form. It is not clear whether this is a variant reading of the Midrash cited above, or a different Midrash.[4] In any event, the version cited by Rabbi Soloveitchik emphasizes the benefit that may be derived from occupation with Torah, even if a person immediately forgets what he had just learned:

The fact that as a result of reading the Torah the reader has not become any wiser nor has he acquired any knowledge does not negate its value. Our Rabbis have already noted this point in the Midrash: "This is comparable to a king who gave his servants a pail full of holes, saying to them: "Fill the pail with water." The fools among them said: "What are we accomplishing?" The wise among them said: "At least, we clean the pail." (Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, Shi'urim le-Zekher Abba Mari, I, p. 164)

This marvelous formulation can greatly contribute to our discussion. Torah study, even when it does not lead to Torah knowledge, "cleans out the pail" and refines the personality.

Obviously, there is no denying the importance of knowing Torah. And this is for three reasons: 1) Torah knowledge makes halakhic observance possible, as was explained above. 2} Torah knowledge is a vital tool for occupation with Torah. The more Torah a person knows, the more profound is his Torah study. 3) Torah knowledge also greatly contributes to the formation of the personality of the Torah student. When a person knows Torah, he looks out upon the world through the spectacles of Halakha, and this type of thinking deepens his commitment to God and His laws. Torah knowledge plays a significant role in the realization of the two objectives of Torah study: It makes the practical observance of Halakha possible, and it helps shape and form the Halakhic personality.

(Translated by Rav David Strauss)

FOOTNOTES

[1] Even though the verse concludes: "That you may observe to do according to all that is written in it."

[2] "Limmud ha-Torah be-Tor Mitzvot ha-Torah," Shana be-Shana, 1961.

[3] The citation from Rav Chayyim of Volozhin quoted above also emphasizes the obligation to study Torah, regardless of the result and independent of it, and not the value of and benefit to be derived from occupation with Torah.

[4] I have been unable to find the Midrash in the formulation cited by Rabbi Soloveitchik. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein has informed me that he too was unsuccessful in his attempt to locate such a reading.