The Blessing over Torah Study

This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.

🔗 Link to the original lecture

🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] This is basically parallel to saying there’s no “before” and no “after,” there’s no specific time when to recite the blessing; you’re constantly obligated, right? So that’s how he asks it. He also brings that the Magen Avraham is puzzled by this. So he says: if so, then according to that same idea that the Beit Yosef writes, you also shouldn’t have had to recite a blessing before. What’s the answer? In Torah study, we recognize: one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening. That has significance. In Torah study, the day has significance: one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening. Not…

[Speaker C] No,

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] that’s something else—he answers that; in a moment we’ll see. There is Shema in the morning and evening; I’ll get to that. But right now, the assumption that one is obligated all the time is a dispute among the medieval authorities (Rishonim), and for now we’re assuming that. How does the Beit Yosef understand it? Is it a blessing over benefit, or a blessing over commandments? Let me remind you again what was going on there.

[Speaker C] They asked there, and the question is according to a blessing over benefit.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The Rashba, who is cited there, answers him: what do you mean? It’s a blessing over commandments. The Beit Yosef brings an alternative answer to the Rashba; he doesn’t accept the Rashba’s answer. So how does the Beit Yosef’s second answer go? Like the question—that this is a blessing over benefit. He refuses to make the distinction the Rashba made. Meaning, he stays with the mindset of the question, that this is a blessing over benefit. What do you want from the Or Zarua? He asks from the Or Zarua. The Or Zarua is talking about a blessing over commandments: when you have a time when you’re exempt, you don’t make a blessing. But here you are obligated to make a blessing over benefit, not a blessing over a commandment. After all, when do you recite a blessing over benefit? Only—what? If there isn’t a defined time that counts as “before it” or “after it,” then you establish some time and recite it then. But that’s not similar to a blessing over a commandment.

[Speaker B] But according to that, the question comes back: why don’t I recite a blessing every time I begin?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The Beit Yosef supposedly says—the Beit Yosef says because, wait, no, the question why we don’t recite it every time isn’t a question at all, because that’s based on some analogy that this is a blessing over commandments, and the Beit Yosef says it’s a blessing over benefit.

[Speaker B] But with a blessing over benefit, every time we benefit. But with a blessing over benefit—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But what if I’m constantly in that same benefit? Not all the time. The obligation is the benefit. I’ll get to that in a moment. The benefit is not the studying; the benefit is the obligation to study. That’s in just a moment. The benefit over which we recite the blessing—the fact that someone enjoys it, that’s something else. The benefit over which we recite the blessing is that benefit. So what’s really the point here? There actually is a difference between a blessing over commandments and a blessing over benefit. That’s for another lecture, but with blessings over commandments there are several indications that a blessing over commandments is not some kind of thanksgiving, and also not some kind of praise. Rather, a blessing over commandments is some kind of orientation toward performing the commandment. Some even connect it to the law that commandments require intention—the obligation to recite a blessing over the commandment. Since commandments require intention, how do I achieve that intention? I recite a blessing over fulfilling the commandment. Now I’m directing myself toward the commandment; now I can perform it. So here it’s obvious that you have to recite it beforehand. What does it even mean to recite it afterward? Therefore the Rashba says: a blessing over a commandment is recited only beforehand. But a blessing over benefit is to say thank you to the Holy One, blessed be He, for something. You can say thank you at any time. So true, Grace after Meals is recited afterward. If there’s no exempt time, you can also do it beforehand. Each case depends on itself. But to say thank you—there’s no limitation. If the whole idea of the blessing is orientation toward performing the commandment, what does it mean to recite it afterward? It doesn’t make sense at all. Fine. So I’m not sure this whole idea about blessings over commandments is totally agreed upon, but this much is certain. But if this is a blessing over benefit, then it could have been once a year—you decide, either before or after. Right—but the Torah established it. And really, why does it matter if it’s over benefit? You could also do it beforehand, by exactly the same idea.

[Speaker C] Or is there a blessing over benefit where the Torah says we should recite it beforehand?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There is no Torah-level blessing over benefit at all except Grace after Meals.

[Speaker C] Only—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] A blessing over benefit beforehand is rabbinic, apparently. One could show that it’s not exactly rabbinic.

[Speaker C] If you want, maybe the rabbis obligated it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. Rabbinic—it could be that that itself was their idea: for benefit, you can always bless—why not? You wanted to bless beforehand too. There you go. The Chinukh says that for physical enjoyment you bless only afterward, after you’ve tasted it. But the rabbis obligated us to bless also beforehand, because apparently you can thank God for something even before you’ve physically tasted it. The Pri Megadim, in the introduction to the laws of blessings, brings the Jerusalem Talmud in Berakhot, which says that the blessing over Torah is Torah-level. And not only that—blessings over commandments are Torah-level too. There’s an analogy: “the Torah and the commandment” is written. “The Torah and the commandment” is an analogy between blessings over commandments and the blessing over Torah, and therefore both are Torah-level. Beyond the question whether this is Torah-level or not, the Pri Megadim says it’s just an asmakhta, because we don’t find anywhere that a blessing over a commandment is Torah-level. There’s some dispute about this. The Minchat Chinukh claims yes, they are Torah-level—the fixed text and formula are rabbinic, but the very obligation to bless over commandments is Torah-level. And that fits very well with what I said earlier: that this is really rooted in the law that commandments require intention, and commandments requiring intention is a Torah-level law, not a rabbinic one. So you don’t need exactly the Divine Name and kingship formula and the wording established by the Sages, but you do need to do something of that kind on the Torah level. The formula itself was fixed by the Sages. That’s what the Minchat Chinukh says. The Pri Megadim says it’s an asmakhta; we don’t find this at all—it’s rabbinic. But still, what does the Pri Megadim say? He says explicitly: this is a blessing over commandments. That’s fairly clear. So it turns out that if blessings over commandments are rabbinic, then it’s even easier. If it’s rabbinic, then it’s altogether obvious that this is a blessing over commandments. Then it’s just like all other blessings over commandments; they only found some hint for it, an asmakhta, in the verse in our passage. Fine. So in practice, the root of this dispute—whether this is a blessing over commandments or a blessing over benefit, as I said earlier—is really rooted in the conceptions of the enumerators of the commandments. When the commandments are counted, the question is whether this is swallowed up in Grace after Meals or swallowed up in Torah study. But these things are not so simple. Neither direction comes out smoothly. Why? The option that absorbs it into Grace after Meals says this is a blessing over benefit. What do you mean, a blessing over benefit? Commandments were not given for enjoyment. Where have we ever found such a thing, that we recite a blessing over benefit for a commandment? What kind of thing is that? How can one even conceive of this as a blessing over benefit like Grace after Meals? Very, very strange. Blessings over benefit are usually for physical enjoyments—things the Holy One, blessed be He, gives us for enjoyment, and we bless over them. But where do we find a blessing over benefit for a commandment? Very odd. Commandments were not given for enjoyment. I don’t know if it’s exactly a difficulty, but it’s certainly a question—how can you say such a thing? That’s from the direction of blessing over benefit, as though it were like Grace after Meals. And why is the direction of blessing over commandments problematic? Why? Because first of all, the blessing over commandments here is Torah-level and not rabbinic. In the Jerusalem Talmud they made an analogy for it, but even so, there’s already some anomaly here. But beyond that anomaly: where did this whole thing come from? From our wanting to include the commandment of blessing over Torah within the commandment of Torah study, the way Maimonides is understood according to Nachmanides, right? If this were a blessing over commandments, what sense does it make to include it within the commandment of Torah study? There’s a commandment to bless over the commandment of Torah study. Why would that be part of the commandment of Torah study? When I recite the blessing over Torah, am I studying Torah?

[Speaker B] That’s what Nachmanides says. What you’re saying is what Nachmanides says.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What Nachmanides argues against, fine. Okay, so maybe—but he doesn’t spell it out, so I don’t know. Fair enough. So now the question is: what answers this? If Maimonides really understood it that way, what does Maimonides answer? In other words, how can one include the blessing over Torah within the commandment of Torah study if one really understands it as a blessing over commandments? A blessing over commandments can be an external thing. There is a commandment of Torah study, and there is an obligation to bless.

[Speaker C] But if, as you suggested, it’s a kind of dedication—focusing on the commandment, then what?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] If, as you pointed out, it’s a rabbinic law of blessing over the commandment—

[Speaker C] It could be that even—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] on the Torah level as well. Meaning, let’s see. In the midrash there, that’s roughly the direction—from commandments to rabbinic blessings. And in fact, the examples Nachmanides brought—Nachmanides rejects this whole approach—what does Nachmanides say? This is basically like the declaration of first-fruits, and like the recounting of the Exodus. And just as there we count each one separately, so too here we should count each one separately. Meaning, he sees this as something similar to the declaration of first-fruits and to recounting the Exodus. So in what sense is this a blessing over commandments? Meaning, what…

[Speaker B] But maybe it’s not a blessing over commandments; maybe it’s part of the commandment. If I don’t bless, then I’m not fulfilling the commandment of Torah study, because maybe I’m not really studying.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, that’s very similar to what was said here before. I think that’s the direction I’m heading in. To understand this as an ordinary blessing over commandments, and blessing over benefit in the ordinary sense—both are problematic. In other words, there’s some hybrid creature here that doesn’t exactly fit either of these two categories. According to the Sha’agat Aryeh, who says that this commandment is rabbinic—why does he learn that it’s rabbinic? On the face of it, apparently because he isn’t willing to absorb it either into Grace after Meals or into Torah study, right? Because otherwise, why be forced to say it’s rabbinic? It’s Torah-level, and the reason Maimonides doesn’t count it is because it’s absorbed either here or there. Rather, he too probably sees it as some kind of third category. If it’s absorbed, Maimonides doesn’t need to mention it? No, no. He sometimes brings such things as examples in the roots; I don’t remember him bringing this example of blessing over Torah. He simply didn’t bring it. But systematically, in the count of the commandments, he doesn’t mention it.

[Speaker B] Why does the Sha’agat Aryeh find it difficult to count it?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He relies on Maimonides.

[Speaker B] What? Why does it bother him?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, that’s there. No, it doesn’t bother the Sha’agat Aryeh. He says: Maimonides does not count it. That’s a given, first of all. Now he is working as an interpreter, not as a decisor. He says: now I want to understand why Maimonides doesn’t count it. I have three possibilities, as we said earlier: either absorb it into Grace after Meals or absorb it into Torah study. He rejects both of those possibilities out of hand, even though both appear among the medieval authorities on Maimonides, both in the Bach and in the Chinukh. And he doesn’t count them at all. Meaning, according to Maimonides this is certainly rabbinic—about that he has no hesitation. That is clear. His whole hesitation is only how this fits with the Talmud, where the Talmud says it is Torah-level. Even stronger: you have explicit evidence from the Talmud that it’s Torah-level, and you have two ways to reconcile Maimonides with the Talmud, and still you don’t choose them. Why? Because he refuses to accept it either as a blessing over commandments or as a blessing over benefit. He says: it’s neither this nor that; it’s something else. Maybe intermediate, maybe entirely different, I don’t know. But it’s neither of them. And therefore, even those who say it is rabbinic are saying something about the character of this blessing.

[Speaker C] What is its character? What?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We’ll get there slowly. By way of Delphi cocoa.

[Speaker C] What does the Sha’agat Aryeh do with the Talmud?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So he tries to prove—very intricate, in the style of the Sha’agat Aryeh, you have to look there—he tries to prove from the Talmud that in the end the Talmud retracted, and he remains with a question unresolved regarding Maimonides. He remains with a question unresolved regarding Maimonides, and still—still—he does not choose the solutions of the Chinukh or Nachmanides. Meaning, this inference is very strong, because he is in distress and still doesn’t do it. Now, in Responsa from Heaven—look at the next page there. For those who don’t know, this is Rabbi Yaakov of Marvege, one of the Tosafists, who asked various questions in dreams and they answered him from Heaven. It somewhat reminds one of Delphic things, for some reason… No, but wait—we don’t rely on—

[Speaker B] on

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] such a claim.

[Speaker C] Also the Maggid Mesharim.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The Maggid Mesharim, yes. There too there are laws mixed in, but there… there are problems there too.

[Speaker C] But the statements are accepted according to their content; it doesn’t matter where a word came from… it doesn’t matter to us who whispered in his ear.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. He asked it; he didn’t discover it on his own. He asked questions Above and they told him such-and-such, or they proved it to him. That’s what they say about “Tishbi will resolve difficulties and questions,” right? He had it in Heaven, but the halakhic essence is this: Elijah the Prophet will come as a sage, not as a prophet. He will show me that this is the solution and explain to me why it is the solution. But here it didn’t work like that. Here it worked like the Oracle of Delphi. And indeed Reuven Margaliot, in the introduction there, expands on these matters, and it’s worth reading. In any case, for our purposes he says as follows: “And I further asked about the blessing over Torah, whether one must bless every single time one sits to study, just as with tzitzit one blesses every time one wraps oneself, or whether one need only bless in the morning and thereby exempt the whole day.” And they answered him: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter.” Some kind of cryptic statement, really very reminiscent of what I said earlier. “And I remained in doubt about this.” Here the whole Oracle of Delphi business ends, because he remains doubtful about that answer and asked again as before. I didn’t understand; I ask that you please answer me more clearly. I’m not prepared to accept these vague sorts of things. And they answered him—and here the speech is like human beings: “The blessing over Torah is not like the blessing over the other commandments.” Notice: “not like.” What does that mean? That it is a blessing over commandments but different? Or that it isn’t a blessing over commandments at all? Yes. “For because meditation in Torah is man’s life all day,” meaning all the time, as the Beit Yosef said, “they established for it three blessings.” By the way, these three blessings—the Minchat Chinukh treats them as part of the blessing over Torah. Rabbeinu Tam, for example, says there are only two: “to engage in words of Torah,” and “make sweet” is the conclusion of “to engage in words of Torah,” the closing of that blessing, one long blessing. In any event, Maimonides says there are three blessings: “to engage,” “make sweet,” and “who chose us.” And the blessing “to engage” stands in place of the blessing over commandments. “Make sweet” is a prayer before the Omnipresent that we merit to study and to teach. And “who chose us” is a blessing of thanksgiving, whereby Israel is obligated to thank God, who chose us from every people and tongue and gave them the Torah. Meaning, things are pretty clear: there are three blessings, and he solves the problem very elegantly—every answer is correct. Every answer is correct; each blessing is something else. The first blessing is a blessing over commandments, the second blessing is some kind of prayer, and the third blessing is a blessing of thanksgiving. “Just as they also established two blessings before Shema, morning and evening, whose essence concerns meditation in Torah,” as the Talmud says that “abundant love” is like the blessing over Torah. “But the blessings over the other commandments are of short form, and one blesses over them whenever one interrupts between them.” Fine. That’s enough for our purposes. So what is his definition, really? He is basically saying there are three blessings, and each one corresponds to one of the patterns we spoke about earlier. There’s room for some hesitation—similar to a blessing over commandments—I don’t know to what extent it really is a blessing over commandments. The expression “they established” is also a little problematic. Is it Torah-level, or “they established” it? It’s not obvious that it’s rabbinic. That language is a bit problematic to me. “They established” is always rabbinic, no? What? Yes, usually that’s so, but I think here it may be that from the context there was something Torah-level in it—the meaning is that from Heaven they established it. I’m not sure, I’m not sure about that. Why?

[Speaker B] But the commandment of tzitzit is Torah-level, yet the Sages established its blessing. Fine, okay.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But then it really comes out that the Torah-level aspect is indeed something mixed together. So you’re right. The Torah-level aspect is something mixed together, and the Sages detailed it in such a way that they fixed three patterns for it, each one covering one aspect.

[Speaker C] But if he’s talking about Heaven, then why “they established”? What, Heaven… Heaven explained to him what the Sages established.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Heaven explained to him what the Sages established,

[Speaker C] and after all he learned before them—we’re talking about the Sages. Fine, so he looked into it, and he looked and didn’t understand, so he asked.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And when he asked, there was also a question there about the phylacteries of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam. There too they explained to him what Rashi says, what Rabbeinu Tam says, and who is right. You’ll say: but those aren’t the Sages, they’re medieval authorities. They explained to him who is right; they explained to him that nobody is right, because we do not heed a heavenly voice. Fine. So basically here too there may really be some kind of mixture of aspects, each one taking shape in one of the three blessings. I’ll now bring a few later authorities, just to show that there really is something here that is not entirely a blessing over benefit and not entirely a blessing over commandments, but some kind of middle thing. Then I’ll try, in the next hour, to talk about the main significance. The Minchat Chinukh brings what the Shulchan Arukh writes, that women are obligated in the blessing over Torah. The question several later authorities ask is: why are women obligated? They are not obligated in the commandment of Torah study. They are not obligated in the commandment of Torah study, so why are they obligated in the blessing over Torah? The assumption behind the question, again, is that this is a blessing over commandments. Right? That it depends on that. Yes—if it’s a blessing over commandments, then the question is whether it’s included or not. If it’s a blessing over commandments, then if someone is not obligated in the commandment, what sense is there that she should bless? On the other hand, that itself—if women are obligated to bless, then apparently this is not a blessing over commandments, because after all they’re not obligated in the commandment. Ah—but women are obligated to study what pertains to them, as people have already written on this point. They said women are obligated to recite the blessing over Torah because they are obligated to study the laws that pertain to them. But that is not the commandment of Torah study, of course—only preparation for a commandment, in order to know what to do. The commandment of Torah study is when the study is the goal. By the way, for anything that is merely preparation for a commandment we never recite a blessing—but even that answer does not make it a blessing over commandments, because a blessing over commandments is never recited on preparation for a commandment; that’s explicit in the Talmud in Menachot. In any case, that’s how the later authorities ask. The Minchat Chinukh says a formulation that afterward the Rabbi of Brisk—I don’t know him directly—but he basically says the same thing in his novellae on Maimonides. He says that women are not excluded from studying Torah. They are not obligated in the commandment of Torah study, but when they study Torah, that is called Torah study. They have fulfillment, even though they do not have the obligation. And this recurs in several places in the teaching of the Brisker Rav. There’s a minor who became an adult between two Passovers, and several commandments—he counts in several places that people can have fulfillment even though they are not obligated in the commandment. So here too he basically says that women who study are engaged in an act of Torah study, and over an act of Torah study one must recite the blessing over Torah. And he brings the verse: “For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God.” Whenever I engage in Torah, I must ascribe greatness to our God. This is not a blessing over commandments in the same sense that we bless over other commandments; rather, it is a blessing over the very act of Torah study. Some derive from here that women who studied Torah without reciting the blessing first transgressed a prohibition. They aren’t obligated in the commandment of Torah study at all. But if they studied Torah without first reciting the blessing over Torah, they transgressed a prohibition, because Torah must be studied only after one first recites the blessing over Torah. But this is not a blessing over commandments, because if I perform a commandment without reciting the blessing, I have not transgressed a prohibition. What?

[Speaker B] It’s not a blessing over commandments, because if I perform a commandment without reciting the blessing, I haven’t transgressed a prohibition.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, clearly not. It’s not a blessing over commandments. The Rabbi of Brisk says this all the time, because after all this isn’t about a commandment at all. That’s exactly the point. Why are women obligated at all? They’re not obligated in the commandment of Torah study. Rather, this is a blessing that opens the act of Torah study. Now we understand very well why it could be subsumed under Torah study, because it’s not really a blessing over commandments in the ordinary sense. Rather, it is an act that opens the act of Torah study. That is how one studies Torah. This is the pattern in which we are supposed to study Torah. If we do not study that way, then we have undone it.

[Speaker B] A blessing over benefit? A blessing over benefit? It’s for you, for the object itself.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. This is actually a kind of intermediate blessing. You could certainly say maybe praise, maybe benefit, some kind of thanksgiving—something like that, where you thank the Holy One, blessed be He: “ascribe greatness to our God.” You need to ascribe greatness to our God—however you explain it: benefit, praise, thanksgiving, something of that sort. But it is like a blessing over commandments, except not over the commandment, but over the act itself. So it’s some kind of intermediate concept between a blessing over commandments and a blessing over benefit.

[Speaker C] And are there more blessings here connected to study… blessings, blessings? Blessings, blessings?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine. There are a lot of practical ramifications to this point that it’s not a blessing over commandments. Now, Rashi’s student appears in the novellae of the Rashba on Berakhot 11. Rashi’s student, by the name of Rabbi Shemaya, describes that when Rashi would get up in the morning to engage in Torah, he would recite the blessing over Torah. When he arrived at the synagogue, he would recite the blessing over Torah again. They asked him why. So he says this is not a blessing in vain, just as someone who goes up to the Torah recites a blessing over the Torah, even though he already recited the blessing over Torah in the morning. The Rashba himself already comments on this—or actually the Tosafist known as the Rid comments on it—that apparently Rashi understood that this wasn’t a matter of some kind of interruption, because otherwise he had a simple answer: there was an interruption, and therefore he blesses again. No—there is no interruption, and nevertheless it isn’t a blessing in vain. Why? So the Emek Berakhah, in section 1, explains this same principle of the Rabbi of Brisk, with various implications. And he basically says that interruptions are relevant with regard to obligations. I’m obligated now; I did it; I stopped; I returned to my obligation—there was an interruption, so I need to bless again. But if the blessing is over the act of Torah study, then every time I engage in an act of Torah study I can bless, and it isn’t a blessing in vain. Notice: this is a bit the opposite of the Beit Yosef we saw. In other words, the claim is actually—yes, precisely the opposite, even more than with sukkah. Every time I engage in Torah study I can bless, and it won’t be a blessing in vain, even though there was no interruption. With sukkah, after all, you need some interruption in order to bless again.

[Speaker B] The direction is the opposite. So what exempts you from blessing again? What? Why don’t I have to bless? Why, if I want—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s a big question. Rashi says it’s not a blessing in vain, but I don’t know whether he’s really telling you that every single time you need to bless again. Maybe. I don’t know.

[Speaker B] It’s not a blessing in vain—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] that doesn’t mean you have to bless?

[Speaker C] No.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I saw this Rashi only secondhand, just the description of what Rashi said.

[Speaker C] But if you make an interruption there’s no problem. But then maybe you’d need to bless again—someone who studies page after page…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No. If you study continuously, I assume that’s not… certainly not. If you stopped for a moment, that isn’t considered an interruption in the laws of blessings, and still you would need to bless again when you suddenly engage in a different kind of study—for example, you go to read Torah in the synagogue.

[Speaker B] Here he was talking about that kind of interruption—he blessed at home and then went to the study hall.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He had the interruption of the trip, yes. But apparently that isn’t an interruption in the laws of blessings, in his view. Why? That may already connect to what we’ll talk about in a moment.

[Speaker C] Why would he do it only once a day? If he went home and came back to the study hall again, did he bless again? No, I don’t know—I assume so.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I know he did it twice. I don’t know how many more times than that. It seems to me from there that this is a general principle, that it’s not about interruption. That’s how it appears in Emek Berakhah there. Fine. For our purposes, I want us to summarize because we’re nearing the end. What we see here, in practice, is that there are many opinions among the later authorities. Several later authorities talk about this, and all in the same style. The Even HaEzel, in a letter to the Dvar Avraham in section 16, says the same thing as the Gilyonei Masekhta and the other sources. Emek Berakhah, the Rabbi of Brisk, his father Rabbi Chaim—they all say the same thing: this is a blessing over the act of Torah study, not a blessing over commandments, perhaps even a blessing of thanksgiving for the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Torah. What does that really mean? It basically means that in Torah, in Torah study, there is some dimension beyond the dimension of commandment. Why specifically in Torah study did they define a blessing of this type—a blessing over the act of study and not over the commandment of study? Because apparently in the commandment of Torah study there are two layers. There is the ordinary commandment, which is indeed a commandment. Beyond that, there is significance in the very study of Torah even if it were not a commandment. Unlike other commandments, which perhaps if we had not been commanded we would not have done, and perhaps there would have been no point in doing them—but in Torah study there is some special significance beyond what we are commanded. I’ll show you. Look in the Talmud in Menachot. I said this idea once in a talk I gave here in the synagogue. The Talmud in Menachot says as follows—a very interesting Talmudic passage, from which maybe we can see this nicely. “It was taught: Rabbi Yose says…” Fine, this is half a quote from the Mishnah. “Rabbi Ami said: From the words of Rabbi Yose we learn that even if a person studied only one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, he has fulfilled the commandment, ‘This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.’ Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: even if a person recited only Shema in the morning and in the evening, he has fulfilled ‘it shall not depart.’ And it is forbidden to say this in the presence of ignoramuses. But Rava said: it is a commandment to say it in the presence of ignoramuses.” On the simple level, one could explain “forbidden” and “a commandment” this way: forbidden because they’ll make do with Shema morning and evening; a commandment so as to comfort them that if all they did today was Shema morning and evening, know that you still fulfilled your obligation—it is enough; you fulfilled “it shall not depart.” But maybe there is something beyond that here. “It is a commandment to say it in the presence of ignoramuses,” because the dispute here is whether, when I say such a thing about Torah study—that with Shema morning and evening one fulfills one’s obligation—is that a statement that lowers the value of Torah study or raises the value of Torah study? Is it a statement that motivates people to study, or on the contrary prevents them from studying? You can understand it as the opposite—it doesn’t motivate; fine, Shema morning and evening is enough, we won’t need to study. Or you can say no: why indeed were we not commanded beyond Shema morning and evening? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, expects us to do it without being commanded. This is such a fundamental matter. In general there are two kinds—this is a major principle in many places—there are two kinds of Torah-level matters, things that the Torah expects us to do even though we are not commanded. One type is less important matters. They aren’t important enough to establish a commandment for them. So they tell you: listen, there’s value in it; whoever does it is praiseworthy, but it isn’t obligatory. Another type is exactly the opposite. It is so fundamental that the Torah did not want to command us about it, so that we would do it as one who is commanded and acts. Because in these matters, one who is not commanded and acts is greater, as the simple reasoning always says, that one who is not commanded and acts is greater. So there are things where still, one who is not commanded and acts is greater, and the Torah deliberately does not want to command us. Because these are things that we ourselves are supposed to understand are so fundamental that we do them not because we were commanded. We do them because it is obvious. Without them—because they are our life and the length of our days—without them there is no Jew. One cannot be a servant of God without them. It makes no sense to command that. If you command it, it interferes. Because if you command it, then in the end you cause me to do it as one who is commanded and acts; you neutralize the voluntary dimension in the matter. An example is Shema… there are many things. Fine, Torah study is a prominent example, but there is also the commandment of repentance, for example.

[Speaker C] Torah study, or Shema…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, only Shema morning and evening. So then how do you explain what neglect of Torah study is? Neglect of Torah study is a great sin, at the top of them all—that I didn’t study for a few minutes when I could have studied. Why? I did Shema morning and evening; I fulfilled “it shall not depart.” What’s the problem? Where does this whole idea of neglect of Torah study come from? Neglect of Torah study does not concern the commandment of Torah study. Neglect of Torah study is not neglect of the commandment of Torah study. Neglect of Torah study is neglect of Torah study itself, the object of Torah study, not the commandment of Torah study. That’s what we said before. So over this we recite the blessing over Torah: we bless over the object of Torah study, not over the commandment of Torah study. There is another dimension in Torah study—the study itself, not the commandment to study. And that is the concept of neglect of Torah study. Neglect of Torah study belongs only to that plane; it does not belong to the halakhic plane, the plane of obligation, where you canceled a positive commandment. You did not cancel any positive commandment. You canceled something more important than a positive commandment. You were supposed to understand on your own that this is what needs to be done even without being commanded.

[Speaker C] Certainly this thing exists, where it’s less—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] important—because of all the things that are beyond the letter of the law. We were not commanded because it probably doesn’t cross the threshold of necessity. But whoever does it is praiseworthy. I don’t know—for example, overeating. Nachmanides includes that in “you shall be holy.” Right? Why not? Why weren’t we commanded not to eat excessively? Because fine, it’s not right, but it’s not at a level where the Torah demands it. It isn’t a formal transgression. All kinds of things—there are thousands of examples. All things that are somehow beyond the letter of the law, not quite important enough to enter Jewish law. I said the commandment of repentance is a good example. That’s the explanation of the contradiction in Maimonides. In the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides counts the commandment of repentance and also confession, while in Sefer HaMitzvot he counts only confession. So we gave an explanation for that, and I think the reason is very simple. In the Mishneh Torah he speaks about what one is obligated to do. What one is obligated to do—certainly one is also obligated to repent. In Sefer HaMitzvot he speaks about what the Torah commands one to do. The Torah does not command one to repent. But one still must do it, even without the Torah commanding it. Fine, let’s continue the Talmudic passage. The Talmud says like this—now look at something interesting. “Ben Dama, the nephew of Rabbi Yishmael, asked Rabbi Yishmael: As for someone like me, who has learned the entire Torah, what is the law regarding studying Greek wisdom? He read to him this verse: ‘This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall meditate on it day and night’; go and find an hour that is neither day nor night, and study Greek wisdom then.” Now here there is a question, an interesting one. A student in Yeruham once asked me this. He said: what do you mean? If Ben Dama knew the entire Torah, how did he not know the answer to this question? And this too is part of Torah, no? And if you finished the whole Torah, there’s nothing more to do? Here you are, asking a question—you still don’t know something. So what do you mean telling me you learned the entire Torah? So maybe now we’ll complete precisely the final point that he was lacking. But the simple meaning isn’t like that. It continues what we said earlier. The meaning is: he knows everything written in the Torah. What is written in the Torah is Shema morning and evening. The question is whether there is value in doing more than what is written in the Torah—studying Torah for the sake of Torah study, not for the sake of fulfilling the commandment of Torah study—beyond that, and how far that goes. At that point can I study Greek wisdom or can’t I? Rabbi Yishmael tells him: there is such a value.

[Speaker C] But what does “someone like me” mean?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? “Someone like me who has learned the entire Torah.” What does that mean? There’s nothing left for me to learn, so why should I continue? The question is how far it goes… He too knows there is an obligation beyond Shema morning and evening; there is also the commandment of knowing Torah—we won’t get into that. But still he asks: how far? Is it now already permitted, after I’ve finished everything—after all this is only a value, not the commandment—am I allowed to study Greek wisdom? He told him no, you are forbidden. Then Rav Nachman bar Shmuel comes and disputes… what does he say there? “Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, as Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: this verse is neither obligation nor commandment, but a blessing.” Meaning: neither obligation nor commandment, but a blessing. He says it is not a commandment and it is also not an obligation. Don’t derive from here even the Torah-level value, the obligation. It is only a blessing. The Holy One, blessed be He, knew that Joshua was dear to Him and blessed him that it should not depart from his mouth. Now look at the continuation. “The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: words of Torah should not be upon you as an obligation, yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.” What does that mean? It should not be upon you as an obligation, yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them? So he says: obligation—it is not an obligation. Shema morning and evening is enough. But nevertheless, you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them. Because there is Torah study, and there is the commandment of Torah study. Therefore this also explains Rabbi Yishmael—it’s the same Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Yishmael says to Ben Dama: know that you must continue learning even beyond that, that you are not permitted to exempt yourself from it, even though it is not an obligation, even though it is beyond Shema morning and evening. And this also resolves the Talmud—after all all the medieval authorities ask this—the Talmud in Berakhot brings a dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that seems to go to opposite extremes. The Talmud—I didn’t copy this for you on the page—the Talmud says there: “‘And you shall gather your grain’—what does this come to teach? Conduct yourself in the way of the world;” these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. In any case, otherwise according to “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth,” we should be learning all the time, so when would we work? So he says: conduct yourself in the way of the world. Rabbi Yishmael is the liberal one. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says: is it possible for a person to plow at plowing time and sow…? And who disputes him? Rabbi Yishmael—who there said that you cannot exempt yourself from it, wait a second. He says: no problem, but conduct yourself in the way of the world; work, do what you need. They seem simply to reverse their positions from one extreme to the other. Why? Because in fact they are not really disagreeing. The commandment is Shema morning and evening. The obligation is Shema morning and evening. Beyond that there is a Torah-level value—meaning, a Torah-level matter—to do this all day. You are not permitted to separate yourself from it. Of course, if you need to work, earn a living—that’s a different issue. But in principle you are not permitted to separate yourself from it for even a moment. Not because of the commandment of Torah study, but because of what Torah study means, what the whole idea of Torah study is. That is the important point, and that is what we recite the blessing over Torah for. The blessing over Torah is not recited over the commandment of Torah study. And why is the commandment of Torah study exceptional among all the commandments? Because of this. In the commandment of Torah study, the fundamental issue is not the obligation at all. The obligation is just some minimum so that there won’t be anyone left with absolutely nothing. But that is not the point at all. Someone who studies Torah just for the sake of obligation—that’s not it, not it at all. You need to study Torah because studying Torah is the life of a Jew; there is no such thing without it. And therefore the blessing over Torah is also not a blessing over commandments. We are not blessing over the commandment at all; we are blessing over the matter itself. So then what kind of blessing is it? It can’t be a blessing over commandments, because there is no commandment here. So what is it? We thank the Holy One, blessed be He, for having given us such a thing, something whose greatness we ourselves understand, and therefore we study it even without a commandment. Precisely because of this awareness of how important it is, there is, as it were, a blessing over benefit. Where do we ever find a blessing over benefit on a commandment? we asked. It’s not on a commandment; it’s on the study. One can enjoy the study. It’s not “commandments were not given for enjoyment,” and therefore it says: “Please make the words of Your Torah sweet in our mouths.” Why “make sweet”? The Shelah, in his introduction, as is well known, says: what does “make sweet” mean? It means study not for its own sake—we study just for the enjoyment, not because of the commandment, not like servants. So people challenged him on that. And he says: that’s a big mistake. Why? Because every morning we say: “Please make sweet, Lord our God…” What do you mean? In the end, what are you answering them? Isn’t that not for its own sake? No. Shema morning and evening you do as a servant, and therefore it is acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, because Shema morning and evening is a yoke. That must be done—there is no less than that. But Torah study is not that at all. Torah study is not the commandment of Torah study at all. It applies to women, to everyone. Anyone who understands what Torah is must study Torah. And anyone who understands what Torah is cannot study Torah without first thanking the Holy One, blessed be He, for having received the Torah. That is what shows that you understand what Torah is. That is what shows that when you study beyond Shema morning and evening, you understand what you are studying. Therefore it is impossible to study Torah without first reciting the blessing over Torah. The blessing over Torah is a blessing of thanksgiving that is sort of like a blessing over commandments, but it is over something that is not a commandment, and that turns it into a blessing of thanksgiving. Therefore it is always

[Speaker B] getting mixed up

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] for us between

[Speaker B] blessing over benefit and the blessing over Torah, and in practice almost all the medieval authorities can be brought under that umbrella, under that heading. Have a peaceful Sabbath.