Torah and Torah Study, Lesson 13

Table of Contents

• General Overview
• The commandment of Torah study versus Torah study and neglect of Torah study
• “Expound and receive reward,” the blessing over the Torah, and seeing study as an intrinsic value
• “If you walk in My statutes”: study for the sake of study versus study in order to observe and fulfill
• The blessing over the Torah, women, and Torah study beyond the formal obligation
• Commandments grounded in reason, minors, and Noachides
• The passage in Menachot 99: “it shall not depart,” the unlearned masses, Greek wisdom, and the obligation of study
• The contradiction between Menachot and Berakhot and its solution through the distinction
• Tisha B’Av, Yom Kippur, cessation, and festival

Summary

General Overview

The speaker distinguishes between the commandment of Torah study in its formal sense and Torah study as an independent value and occupation. He explains that neglect of Torah study is not necessarily the neglect of a positive commandment, but rather a failure to understand the essence that requires study beyond the minimum. He grounds this distinction in the passages in Nedarim and Menachot and in Rashi’s comments at the beginning of Bechukotai, and uses it to interpret the blessing over the Torah as a blessing of praise rather than a blessing over commandments, including implications for women, minors, and commandments grounded in reason. In the end he connects the discussion to Tisha B’Av through a comparison to Yom Kippur, and presents Tisha B’Av as a “festival day” of encounter that leads to a broad cessation, to the point of suspending Torah study.

The commandment of Torah study versus Torah study and neglect of Torah study

The Talmud in Nedarim says that one who swears that he will study this chapter has “made a great vow to the God of Israel,” and asks how such an oath can take effect, since he is already sworn from Mount Sinai regarding the commandment of Torah study. It answers that this follows Rabbi Shimon, according to whom one fulfills his obligation with one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening. The Ran explains that the obligation to study “all the time” is learned from an exposition of “and you shall teach them diligently to your children,” and is not part of the core law of the commandment; therefore an oath can take effect on something learned by exposition. But according to the Rosh and the printed commentary attributed to Rashi, it seems that the commandment of Torah study really is one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, and everything beyond that is optional. The speaker asks how that fits with the charge of “neglect of Torah study” if reciting Shema morning and evening is enough, and concludes that neglect of Torah study is not the neglect of the positive commandment of Torah study, but neglect of the Torah itself and of the understanding that there is a need to study as much as possible.

The speaker argues that the commandment of Torah study in the halakhic sense can be minimal, but beyond that one is required to “study Torah” not in order to fulfill an obligation, but because of the value of Torah itself. Someone who comes to learning “for the sake of the commandment” will not grow in learning. He explains that an approach that reduces study to a formal commandment leads a person to settle for the minimum, whereas Torah study requires study for its own sake—“its neglect is its fulfillment”—and in this way the concept of neglect of Torah study is defined as a demand concerning one’s attitude toward the essence, not merely as a straightforward positive obligation.

“Expound and receive reward,” the blessing over the Torah, and seeing study as an intrinsic value

Rabbi Israel Salanter explains the words of the Sages that the sons of Torah scholars do not themselves become Torah scholars “because they did not first bless over the Torah,” by saying that certain Torah scholars viewed learning only as a means to know what to do, and therefore treated it like “preparations for a commandment,” over which no blessing is recited. He explains the statement “The stubborn and rebellious son never was and never will be; so why was it written? Expound it and receive reward” as a principle teaching that Torah study is a goal in itself and not merely a means to action. That is why a passage was written that never comes into practical application: to establish the value of study for the sake of study. From this the speaker concludes that the blessing over the Torah is understood better as a blessing of praise for the gift of the Torah and the ability to engage in it, and not necessarily as a blessing over commandments for fulfilling a formal obligation.

“If you walk in My statutes”: study for the sake of study versus study in order to observe and fulfill

Rashi at the beginning of Parashat Bechukotai explains “If you walk in My statutes” as “that you should toil in Torah,” and distinguishes between “and keep My commandments” as study in order to observe and fulfill, and “and do them” as actually performing the commandments. The speaker explains that toiling in Torah means study for the sake of study and not in order to know what to do, and that the verse specifically appears in the language of promises—“If… then I will give your rains in their season”—rather than in the language of command. That strengthens his claim that the main dimension of Torah study was intentionally left outside the framework of formal halakhic obligation. He presents this as part of a broader tendency for Torah study to be “equal to them all” and not just “another clause” within the 613 commandments, so that it should not be done merely out of a desire to discharge one’s obligation.

The blessing over the Torah, women, and Torah study beyond the formal obligation

The Shulchan Arukh obligates women in the blessing over the Torah, and the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah ask how women can recite the blessing if they are not obligated in the commandment of Torah study, suggesting that they are obligated to learn the commandments they need in order to fulfill them. The speaker argues that this reasoning itself shows that study in order to know what to do is not “the commandment of Torah study,” because if women are obligated in that and yet are still exempt from the commandment of Torah study, then Torah study clearly contains an additional component of study as an intrinsic value. He grounds his position that the blessing over the Torah is a blessing of praise for the Torah and not a blessing over commandments on the obligation, and therefore its requirement for women is understandable even without tying it to the formal obligation of Torah study.

The speaker presents a distinction according to which the “commandment of Torah study” according to the Rosh and his camp is a minimum, such as reciting Shema morning and evening. From that he argues that women are exempt from the formal minimum, but from the perspective of Torah study as a value principle there is no reason to exempt them. He concludes that in his view women “are absolutely obligated to study the entire Torah from beginning to end, with the medieval authorities (Rishonim), the later authorities (Acharonim), and everything”—not as a halakhic obligation of command, but as an obligation that follows from understanding the essence of Torah. On that plane there is no difference between men and women.

Commandments grounded in reason, minors, and Noachides

The speaker brings an argument from later authorities that commandments grounded in reason obligate minors “from the time they understand,” and explains this through a discussion of Noachides and age thresholds such as “from age 13 and from the moment he produced two pubic hairs” as a halakhic measure given to Jews. He cites the rule, “There is nothing that is forbidden to a Noachide and permitted to a Jew,” and explains that therefore, in matters where Noachides are obligated by reason, a Jewish minor must also be obligated as long as he understands; otherwise it would turn out that an eight-year-old Noachide is obligated while an eight-year-old Jew is exempt. He concludes that something based on command can be limited by who the command is addressed to, but something based on reason obligates anyone who understands. Therefore Torah study in its non-command dimension addresses anyone who understands its value.

The passage in Menachot 99: “it shall not depart,” the unlearned masses, Greek wisdom, and the obligation of study

In Menachot 99, Rabbi Ami derives from the words of Rabbi Yosei that one who studies one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening fulfills “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth,” and Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says that even reciting Shema morning and evening is enough. The speaker explains that the point is not just halakhic leniency, but setting the commandment of Torah study as an extremely small formal minimum in order to highlight that real Torah study is greater than the framework of “commandment” alone. The Talmud says, “This matter may not be said before the unlearned masses,” and against that it brings, “Rava said: it is a commandment to say it before the unlearned masses.” The speaker explains that the tension stems from concern that an unlearned person will latch onto the minimum and fail to understand the demand for study beyond the commandment.

Ben Dama asks Rabbi Yishmael, “Someone like me, who has learned the entire Torah—what is the law regarding studying Greek wisdom?” Rabbi Yishmael answers, “Go and find an hour that is neither of the day nor of the night, and in it study Greek wisdom,” on the basis of “it shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall meditate on it day and night.” The speaker explains that the question assumes “Torah” in the sense of knowing Jewish law, while the answer sets forth a principle of continuous engagement as a demand of Torah study beyond the halakhic minimum. The Talmud says, “And this disagrees with Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani… this verse is neither an obligation nor a commandment but a blessing,” and the speaker explains that Rabbi Yishmael does not disagree with Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai’s words about the minimum. Rather, he disagrees with someone who empties the verse of any binding significance as a matter of value. He concludes with, “A teaching from the school of Rabbi Yishmael: words of Torah should not be upon you as an obligation, yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them,” as a distinction between “not an obligation” in the sense of not being a halakhic burden, and the inability to exempt oneself from the value-demand to engage in Torah.

The contradiction between Menachot and Berakhot and its solution through the distinction

In Berakhot it is said concerning “and you shall gather in your grain” that according to “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth,” one might have thought “perhaps these words are to be taken literally”; therefore the verse says, “and you shall gather in your grain”—conduct yourself in them according to the way of the world; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, by contrast, asks, “What will become of Torah?” and sets out a model in which “when Israel do the will of the Omnipresent, their labor is done by others.” The speaker presents the contradiction as follows: in Menachot Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai is satisfied with reciting Shema, while in Berakhot he demands total devotion to study; and Rabbi Yishmael in Menachot presents a constant demand, while in Berakhot he permits worldly occupation. He resolves this by saying that there is no dispute about the definition of the commandment of Torah study as a formal minimum. The dispute in Berakhot concerns the degree of obligation and the limits of the “value” of Torah study beyond the commandment: to what extent work and ordinary worldly conduct exempt one from the demand for constant engagement.

Tisha B’Av, Yom Kippur, cessation, and festival

The speaker notes that the Talmud compares Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur and says, “The only difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur is that in the case of this one, its doubt is forbidden, and in the case of that one, its doubt is permitted,” but stresses that the Sefer HaChinukh writes that the essence of the days is different even if the laws are similar. He shows that on Yom Kippur the Torah repeatedly links “you shall afflict yourselves” with “you shall do no labor,” and that “a Sabbath of complete rest” includes cessation from pleasures and not only from labor. Maimonides calls the section of laws “The Laws of the Rest of the Tenth Day,” and defines one positive commandment to cease from labor, and another positive commandment to cease from eating and drinking, adding the prohibitions of washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and marital relations as commandments of cessation by force of “a Sabbath of complete rest.”

In Ta’anit 29 it is said that on Tisha B’Av it was decreed against our forefathers that they would not enter the Land, and the speaker emphasizes “merit is brought about on a meritorious day and guilt on a guilty day,” and “You cried a baseless cry, and I will establish for you a crying for generations,” as the basis for a day that repeatedly becomes a “guilty” day. He presents Tisha B’Av as a day defined as a “festival” by force of “He has proclaimed against me a festival to break my young men,” and explains “festival” as a term of meeting and encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, so that the encounter can be realized for good or for bad depending on the deeds of the Jewish people. From this he explains that cessation results from encounter: on an ordinary festival one ceases from labor; on Yom Kippur one ceases both from labor and from pleasures; and on Tisha B’Av there is a broad cessation, to the point of prohibiting Torah study as a shutting down of life.

The speaker notes that the Mishnah in Pesachim makes labor on Tisha B’Av dependent on local custom, and Tosafot ask why this is not counted as a difference between it and Yom Kippur. He brings sources from the early Ashkenazic authorities, such as the Raavyah, Terumat HaDeshen, and the Mordechai, showing that the labor people had the custom not to do on Tisha B’Av was understood in terms of the 39 primary categories of labor and their derivatives, as part of understanding the day as a “festival” that demands cessation. He concludes that Tisha B’Av is perceived as a day of comprehensive cessation: no pleasures, no labors, and no Torah study—“absolute cessation”—because of the depth of the encounter and the crisis contained within it.

First of all, I want to finish what I started last time, and if there’s any time left maybe I’ll say a little something about Tisha B’Av that connects somewhat to our topic—but that’s only half an excuse. I’ll begin with what we ended with last time. I spoke a bit about the difference—or I distinguished—between the commandment of Torah study and Torah study itself. And the claim was—and the Talmud in Nedarim, for example, says that someone who swears that he will study this chapter, that is a serious vow, a vow to the God of Israel. A vow, an oath—those terms switch around in the Talmud, as is well known—and it’s obviously talking about an oath. Then the Talmud asks: but he is already sworn from Mount Sinai; there is a commandment of Torah study. The Talmud answers that this follows Rabbi Shimon, who says that with one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, one fulfills one’s obligation. So the Ran there says: yes, clearly there is an obligation to study all the time, not just one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, but that obligation is derived from exposition—“and you shall teach them diligently to your children,” that the words of Torah should be sharp in your mouth—not from the core law, not from Torah law itself, not from the commandment as it exists in the regular Torah-law sense. And therefore the oath takes effect on that. The novelty is that an oath takes effect on things derived from exposition. But the Rosh and the commentator there—the one printed there as Rashi—it sounds as though the Talmud there should be read literally: the commandment of Torah study really is one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, and everything beyond that is voluntary. Therefore, if you swear that you’ll study a certain additional chapter beyond the one in the morning and the one in the evening, that’s an oath concerning an optional matter, not an oath on something already commanded, and therefore the oath takes effect. And from here a conception emerges—this really is the straightforward meaning of Rabbi Shimon’s words in the Talmud there—because what is it coming to teach us? “That if he wants, he can exempt himself with the morning and evening recitation of Shema; therefore the oath takes effect on him.” Meaning: he can exempt himself from the commandment of Torah study with the morning and evening Shema, and therefore if he swears to study an additional chapter, that’s an oath on an optional matter.

And then I asked: so how does this fit with the concept of neglecting Torah study, when they come to a person and say: why did you have time in which you could have studied and didn’t study? They hold a person accountable for neglect of Torah study in the heavenly court, and so on. What’s the problem? After all, with morning and evening Shema you exempt yourself; you’re not obligated beyond that at all. So I say: even if I accept that the rest is a non-obligatory commandment in the sense that you fulfill something if you do it, clearly the concept of neglecting Torah study does not apply to that kind of commandment. Neglect of Torah study means neglect of a positive commandment. If it’s only a commandment that is fulfilled when done, then if you didn’t do it, there is no neglect of a positive commandment. Can you fulfill the commandment of Torah study by means of the blessings of Shema and the text of the prayer, as it were? The blessings in prayer? Shema is a verse. Yes, but even though it’s said in the framework of another commandment? Yes—it’s the commandment of Shema. If you want to say it’s like “bundling commandments together” in the Jerusalem Talmud, after all it says there that the commandment of Shema is by virtue of Torah study and not a full independent commandment. That depends how you understand the commandment of Shema itself. The simple understanding is that it is accepting the yoke of heaven, but in the Jerusalem Talmud it sounds as though it is by virtue of the ordinary commandment of Torah study. And then it’s not incidental; it’s Torah study—it is the commandment of Torah study on the Torah level.

What? That they’re not two different commandments? That Shema and Torah study are not two different commandments; Shema is simply the minimal definition of Torah study. That is not the accepted approach, but there is such an opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud. In any case, yes—if you intend by that to fulfill your obligation, meaning the commandment of Torah study, then you also fulfill the commandment of Torah study. And perhaps if commandments do not require intention, then you wouldn’t even need that. You recited Shema in the morning and evening, and you fulfilled your obligation. Fine. So what is this concept of neglecting Torah study? How is there any claim against someone who didn’t study if he already recited morning and evening Shema?

So I said that I think Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s claim—he’s the father of the position that one fulfills the obligation with morning and evening Shema—the claim is that this is the formal definition of the commandment. But beyond the formal commandment, in the realm of Torah study a person is expected to study Torah—not the commandment of Torah study. I told the guys in the yeshiva in Yerucham that one of the great problems in the Torah world is that people are very punctilious about the commandment of Torah study. You’re coming for the sake of the commandment. Someone who comes for the sake of the commandment will get nowhere. Meaning, you have to study because you understand what Torah is and you want to rejoice in Torah—not because of the commandment of Torah study, not in order to fulfill the obligation of the commandment of Torah study. If all you want is to fulfill the commandment, then recite Psalms or I don’t know, study some daily page or other—but that’s not how you grow. People who go to study because it’s a commandment—you need to study in order to study, not for the commandment.

So this whole business is, in this respect, rooted even in Jewish law: the commandment of Torah study really is morning and evening Shema. Everything beyond that is Torah study, not the commandment of Torah study. And a person is also expected to study Torah. In a moment I’ll discuss what exactly “expected” means here. But it’s not within the framework of the formal Jewish law of the commandment of Torah study. And the concept of neglecting Torah study branches off from the concept of Torah study itself; it is not neglect of a positive commandment. Neglect of Torah study is not neglect of the positive commandment of Torah study. Neglect of Torah study means—the nullification is its fulfillment, as it were—it is the nullification of Torah, not the nullification of the commandment of Torah study. In other words, someone who neglects Torah means that he doesn’t really understand that there is something to studying Torah as much as one can; he thinks it’s a commandment like any other commandment, and therefore he is satisfied with morning and evening Shema.

This is what I mentioned, I think—something Rabbi Israel Salanter writes. The Talmud says: why is it common that the sons of Torah scholars do not become Torah scholars? There are several explanations there. One of them is: because they did not first bless over the Torah. They did not recite the blessing over the Torah. So he says: can such a thing be? People who invest all their time and energy in Torah surely value Torah, and somehow when it comes to the blessing over the Torah they cut corners? They don’t recite the blessing over the Torah? What is the meaning of that? Why would Torah scholars not recite the blessing over the Torah? What? Maybe it means before they established it as an obligation? What? I said: according to Nachmanides, it is Torah-level. According to Nachmanides, the blessing over the Torah is Torah-level; it is not a rabbinic enactment. And according to Rashba there—you’re saying, then these Torah scholars are evidence for Nachmanides or for those who say it is not Torah-level. Fine—they held that way, those Torah scholars held that way.

So he says: no, that’s not the point. He brings the Talmudic discussion of the stubborn and rebellious son, where it says that a stubborn and rebellious son never was and never will be, and why was it written? “Expound it and receive reward.” As I mentioned—expound it and receive reward. So he asks: did we need those three verses? We already finished the rest of the Torah? What is the point of adding three verses just for “expound it and receive reward”? So he says the Talmud must be understood differently: those three verses were added to teach us the idea of “expound it and receive reward.” In other words, they give you a passage that never was and never will be, that will never actually happen, in order to teach you—and this too is something you need within the framework of the commandment of Torah study—in order to teach you, exactly, that study is an end in itself. It is not a means for knowing what to do. Here, the case of the stubborn and rebellious son never was and never will be, so it’s not for doing; you won’t need it in order to know what to do. And that of course becomes the model for teaching you regarding all the other passages that can indeed be actualized—that there too, the commandment of Torah study is not only so as to know what to do, but the commandment of Torah study is a value in itself.

And about that he says: those Torah scholars who do not first bless over the Torah, who did not recite the blessing over the Torah, he argues—he brings a Talmud in Menachot where it says that on anything that is not the completion of the commandment one does not recite a blessing. That means preparatory acts for a commandment—you do not bless over them, like building a sukkah or something like that. Why? Because that is only preparation for a commandment. There is no commandment to build the sukkah; the commandment is to sit in the sukkah. In order to have a sukkah, you build a sukkah. So over that one does not recite a blessing. And those Torah scholars did not first bless over the Torah—they did not recite the blessing over the Torah because they viewed the commandment of Torah study as not being a value in itself; rather Torah study itself was not a value in itself, but a means. A means to know what to do. And over preparatory acts for a commandment one does not recite a blessing. Someone who views Torah that way—his sons will not become Torah scholars. Meaning, he does not understand the significance of the commandment of Torah study. And therefore his claim is really that it is a value, a value in itself.

Now, obviously “a value in itself” does not mean saying the verse of Shema in the morning and in the evening. That is not the point. Obviously the intention is to study the entire Torah as much as you can. And the value is knowing Torah—that is the value—not for the sake of the commandment of Torah study, but the meaning is to know Torah and to study Torah. What? To study and know Torah. And I mentioned the beginning of Parashat Bechukotai. Rashi at the beginning of Parashat Bechukotai—it says there as follows: “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments and perform them.” Right? “That you should labor in Torah”—that famous Rashi. So what are “if you walk in My statutes,” “keep My commandments,” and “perform them”? What are these three things? So Rashi says: “If you walk in My statutes”—could this mean fulfillment of the commandments? When it says “and keep My commandments and perform them,” fulfillment of the commandments has already been stated. So how do I interpret “if you walk in My statutes”? That you should labor in Torah. What does it mean that you should labor in Torah? It means to study Torah—that is, not to fulfill the commandments. “And keep My commandments”—be laboring in Torah in order to keep and fulfill, as it says, “and you shall learn them and keep them to do them.” That is “keep My commandments.” And what is “and perform them”? That’s the actual performance, right? “And perform them” is actual observance.

So there are really three things here. “And perform them” is observance of the commandments. “Keep My commandments” is learning in order to be able to fulfill them, learning in order to know what to do. So what is “if you walk in My statutes”? Laboring in Torah. Learning for the sake of learning, not in order to know what to do. In order to know what to do—that is “keep My commandments.” Yes, “if you walk in My statutes” means learning for its own sake. I think that is the simple meaning here. And this is the Sages; Rashi here cites a midrash, Sifra.

So is that a commandment or not a commandment? What? Learning for the sake of learning. In that Rashi nothing is stated explicitly. Seemingly the opposite—here it sounds as though he learns it from the verse. But this verse is not a verse of commandment. “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments and perform them, then I will give your rains in their time,” and so on—these are promises. Precisely from this verse it sounds—maybe it even strengthens what I said earlier, I hadn’t thought of it—that indeed we are not dealing here with a commandment. We are dealing with… meaning, as if: if you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments and perform them, then I will give you such-and-such reward. But it does not say “keep My commandments and perform them and walk in My statutes” as a positive commandment. It does not appear as an imperative, as a positive commandment. Rather, it appears incidentally: if you do this, then “I will give your rains in their time.” Why? Because they are trying to persuade them to do it; this is not a command. If it were a halakhic command, then they wouldn’t explain to me that I should recite Grace after Meals because I’ll give you rains in their time. Rather, there is a commandment to recite Grace after Meals, period. In a situation where they are trying to persuade you, instead of giving a command they use persuasion—then perhaps this strengthens what I said earlier, that this thing is not truly included in the halakhic definition of the commandment of Torah study.

And then what comes out is that the commandment of Torah study in its essence is not for knowing what to do, nor for… rather, it is an end in itself. And this connects to everything we discussed earlier, both in Tanya and in Nefesh HaChaim, about the meaning of study as a kind of cleaving to the Holy One, blessed be He. In other words, it is itself a value; it is the way to cleave to the Holy One, blessed be He. The question then becomes: why is this not included in the count of the commandments? Why is it not included in the halakhic definition of the command? And the claim is that the Torah intentionally did not… I think I mentioned this too—that the Torah intentionally did not put this into the halakhic obligation because it does not want us to do it out of a desire to fulfill the obligation of the commandment of Torah study. On the contrary, it wants us to do it out of understanding the importance of what Torah is, what the meaning of studying Torah is—not out of responding to a command. If I’m not mistaken, I also mentioned that matchmaking excuse. So I also brought the example of character refinement and so on: there are things the Torah does not command because it does not want us to do them as one who is commanded and acts. In those things, precisely the one who is not commanded and acts is greater, and therefore in those areas the Torah is careful not to command.

So why does one recite the blessing over the Torah? In a moment we’ll get to why one recites the blessing over the Torah—maybe I’ll get to it now. So really, why does one recite the blessing over the Torah? It depends. There are halakhic authorities who even assume as obvious that it is a blessing over a commandment—the blessing over the Torah. Even though that’s a bit strange, because… the blessing over the Torah, in the simple meaning of the Talmud, and this is also how Nachmanides writes, is Torah-level. And in Maimonides himself there is a dispute how he understood it. Some say that according to him too it is Torah-level; some say not. He does not count it in his list of commandments. And the Sefer HaChinukh brings it together with Grace after Meals. So in the continuation of the discussion of Grace after Meals he discusses the blessing over the Torah. And Berakhot links the two and makes an a fortiori argument: if food requires a blessing afterward, then Torah too should require a blessing. But if this is a blessing over commandments, then it is a very good question why one recites a blessing over something that is not a commandment.

Now, of course, if this comes from exposition, or if it is a rabbinic commandment, or if it is a commandment fulfilled when done, then the question does not arise. One recites blessings also on commandments of that sort; that is not the point. I think it is not even such a commandment, because even for that you need a command. And the command means that it is not a positive command but rather a command that defines the thing as a commandment such that if you do it, you have done a commandment, and if not, then there is no neglect of a positive commandment. But still, you need some verse that serves as a source even for such a commandment, not only for an obligatory commandment. I think Torah study beyond “and you shall meditate on it day and night” is not a commandment at all—not only is it not an obligatory commandment, it is not even a commandment fulfilled when done. So then what is it? It is something that remains outside the halakhic definition, outside the definition of halakhic obligation. But not because it is less important. Is it like ethics? You could say that, but I’m saying it’s more than that, because I explained last time that the reason it was not commanded is that it is so fundamental that they did not want to put it in as one clause among the 613 commandments, because then you would view it as one of the 613 commandments. They wanted to tell you that Torah study is equal to all of them. So it is something much more foundational than this or that commandment among the 613.

And perhaps that is also why not every commandment was explicitly commanded to be fulfilled. What? How do we know that it must be fulfilled? Well, for example, from that verse: “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments and perform them.” And similarly, how do we know one should be humble? It says: “And the man Moses was very humble, more than any person on the face of the earth.” Fine—it’s a description of Moses our teacher. What does that have to do with me? There’s no command here to be humble. But the Torah does show us that this is a positive thing and that it is proper to do it. Torah study too—“and you shall teach them diligently to your children”—so there are verses that explain that this is an important thing. The question is what is included in the command to study Torah—that is the question. But that it is important—there you can bring a source.

But the wording of the blessing is “Who sanctified us with His commandments…” Yes. That’s why I’m asking why we recite it. “Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us…” Fine, it depends, yes, it depends which blessing—there are three. Some do and some don’t. Wait—the other possibility, which was raised more by later authorities, and can also be inferred from the medieval authorities (Rishonim), is that this is not a blessing over commandments but a blessing of praise. We praise the Holy One, blessed be He, for giving us the Torah and the possibility of studying Torah. Then there is of course no question why one recites the blessing over the Torah on this thing even though it is not a commandment, because it is not a blessing over commandments but a blessing of praise. On the contrary: if you understand how significant Torah is, that it is not just one of the 613 commandments, then it is all the more understandable why this was enacted—perhaps it is Torah-level—why there is an obligation to recite a blessing of praise over it. One praises the Holy One, blessed be He, for giving us this thing called Torah.

I’ll perhaps bring a practical implication. The Shulchan Arukh brings that women are obligated in the blessing over the Torah. And already the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah there ask why, since women are not obligated in the commandment of Torah study. Again, their assumption is not only that there is a commandment, but that the blessing is a blessing over commandments. So they say: fine, but if a woman is not obligated in the commandment of Torah study, then why does she recite the blessing over the Torah? Then they say there—why would one have thought that she is not obligated in the commandment of Torah study? What? Where does one get the very idea that she is not obligated in Torah study? The Talmud derives it; it is explicit in the Talmud. So the Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah bring there, and other later authorities write, that she must learn the commandments she needs in order to fulfill them—the woman. Somehow they seem to remain with the conception that this is a blessing over commandments, and they explain that in fact a woman too belongs to the commandment of Torah study because she must learn what she needs in order to fulfill, what she needs to know in order to fulfill.

Already from this answer—which seems problematic to me—you can understand something interesting for our purposes. Because it is obvious: if a woman has to learn what she needs to know in order to fulfill, and at the same time they tell me that a woman is exempt from the commandment of Torah study, then that means that such learning is not the commandment of Torah study. Learning in order to know what to do is not the commandment of Torah study. Men, who are obligated in the commandment of Torah study, are apparently obligated in something beyond learning in order to know what to do, because learning in order to know what to do a woman is also obligated in. So why does it say that a woman is exempt and a man is obligated in the commandment of Torah study? Clearly, then, Torah study contains something beyond learning in order to know. Again I go back to Rashi: labor in Torah means learning in order to fulfill, and actual fulfillment. The first thing is really the commandment of Torah study—“if you walk in My statutes,” that is the commandment of Torah study, or Torah study itself: that you should labor in Torah. And that is real Torah study.

So learning in order to fulfill is only preparation for a commandment. Over that, indeed, one does not recite a blessing. Learning in order to fulfill is a preparatory act for a commandment. In fact there is also a question on the Mishnah Berurah and Magen Avraham from the fact that one does not recite blessings over preparatory acts. According to them, this is a preparatory act. So they evidently think there is some kind of independent value in it as well, even though it is only in order to know what to do. But then from the other side the question rises again: so why do you tell me that women are exempt from the commandment of Torah study? After all, they are obligated exactly like men—simply they need to know what to do. Perhaps with time-bound positive commandments women can be exempt because those are not incumbent upon them. And I also do not need to learn what is incumbent on priests if I am not a priest, so I do not need to know that. If everyone only has to know what is incumbent on him, so that he will know what to do, then what is the problem? Then all of us are obligated in the commandment of Torah study.

Is there really an opinion that the obligation for men too is limited only to what that person is likely to need? No, I don’t think so. That is my claim: that in the case of a woman, there is an obligation to learn in order to know what to do. And if despite that it says that a woman is exempt from Torah study and a man is obligated, that implies that the definition of Torah study is not learning in order to know what to do. It means learning even things that are not practical. Learning, yes—even practical things, but not in order to know what to do. Rather, the learning is a value in itself. And why, if it is a value in itself, should a woman be exempt from it if it is a value in itself?

Now the point is this. That is the Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah; that is how they understand it, that this is a blessing over commandments. I think it is a blessing of praise. A blessing of praise means that you praise the Holy One, blessed be He, for having given us Torah, and therefore this does not have to be a blessing over the commandment of Torah study. It is a blessing not even over Torah study, but over the very possibility we have to study Torah. It is not a blessing recited immediately before performing an act. It is a blessing over the very possibility of studying Torah.

But now if I return to the original distinction I made between the commandment of Torah study and Torah study itself—then at least according to the Rosh and those who follow his approach, as I cited earlier, the commandment of Torah study in the formal halakhic sense is morning and evening Shema. And everything else is Torah study, right? Now when it says that women are exempt from the commandment of Torah study, from what are they exempt? Exempt from what men are obligated in, right? Morning and evening Shema. The Torah study embodied in morning and evening Shema. As for the recitation of Shema itself, that is another issue—it is time-bound—but I mean beyond that, they are exempt from that. But from Torah study—not from the commandment of Torah study—why would women obviously be exempt? They are fully obligated. In my view, women are absolutely obligated to learn the entire Torah from beginning to end, with the medieval authorities (Rishonim) and later authorities (Acharonim) and everything. Obligated—but obligated not in the halakhic sense, because from the commandment of Torah study they are exempt. But Torah study is a principle that obligates anyone who understands what Torah is. If a woman understands what Torah is, then she too is expected to act accordingly, exactly like men. The difference is a difference in halakhic obligations. But if this thing is not part of halakhic obligation, but rather the result of reason or of understanding what this thing means, then what difference is there between men and women? Whoever understands, understands.

In Ra’anana I spoke this way some time ago about minors. The claim is that you see in several places that commandments whose foundation is reason—minors are obligated in them. They are not punished for them, but they are obligated. They are not punished by a religious court, but they are obligated in them. They are not punished by heavenly law. And several later authorities explain this, each in his own style—there are several who discuss it. They argue that commandments founded in reason—some write it in a formal way. Among Noahides there are no measures. Quantitative measures, interpositions, partitions—these are laws given to Moses at Sinai; among Noahides, in the law of gentiles, there is no rule that from age thirteen and from the moment one produces two hairs one becomes obligated, because that is a measure. A measure is part of the law given to Israel. So among Noahides, from when are they obligated? From when they understand. That is what the Rosh and Chatam Sofer and others write—from when they understand they are obligated.

Now the Talmud says there is no case in which something is forbidden to a Noahide but permitted to an Israelite. “There is no matter that is forbidden to a Noahide and permitted to an Israelite,” a Talmud in Sanhedrin. Therefore, things that a Noahide is obligated in, a Jewish minor too will be obligated in. Otherwise you would end up with an eight-year-old Jew and an eight-year-old Noahide, and the Noahide would be obligated while the Jew would be exempt—and that cannot be. Therefore they argue that in those things, a Jew too, even while still a minor, as long as he understands, is obligated in them. And basically anything founded in reason is like that. I think behind these claims, beyond the formalism of comparing Israel and Noah, there is something more fundamental hidden there. The claim is that things founded in reason are not limited; whoever understands the reasoning is obligated by it. When there is a command, the command limits whom it addresses: you are commanded, you are not commanded. Time-bound positive commandments are founded in the Torah’s command. The Torah commanded men and did not command women, so women are exempt. Or it commanded adults and not minors, so minors are exempt. But things founded in reason—whoever understands them is expected to keep them. That applies to anyone who understands them. What difference does it make who?

Therefore gentiles too, by the way, beyond the seven Noahide commandments—if there are things founded in reason, then a gentile is obligated in them. Is the Sabbath founded in reason? No, I don’t think so. Rest one day a week—not that there should be rest, but not the Sabbath. The 39 categories of labor—the world does not do the 39 categories of labor; the world not going to work on the Sabbath is not the point here. Is there a rational basis that they are forbidden to observe rest? I recall something like that—not by reason that they must not rest. In any case, the point is that something founded in reason has no restrictions on who is obligated in it. Whoever understands is obligated. A command can be limited: the command says, I command you and not you. But something not connected to command, which is simply the result of reason—you expect a person who understands something to act according to the logic he understands. So that is expected of everyone. Where would there be an exemption? From the outset there is no obligation produced by a verse, so where could an exemption come from? The obligation is not born from there being a verse that obligates; the obligation is born from my understanding that this is how one ought to act. So why should someone who understands that this is how one ought to act nevertheless be exempt? He too is obligated—and anyone who understands is obligated. Right? Simple logic.

If so, my claim is that Torah too—if this is not just the commandment of Torah study but Torah study in the full sense—then here too there are no exemptions. Everyone is obligated. Therefore, for example, “and you shall teach them diligently to your children”—the commandment that a father teach his son, in my humble opinion, also rests on the son. There is a dispute between Rashi and Tosafot on this, by the way, regarding the laws of education in general, not specifically Torah study—regarding general education. But I say that in the commandment of Torah study, in my view, there is an obligation on the son too. And if not, then the father’s obligation is to make sure that the son understands what Torah is. Once the son understands, then he too is expected to do it—that is the point.

So if that is really so, then if I return to women, there is no reason to assume that women would be exempt from this thing. Women are exempt from the command—the command of Torah study was not addressed to them. But something whose basis is not command but understanding that this is how one ought to act—what is the difference then between woman and man? That’s why the result is exactly the opposite of what we would have said at first glance. Precisely that small formal matter—women are exempt from that, from morning and evening Shema. But the whole realm of Torah study, with medieval authorities (Rishonim) and later authorities (Acharonim), and analysis, and Kodashim and Taharot and everything—all that, women are obligated in just like men. There is no difference at all. In the second-to-last or maybe third-to-last Tzohar, I wrote an article about this.

So why not gentiles? Yes, yes, fine—even agreed. Why is a gentile not obligated? What? Why is a gentile not obligated in Torah study? He is forbidden because of “inheritance”—that’s another passage. You can now say that there is a command saying it is forbidden to him. That’s fine. If there is a command that exempts you or forbids you, that’s fine. But from the standpoint of the reasoning itself that obligates—the reasoning that obligates addresses everyone. And by the way, despite the fact that it is forbidden to him, gentiles did study Torah in various contexts, even after that time. The claim basically says that the concept of Torah study is far broader than one formal commandment among the 613. Because of the fundamental nature of this matter, the Torah specifically does not want to insert it into the framework. Torah study is equal to all of them, apparently. Yes, exactly. Let’s say. But it’s not written in the Torah. What? Torah study is equal to… No, that’s in the Sages. What did the Sages say? No—the Sages basically said exactly this; that’s the claim.

Now I want to show this through the Talmudic topic of the wording of the blessing. True, it includes “Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to study Torah.” But the blessing is not a blessing over commandments; it is a blessing that praises the Holy One, blessed be He, for the Torah—even though we also have some component of command within it. So the wording itself is not… according to the approaches that say this is not a blessing over commandments, the blessing is difficult in any case, regardless of what I’m saying. I think this is how it should be understood. There is a certain component that one is obligated to study, that it is a commandment to study, so there is “Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us.” And by the way, therefore there is also in some of the blessings—actually a very interesting point—in the Talmud itself you already see it. The halakhic authorities make a whole fuss about “Ahavah Rabbah” in the morning, that this too counts as the blessing over the Torah. The blessings before Shema, right? There is the blessing over the Torah that one recites in the morning and evening, “Who gave us His Torah,” and “Ahavah Rabbah” is the blessing before Shema, and that too is considered the blessing over the Torah.

Now this is interesting, because when I spoke about the Torah blessings of the morning, I said there that this is about Torah study, not about the commandment of Torah study. Perhaps that is the difference, why we need this duplication. Because the blessing before Shema is the blessing over the Torah regarding the commandment. And it seems almost reversed. Adjacent to Shema? Yes. Adjacent to Shema, which is the formal commandment of Torah study. Therefore Ahavah Rabbah is perhaps specifically the blessing over… perhaps that is really the blessing over the commandment, although again it’s not worded that way. The halakhic authorities say that in order to fulfill the obligation of the blessing over the Torah, one needs to study after prayer. Why don’t you fulfill the obligation with Shema itself? With Shema you do fulfill the obligation—it’s adjacent to Ahavah Rabbah. But the halakhic authorities write that one has to study after prayer. Those authorities are not following the approach I’m presenting here. That creates a difficulty for the Talmud in Nedarim, where the Talmud says that one fulfills the obligation with morning and evening Shema. It says one fulfills the obligation with Shema in… yes, that one fulfills the obligation from many places, but this is the approach of the halakhic authorities; I don’t know what to say about them. I think one need not. It may be that there is some reason not from that direction. Someone who says this is not the blessing over the Torah—not a blessing over commandments, sorry, but a blessing of praise—then why does one need to study afterward? In any case, here you are assuming only certain positions among the halakhic authorities that impose this requirement.

Maybe the educational tendency of rabbis in yeshivot and in general—which is really not proper—they encourage yeshiva students to study Torah and abandon women, and do absolutely nothing about this issue. What about women? That women do not study? Then they too should be laboring in Torah. I’m stating my own position here. Obviously it is not the accepted position. But I think there is good evidence here; I think this attitude ought to be much more accepted. Yes, no, more and more women are studying. They are studying. The question is whether women are obligated in the commandment of Torah study. That I don’t know anyone who says. And they teach them. Yes, fine, no problem. But the question is whether I am claiming that they are obligated like men. Obligated, again, not by halakhic obligation but by an extra-halakhic obligation. But men too—it’s an extra-halakhic obligation. So there is no difference. That is the claim.

Fine—on the face of it this seems to explain the interpretation that says there is a general commandment to study Torah, and then says regarding some minimum measure that one fulfills it with morning and evening Shema. Now you’ll say that in fact the whole commandment… This claim too seems very strained—to say that the whole commandment… that with morning and evening Shema not only is that the minimal measure, but with that the whole thing is done, and everything beyond that is an entirely different matter. It’s not at all connected to the commandment to study Torah? It is Torah study; it’s connected, it’s just not the defined requirement of the commandment. No—you could perhaps say there is a commandment to give charity, and one fulfills it with a third of a shekel a year, say, like in one of the sources—though that’s known to be the tithe, never mind—and suppose… and beyond that one is expected to give a tithe, but that’s altogether… but by that you would not be fulfilling the commandment to give charity, because you already fulfilled it. Here this is another matter: from reason, one ought to support the poor. Yes. What’s the problem? Because if it were like that, you would expect the commandment itself from the outset to be, I don’t know, the blessing before Shema or something like that, or that they would say… Beyond that there is the matter of the commandment of Torah study; beyond that there is the matter of Torah study. And I’ll sharpen this now even more.

As we discussed once, there is an interesting passage in Menachot, and I think the thread that runs through the whole passage is what I have said here. So let’s learn it for a moment. The Talmud says as follows in Menachot 99b: Rabbi Ami said: from the words of Rabbi Yosei we learn that even if a person studied only one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, he fulfilled the commandment, “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.” “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth”? “Shall not depart” is from Joshua, not from the Torah. Correct—it is a promise, not a commandment; we’ll see that at the end of the passage. But that is what he said: one chapter in the morning, one chapter in the evening—he fulfilled the commandment of “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.” Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: even if a person recited only morning and evening Shema, he fulfilled “shall not depart.” So first Rabbi Ami says one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says forget it—even that isn’t necessary. Shema, do you recite it? Enough. You don’t need anything else. This comes to be lenient, right? It’s basically a competition over who can empty the commandment of Torah study of all content.

Okay, so Rabbi Ami says fine, read a chapter in the morning and a chapter in the evening, good enough. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says forget it, even that isn’t necessary. You recite Shema? Also good. Everything’s fine. You don’t need even that. And he’s the one who wanted to destroy the world. Fine, wait, we’ll get to that too—he comes out and sees people there, we’ll get to that as well. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai disputes Rabbi Yishmael in Berakhot. Yes, yes, we’ll get to that—that contradiction between Berakhot and Menachot has already been discussed by many later authorities.

In any case, that’s what Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says. Now the Talmud says—maybe before what the Talmud says—why is it so important to these tannaim and amoraim to empty the commandment of Torah study of content? Maybe they don’t want to cause the Jewish people to sin? We’ll get to that in a moment—that’s the next line. Perhaps in order to define the segment of the commandment—just as in tzitzit the Talmud discusses how many strings are needed, one has to define it. No, I think there is a very clear tendency here, and therefore they also bring “shall not depart,” which is not a commandment. I think they mean to say what I said earlier. The commandment of Torah study does not interest anyone. The commandment of Torah study—you want the formal commandment? No problem. You recite Shema? Wonderful, you’re covered. But Torah study is something entirely different. They want to tell you that Torah study is far beyond one commandment among the 613 commandments. The commandment among the 613 is nothing; that you fulfill with almost nothing, with some formal act. They are magnifying the meaning of Torah study by taking it out of the category called “the commandment of Torah study.” As if to tell you: it’s not a commandment, forget that—there is Torah study.

Now see how this continues in the Talmud. Now the Talmud says: “And this matter is forbidden to be said before the ignorant.” Why is it forbidden to be said before the ignorant? So they won’t cut corners. So they won’t say, I do this in two minutes and that’s it. Why? But what’s the problem? They won’t believe it? They don’t need to believe it. Morning and evening Shema is what is required to fulfill the obligation? Excellent. Tell it to an ignorant person—he’ll recite morning and evening Shema and he’ll have fulfilled his obligation. What’s the concern? That he won’t study the rest? He doesn’t have to. So what’s the problem? Meaning, there is an expectation that you study. They are coming to tell you: there is something big here. The commandment of Torah study is a small side point within this subject. There is Torah study. An ignorant person won’t understand. If you tell him, look, the commandment of Torah study is morning and evening Shema, he’ll think that’s all that needs to be done. But clearly, in the subtext, a person is expected to study Torah—not to fulfill the commandment of Torah study. And about this Rava said: it is a commandment to say it before the ignorant. One says it is forbidden to say it before the ignorant, and now think whom I rule like—and Rava said: it is a commandment to say it before the ignorant. What’s the difference? Why does Rava say it is a commandment to say it before the ignorant? So that at least they will do the commandment. They’ll recite morning and evening Shema. If you tell them they need to study Torah all day and all night and every free moment, there’s no chance they’ll do it. Tell them that if they study one chapter in the morning and one in the evening they’ve fulfilled the commandment—maybe that they’ll manage. That’s one possibility, but I think it’s more than that.

Maybe you’re giving him a guilty conscience? No. The one who says it is a commandment to say it before the ignorant—what does he mean? Deliberately so they won’t study? The first one fears that perhaps they won’t study, and the second actually says: deliberately let’s make sure they don’t study. Why? Maybe he wants them to do the commandment when they study for the sake of the commandment. Maybe I’ll put it this way: it could be that saying it before the ignorant is precisely in order to tell them, to explain to them the meaning of Torah study. An ignorant person is someone who does not relate properly to Torah study. Like we discussed regarding Torah scholars whose sons do not become Torah scholars. So you have to explain to him what Torah study is. We said the commandment of Torah study is not just one commandment among the others. With commandments, you cut corners here and there. Here we’re talking about the root of everything. And in order to explain that, tell him exactly this point: forget it—if you recited Shema, as far as the commandment of Torah study goes, morning and evening Shema is enough. Why? So what about neglecting Torah study? Because Torah study is something much greater than this or that commandment. That way perhaps you can succeed in removing him from being an ignoramus, if you teach him that.

Now see how it goes on. Ben Dama, son of the sister of Rabbi Yishmael, asked Rabbi Yishmael: such as I, who have learned the whole Torah—what is the law regarding learning Greek wisdom? I have finished the whole Torah, so may I now learn Greek wisdom? There is no issue of neglecting Torah study because I already know everything. May one learn Greek wisdom? And someone once asked me this in Yerucham. What? I came to the Shavuot night watch in Yerucham, and some student grabbed me and said: tell me—what Ben Dama is asking, if he finished the whole Torah then how does he not know this? He asks Rabbi Yishmael, “such as I, who have learned the whole Torah, what is the law regarding learning…” So you didn’t finish the whole Torah after all—here, this you don’t know. A question built into the premise. Yes, exactly.

So I told him again—I don’t know if it’s a nice homiletic line or not—but I think it fits very well into the fabric of the Talmudic passage. Whether that is the simple meaning here, I’m not sure. I think the point is this: “such as I, who have learned the whole Torah”—that is not part of Torah. Torah here means halakhah, what one needs to do. That I know completely. Is that everything? That is what Ben Dama asks Rabbi Yishmael. I learned the whole Torah. Now am I all set? Is there no such thing as neglecting Torah study? Everything’s fine? Rabbi Yishmael says: what do you mean? There are things beyond that. Not only are the obligations beyond the formal halakhic obligation not part of Torah in that narrow sense—but that is what he is asking about, whether there is such a thing or not.

So what does Rabbi Yishmael answer him? Do you understand what I’m saying? He asked him—he learned the whole Torah, the whole Shulchan Arukh he knows. Fine? What is written in the Shulchan Arukh? Morning and evening Shema—the commandment of Torah study. That he knows. Now he asks: so am I all set now, am I covered, can I go occupy myself with other things? Rabbi Yishmael says: absolutely not. There are many things beyond the formal halakhic obligation, and those he has not learned. Precisely for that Rabbi Yishmael teaches him that there are things beyond Torah in its narrow sense, beyond formal halakhic obligation.

He recited to him this verse—so this is what Rabbi Yishmael answers his nephew: he recited to him the verse, “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth”—that is the verse brought above, “shall not depart”—“and you shall meditate on it day and night; go and find a time that is neither day nor night and then learn Greek wisdom.” What is he saying to him? Precisely the verse “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth,” to tell him this is not a commandment, “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.” Rather what? “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” is a promise to Joshua—probably also in context. But from this we understand, just as “and the man Moses was very humble,” from this we understand the value of Torah study—not the commandment of Torah study, but Torah study. What Rabbi Yishmael answers Ben Dama is: forget the commandment of Torah study—you’re right about that—but there are things beyond the commandment of Torah study, and that is the study beyond. Therefore only at a time that is neither day nor night should you study Greek wisdom, because in fact you need to occupy yourself with Torah all the time. There is such a thing as neglecting Torah study. True, in terms of the commandment of Torah study it is morning and evening Shema, but beyond that there is the matter of studying Torah, and the concept of neglecting Torah study is neglect of the matter of studying Torah, not neglect of the positive commandment of Torah study. And that is what he answers him.

“I learned the whole Torah”—for this question? He studied morning and evening and that’s enough? “Such as I, who have learned the whole Torah”—how did he not know? The formal halakhic obligations—how would he know them? So he needed to study Torah, Torah study. I didn’t understand—if one doesn’t know the halakhic obligations, then just read morning and evening? No, you need to know the halakhic obligations in order to know what to do, at least. “And keep My commandments”—that is beyond “if you walk in My statutes.” And if one doesn’t neglect the commandment of Torah study with morning and evening? Apparently not. Apparently not. But this is part of Torah. When he says “I know the whole Torah,” obviously the laws of the stubborn and rebellious son are part of Torah; no one disputes that. So that he learned. Now the question is whether there is anything more. Okay? And there certainly is something more: the very labor in Torah, the very occupation with Torah.

As for the question how he didn’t know this—the claim is that this obligation to occupy oneself with Torah beyond morning and evening Shema, and even beyond knowing what to do—this itself is not part of Jewish law. Therefore Ben Dama did not know it, because he knew only what is in Jewish law. Then the Talmud continues and says this: “And this disagrees with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani.” What does it mean, “and this disagrees with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani”? This statement that “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” disagrees with the amora Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani. In a moment we’ll see what Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says. It’s strange, no? Why say it disagrees with Shmuel bar Nachmani? It disagrees with Rabbi Ami; it disagrees with Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai; it disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan. What did they all say? That with morning and evening Shema you’ve fulfilled your obligation—or with one chapter morning and evening you’ve fulfilled your obligation. Now you tell me: go and study at a time that is neither day nor night—that means you need to study all the time. You’re looking for whom he disagrees with? He disagrees with all the opinions brought until now. But no. Among them are tannaim, including Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. And now you say: no, no, he disagrees with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani. You found some amora who said something, and on that Rabbi Yishmael disagrees. Rabbi Yishmael, who is a tanna, disagrees with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani. Okay, so what? Then it’s a challenge to Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani? Especially since you already brought tannaim and amoraim before him that stand in frontal opposition to Rabbi Yishmael’s statement, “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.” So what does it mean, “and this disagrees with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani”?

He does not disagree with them. Rabbi Yishmael comes to explain them. When they said that with morning and evening Shema one fulfills one’s obligation, that does not contradict what Rabbi Yishmael says, “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.” He says that beyond the commandment of Torah study there is the matter of Torah study, and that is “shall not depart.” Therefore he does not disagree with them at all. Whom does he disagree with? There is someone we find with whom he truly does disagree. What did that person say? Let’s see. Shmuel bar Nachmani: as Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, “This verse, ‘shall not depart,’ is neither an obligation nor a commandment, but a blessing. The Holy One, blessed be He, saw that Joshua cherished the words of Torah exceedingly, as it says, ‘And his attendant Joshua son of Nun, a youth, would not depart from the tent.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Joshua, are the words of Torah so cherished by you? ‘This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.’” That really does disagree with him. Because Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani claims: this is neither obligation nor commandment, but a blessing.

What is the difference between obligation and commandment—“neither obligation nor commandment”? What’s the difference? A non-obligatory commandment like charity, seemingly. I claim not. “Not an obligation” means not a formal halakhic commandment, and “not a commandment” means not even a matter, not even an ideal. “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” is a blessing with which Joshua was blessed. What are you learning from here as some matter of Torah study? If so, then Rabbi Yishmael, who says there is a matter of studying Torah, really does disagree with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani. With Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai he does not disagree; with Rabbi Ami he does not disagree; with Rabbi Yochanan he does not disagree—even though they say morning and evening Shema. Why? Because he is not speaking against them with respect to the formal definition of the commandment of Torah study. According to him too, the commandment of Torah study is morning and evening Shema. What he is saying is that there is an ideal of studying Torah during the rest of the day—not because of the commandment of Torah study, but because of the value of the matter. Therefore one cannot say he disagrees with those who came before him; he doesn’t disagree with them. With whom does he disagree? With someone who says that there is not even such an ideal. That there is nothing—morning and evening Shema, everything’s fine.

And someone who won’t explain it the way the rabbi does—how will he explain the issue? I don’t know. I don’t know, yes. So now—and that is what it says: “It is a blessing.” Again, I’m not sure that Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani has no such ideal at all. But from the verse “shall not depart” one does not derive it. It may be that according to him too there is such an ideal. He says: from “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” you do not derive obligation or commandment, only a blessing. Fine—it may be that from elsewhere one does derive this matter, the ideal involved, though not an obligation involved. He may not disagree with them practically; he may disagree only as to the meaning of the exposition. The question is whether from the verse “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” one derives this or not.

And then the Talmud concludes here very beautifully. The Talmud concludes and says: A teaching was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: “The words of Torah should not be upon you as an obligation, yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.” When we usually read this, we understand it as some kind of inspirational statement, right? How should we feel in relation to Torah study? That it should not feel like an obligation, some kind of burden, but on the contrary, you should be happy that you study, or something like that. But then it says: “yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.” So the opposite. It should not be an obligation upon you; rather do it not for the sake of reward, do it with motivation, with joy, not as a burden. It doesn’t say that. “They should not be upon you as an obligation, yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.” Isn’t that a contradiction? On the one hand, try to study out of desire, not out of a feeling of burden; but on the other hand, know that you are in fact obligated. So why am I obligated? Even if the desire is a bit shaky, still study. But am I obligated or not? Yes. If it’s an obligation, why do I care that it should not be upon you as an obligation? So I don’t understand. What does “should not be upon you as an obligation” mean? It’s a strange formulation.

And I really want to complete the same line of thought I’ve been speaking about. What Rabbi… and notice how it shifts here immediately. Rabbi Yishmael—the same one who said “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth; go and study at a time that is neither day nor night”—and then it comes and says again, after it has been clarified here that Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says that this is neither commandment nor obligation but a blessing, and on that Rabbi Yishmael disagrees, as the Talmud says. Then the Talmud concludes with a statement of Rabbi Yishmael, and he says: “They should not be upon you as an obligation.” Meaning—it is not an obligation. Simply. Not that “they should not be upon you as an obligation” means don’t experience it as a burden. It is not an obligation; it really is not an obligation. “Yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.” Why? Because there is an expectation that you study, and also as for the commandment of Torah study, you cannot exempt yourself from it even though it really is not an obligation. It is a commandment—but “commandment” not in the formal halakhic sense. Like people say in the street, “you did a mitzvah,” meaning you did something good—that’s the meaning. In other words, it is not an obligation but a mitzvah, and that is why the Talmud brings Rabbi Yishmael himself here, to sharpen why in truth he disagrees with Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani and not with everyone else. Because Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says it is neither obligation nor commandment but a blessing. On that, the Talmud says Rabbi Yishmael disagrees. Then it brings Rabbi Yishmael saying: it is not an obligation indeed—you are right, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani, that it is not an obligation—but a mitzvah it certainly is. “You are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.” That is the point. Not merely a blessing to Joshua.

In the plain sense it is indeed a blessing—“this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth”—but just as with Moses our teacher, “who was the most humble of all people on the face of the earth,” from the fact that Joshua is blessed with this we learn that there is some kind of ideal to engage in Torah all the time. One can learn the ideal from the fact that Joshua was blessed with it. I think this now really explains every stage of this Talmudic passage. A move in which every line of the passage really follows this track.

Maybe just to finish the matter—and this is really the question from the Talmud in Berakhot—quite a number of later authorities point out that in Berakhot one seemingly finds a one-hundred-and-eighty-degree contradiction to the Talmud in Menachot. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai switch roles. They literally exchange positions. The Talmud says as follows: The rabbis taught: “And you shall gather your grain”—what does this come to teach? Since it says, “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth,” one might think these words are to be taken literally—that you should study all the time, “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.” Therefore the verse says, “And you shall gather your grain”—conduct yourself in the way of the world. These are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Yishmael says no, “shall not depart from your mouth” is not to be taken literally. Conduct yourself in the way of the world. Spend the day taking care of your affairs. But perhaps one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening—in Berakhot they don’t get into what exactly yes—but “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” is not literal. You do not really have to study Torah all the time. You can also engage in worldly conduct.

And this is Rabbi Yishmael, who said “shall not depart” literally—meaning “you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them,” only at a time that is neither day nor night. Here he says no: conduct yourself in the way of the world; it’s all fine; this is not the literal meaning of “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.” Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says: is it possible for a person to plow in the plowing season, sow in the sowing season, reap in the harvest season, thresh in the threshing season, and winnow when there is wind—what is to become of Torah? You let a person go work for his livelihood—when will he study? Certainly not. Rather, when Israel does the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by others, as it says, “Strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks.” When Israel does not do the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by themselves, as it says, “And you shall gather your grain.” And not only that, but the work of others is done by them, as it says, “And you shall serve your enemy,” and so on.

So Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is actually more imperialistic, as it were. He is the one who says one must study all the time. Whether they do the will of the Omnipresent or not—on the ideal plane, yes, in the ideal model. So they really exchange roles. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who in Menachot says morning and evening Shema is enough, here says all day long—don’t even go to work, spend the whole day studying. Rabbi Yishmael, who says “go and study at a time that is neither day nor night”—study all the time—in the passage in Berakhot says no: worldly conduct, everything’s fine, “this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth” is not literal. They really swap places.

So the later authorities explain, in somewhat different styles but in overall similar directions, until what point yes and until what point no. There are gradations. So going to work is permitted, but the rest of the time you do need to study; or they try to see which occupations are legitimate and do not count as neglect of Torah study and which do. There are somewhat different formulations among the later authorities, but all in the same style. According to what I said here, the question doesn’t even begin. There is no dispute, neither in Menachot nor in Berakhot. There is no dispute at all. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says the law of the commandment of Torah study, which is morning and evening Shema. Rabbi Yishmael speaks about the matter of Torah study, the mitzvah but not the obligation—which is to study all the time. “Go and study at a time that is neither day nor night.” That is the ideal.

Now the question in relation to that ideal—and that is the topic in Berakhot—is: how far does one really have to go with it? What exempts us from the ideal? “You are not permitted to exempt yourself from them”—in what sense? Not to go to work? Rabbi Yishmael says no, go to work, no problem. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says what do you mean? Don’t go to work either; spend all the time studying. But you said in Menachot that reciting morning and evening Shema is the commandment of Torah study. Yes—but regarding the ideal of Torah study, I do not disagree with Rabbi Yishmael. We saw there in the Talmud that Rabbi Yishmael’s view is brought, and it says: “and this disagrees” with whom? Not with Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who is brought one line earlier. “And this disagrees” with Shmuel bar Nachmani, because he does not disagree with Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. And here too in the Talmud in Menachot you see that he does not disagree. Where he does disagree is regarding the ideal of Torah study: how far to go with it, which occupations can exempt you from the ideal. But the commandment of Torah study is morning and evening Shema, and that is enough. Therefore there is no contradiction at all between these passages.

Okay. So that is basically the end of this issue we were discussing regarding the commandment of Torah study versus Torah study. I have a few minutes left to say something briefly about Tisha B’Av. Tisha B’Av. The Talmud says that there is… the Talmud itself compares Tisha B’Av to Yom Kippur in several places. The Talmud says, yes, in Pesachim 54: “There is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur except that in the one a doubtful part of the day is forbidden and in the other a doubtful part is permitted.” What does “its doubtful part is permitted” mean? Obviously twilight, as opposed to everything else. In short, there is no difference between them. It may be that there are here and there differences between them. Even so, there are answers as to why those differences are not listed. But basically there is some comparison between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. There are other places where this comparison appears too; never mind that now. In any case, that is the comparison.

On the face of it, this looks like a halakhic comparison, in terms of bottom-line law. There is not really a genuine comparison between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. The Sefer HaChinukh also writes that the essence of these two days is not similar; only the laws are similar. This one is perhaps about disconnection from materiality or something like that on Yom Kippur, and Tisha B’Av is grief or mourning over the affliction, over the destruction. But in several places one can see that the comparison may be deeper.

As for Yom Kippur, there are already clear indications from the Torah’s own formulations. It says in Parashat Emor: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: But on the tenth of this seventh month, it is Yom Kippur; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall afflict your souls, and offer a fire offering to the Lord. And you shall do no work on that very day, for it is Yom Kippur, to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. For any person who shall not be afflicted on that very day shall be cut off from his people. And any person who does any work on that very day, I will destroy that person from among his people. You shall do no work; it is an everlasting statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. It is a Sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth of the month in the evening, from evening to evening, shall you rest your Sabbath.” The Torah links the cessation from labor with the affliction. It always comes together: there is cessation from labor and there is affliction—not eating and not drinking. Also in Parashat Pinchas: “And on the tenth of this seventh month there shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall afflict your souls; you shall do no work.” Again: affliction and labor. And “Sabbath of complete rest” also appears in this context.

It says in Parashat Acharei Mot: “And this shall be for you an everlasting statute: in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict your souls and do no work, the native and the stranger who sojourns among you. For on this day He will atone for you to purify you; from all your sins before the Lord you shall be purified. It is a Sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls; it is an everlasting statute.” “Sabbath of complete rest” means cessation from labor within the framework of “and you shall afflict your souls.” The Talmud already says that “Sabbath of complete rest” applies also to the affliction, not only to labor. The cessation on Yom Kippur is not only cessation from labor; it is also cessation from pleasures, from eating and drinking. Therefore indeed, in Rashi, and in the Talmud itself, they derive the five afflictions from the expanded phrase “Sabbath of complete rest.” So you see that the cessation does not refer, as in the other festivals, only to cessation from labor. On Yom Kippur it is also cessation from pleasures, the obligation of affliction.

And indeed in Maimonides, in the laws of Yom Kippur, what does he call it? He calls it the laws of the cessation of the tenth day. The laws of cessation on Yom Kippur, where the cessation includes both labor and afflictions. Sacrifices are in another section, in the laws of sacrificial service. But both the afflictions and the labor prohibitions appear under the heading “Laws of the Cessation of the Tenth Day.” And in the laws themselves Maimonides writes like this: “It is a positive commandment to cease from labor on the tenth day of the seventh month,” right at the beginning of the Laws of the Cessation of the Tenth Day. As it says, “It is a Sabbath of complete rest for you,” and anyone who does labor on it has nullified a positive commandment and violated a prohibition, and so on. Halakhah 2: “Every labor for whose intentional violation on the Sabbath one is liable to stoning—on the tenth day one is liable for intentional violation to karet.” There is no stoning on Yom Kippur, but there is karet. “And every case in which one is liable…” and so on. “And it is permitted to trim vegetables on Yom Kippur.” “There is another positive commandment on Yom Kippur, namely, to cease from eating and drinking.” Even the cessation from eating and drinking is part of the cessation on Yom Kippur, just like the cessation from labor; so too the cessation from eating and drinking, as it says: “You shall afflict your souls.” By oral tradition they learned that affliction of the soul—that is affliction relating to the soul—is fasting. And he also calls it cessation, which of course is taken from the Torah’s language that I discussed earlier. Then he says: “Therefore we learned by oral tradition that it is forbidden to wash, or to anoint, or to wear sandals, or to have marital relations, and it is a commandment to cease from all these just as one ceases from eating and drinking, as it says ‘Sabbath of complete rest’: ‘Sabbath’ with respect to eating, and ‘complete rest’ with respect to these.”

So the cessation on Yom Kippur is not only cessation from labor; it also includes the obligation to afflict oneself, both by day and by night, and so on. What is the meaning of this? I’ll try to be brief; I’ll just say it in summary. The point is that apparently on Tisha B’Av there is an interesting Talmudic passage. The Talmud in Ta’anit 29 says: “On Tisha B’Av it was decreed upon our ancestors that they would not enter the Land.” How do we know this? As it is written: “And it came to pass in the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, that the Tabernacle was erected.” And the Master said there: year by year from that year—they make a calculation there of the chronology. It is explained there in the Talmud that the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses our teacher to intercalate the month so that the crying of the spies would fall on Tisha B’Av. “You cried a gratuitous cry, and I will establish for you a cry for generations.” Therefore the Talmud then continues and says, regarding the second Temple, how do we know? For it was taught: merit is brought about on an auspicious day, and guilt on an inauspicious day, and therefore they brought the destruction of the Second Temple around to that same day because it is a day of guilt.

The question is: why did they bring the crying of the spies to that day because it is a day of guilt? It is a day of guilt because the spies—because the people cried on that day. It somehow seems that this day was already a day of guilt even before these events happened on it. On the contrary, the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses our teacher to intercalate the month so that the crying of the spies would fall on Tisha B’Av. Why? Because there is something about Tisha B’Av that predates all the events that happened on it. And indeed the Book of Lamentations already says: “He proclaimed against me an appointed time to break my young men.” They already learn that “appointed time” means the new month because of this issue of intercalating the month that they told Moses our teacher. But in the simple meaning, “He proclaimed against me an appointed time” means Tisha B’Av. Therefore too in the halakhic authorities there appear several festival-like customs on Tisha B’Av. There are several customs of a festival on Tisha B’Av—omitting “Tzidkatecha” and various laws that stem from the fact that it is called an appointed time.

What is the idea of an appointed time? The idea of an appointed time means, from the language of meeting, some kind of encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He. And this encounter apparently on Tisha B’Av is some kind of day that was designated or built for meeting the Holy One, blessed be He. The question what kind of encounter will occur here already depends on us. Since the Jewish people cried, the encounter turned out badly, and therefore it became a day of guilt, and all the later events are rolled onto that day. But in principle this is a day intended for encounter, and therefore Tisha B’Av is called an appointed time. Plainly, “appointed time” in Scripture means Tisha B’Av—“He proclaimed against me an appointed time to break my young men.” Therefore the cessation stated regarding Yom Kippur was also stated regarding Tisha B’Av.

The cessation that we observe on festivals—on the Sabbath, on festivals, on Yom Kippur, and on Tisha B’Av—is essentially a cessation whose foundation is an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He. When one meets the Holy One, blessed be He, one has to cease from things. To the extent that the encounter is more basic or more—how shall we call it—more deeply stamped into that day, one is required to cease from more things. On an ordinary festival you cease from labor. On Yom Kippur you cease both from labor and from pleasure. And on Tisha B’Av you cease even from Torah study. A complete cessation, the shutting down of life, because on that day this is the most fundamental encounter we have with the Holy One, blessed be He.

One of the interesting things here—and with this I’ll perhaps finish—is that there are several sources from which it emerges that there is a prohibition of labor. But there are several places where you see that it’s not exactly that. The Mishnah says in Pesachim: “In a place where the custom is to do labor on Tisha B’Av, one may do labor; in a place where the custom is not to do labor, one may not do labor.” Tosafot asks there, on the statement “there is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur” that we cited earlier, regarding twilight: why did they not count labor, which is permitted on Tisha B’Av in places where the custom allows it? Why didn’t they bring another difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur—that on Yom Kippur there is a full labor prohibition, while on Tisha B’Av in a place where the custom is not to do labor one does not, and in a place where the custom is to do labor one does? So we see there is a difference between Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av. That is very puzzling.

And in a place where the custom is not to do labor, then it is similar to Yom Kippur? What do you mean? Labor that people customarily refrain from on Tisha B’Av means labor that distracts the mind from mourning; it does not mean the 39 categories of labor and their derivatives. So what does this have to do with whether there is or isn’t a custom not to do labor? There is a difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur regarding labor prohibition. Tosafot says no—rather, “in a place where the custom…” Why? According to Tosafot it follows that the place where the custom is not to do labor means not doing all the 39 categories of labor and their derivatives on Tisha B’Av. And you also see this in other places. In Ra’avyah, and also in Terumat HaDeshen, in Mordechai—there are several sources among the Ashkenazic medieval authorities where you see very clearly that the labor customarily not done on Tisha B’Av is the 39 categories of labor and their derivatives. Which is basically the point of “appointed time.” There is some kind of cessation. That is the resemblance the Talmud draws between Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av, because both of them really are appointed times—even more than the ordinary festivals. Meaning that there you need to cease, and that’s what Maimonides says: the cessation of the tenth day—you need to cease both from labor and from pleasures. And on Tisha B’Av this is absolute cessation. Meaning: a day on which there is simply nothing to do. You cannot do anything—not pleasures, not labor, and not Torah study. Nothing. Cessation. Very nice.