Q&A: Torah
Torah
Question
You wrote that interpretations and additions that help clarify the will and word of the Holy One, blessed be He, are also considered Torah.
My question is: if they are Torah only because they help clarify God’s will, then they are Torah in the person-dependent sense, because if I read them without intending to expand my religious, Jewish, and Torah world, then again they do not help clarify God’s will, and if so then again they are not Torah. But that is difficult, because when one studies mathematics with Torah-oriented intent we do not recite a blessing over it, whereas when one studies later interpretation of the Torah with Torah-oriented intent we do recite a blessing over it. What is the difference? Aren’t both Torah in the person-dependent sense?
In general, does one recite a blessing over Torah in the person-dependent sense or not? (I understood that one recites a blessing over Torah in the object-based sense in any case, regardless of what I do or intend, etc.)
Answer
In the Talmud there is a dispute about what one recites the blessing over (Scripture, midrash, aggadic literature, etc.). In my view, by reasoning alone, one should not recite a blessing over the study of interpretation of the Torah or aggadic literature. The accepted halakhic practice is to recite a blessing, and I do not know how to defend it. If one does recite a blessing over that, I do not see why one should not recite a blessing over any study that helps you (including mathematics, philosophy, etc.).
Discussion on Answer
And that is why I wrote that I understood that these interpretations, such as Ritva, Nachmanides, etc. etc. on the Talmud, are Torah in the person-dependent sense, because they are Torah only insofar as they help clarify the plain meaning of the Talmudic text, that is, God’s will. If so, it depends on the learner’s intention: whether he studies them in order truly to understand God’s will, or studies them casually. And if I understood correctly, then it comes out that even over this one would not recite the blessing on Torah study, and that seems to me strange and far-reaching, so I asked.
Commentators on a halakhic topic are Torah in the object-based sense. This is not a means to understanding; rather, these are the understandings themselves. Which of them you adopt for yourself is a different discussion. There the commentators are only a means (for your own interpretation). But their interpretation joins the Torah itself. As Nachmanides wrote, the Torah was given with its interpreters in mind, for without interpretation it has no meaning in itself.
A person who studies Torah in the object-based sense not for its own sake (but with faith…) is still fulfilling the commandment of Torah study (to whatever extent it is a commandment, etc.) not for its own sake. By contrast, a person who studies Torah in the person-dependent sense not for its own sake is not even studying Torah at all, but is like someone studying mathematics for school, for example, right?
That sounds very reasonable.
I meant interpretation of the Talmud, for example: is studying Rashba on the Talmud Torah in the person-dependent sense or in the object-based sense?