[Avodah] Talmid Torah

[Chana Luntz]

RAYW writes: 

> It is paskened explicitly that someone who is "toyroso 
> umnoso" is poter even from davening.(From a practical view it is not
relevant these days, as the 
> geder of to"um is that of RSBY,

And it was precisely because I was thinking of the RSBY situation that
it seemed to me that RSBA's statement was (I am sure unwittingly) so
dangerous - because by stating that bochrim in yeshiva today are patur
from mitzvos like chessed based on talmud torah kneged kulom he was at a
stroke putting every Tom, Dick and Yankel sitting in yeshiva on the
level of RSBY.  Note that half truths are even more dangerous than
complete untruths.  If it was completely untrue that talmud torah never
negated davening, for example, then there wouldn't be a hava mina for a
bocher to think he was patur, but because precisely of the situation,
statements suggesting that talmud torah today is equivalent to that of
RSBY are particularly dangerous.  That is why I pointed out the davening
connection in that mishna. 

 but theoretically we see that 
> TT kneged kulum, only we don't have enough TT)
> 

And similarly we don't have enough kavanah for real davening today, but
we have to work with what we have and we have to posken based on the
reality of today, not theoreticals.  And the way we posken today is that
men have to daven three times a day, no exceptions, regardless of
whether they are engaged in talmud torah or not, or whether they have
requisite kavannah or not, and they have to say Shema on their wedding
night, etc etc.


> The Rambam (hil. TT 3:4) paskens if you have if front of you 
> either to do a  mitzveh or TT, if someone else could do the mitzveh,
it's 
> better to carry on  learning, only if no-one else could do that
mitzveh, then you 
> can interupt  the learning, do the mitzveh, then resume the learning.
> 

Yes, this is the basis for the Tur and Shulchan Aruch I brought in my
post last night (Yoreh Deah siman 246 si'if 18) which says the same
thing.

> See also the Kesef mishneh that brings the source: (also 
> brought by Rosh in Kusubos perek 2 siman 5)  from a yerushalmi
pesochim 3:7 that 
> says: "R'  Avohu sent his son to learn Torah in Tiveria. [whilst
there, 
> the son did the  mitzeh of] koyve'es meis, [his father asked him 
> sarcastically] are there no kevorim locally that I had to send you to
Tiveria [to do this 
> mitzveh].  Therefore we see that TT koydem lemayseh, but this is only
if 
> there is  someone else available to do the mitzveh, but if not, one 
> could interupt learning for the mayseh"
> 

Yes, but the Shulchan Aruch poskens in Yoreh Deah siman 361 si'if 1
(regarding a meis) and Even HaEzer siman 65 si'f 4 (regarding a kala)
like the braisa in kesubos 17a that we are mevatel talmud torah l'hotzei
es hameis  v'lhakenses hakala.  {BTW note the Shach's comment there in
Yoreh Deah, perush chova lvatel v'ken haskimu haposkim]. 

So, what do you do with this Yerushalmi?  Either you say that there is a
contradiction between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi and we pasken like
the Bavli (but that seems somewhat difficult when you see that the
Shulchan Aruch also brings the language of the Rambam regarding talmud
torah to be mevatel only if there is not somebody else available to do
the mitzvah.)

Alternatively a solution seems to be implicitly suggested by Tosphos
there on Kesubos 17a.  Inter alia, Tosphos bring the halacha in moed
katan 27b (also brought down in the Shulchan Aruch in siman 343) that if
there is a meis in the city, all of the city are required to be mevatel
from their work to deal with it, but if there is a special chevra (ie a
chevra kadisha) that has been appointed to deal with any meis that may
occur, then the townspeople need not be mevatel from their work.  And
Tosphos there distinguishes between the general requirement to deal with
the meis a la a chevra kadisha, and the requirement to accompany the
meis.  So presumably you could say that the actual work of looking after
the meis is one that one can delegate to another, while accompanying the
meis is not, and that in the case of R' Avohu's son he was getting
involved in the work of a chevra kadisha - work which is clearly
delegatable, as even the ordinary workers are allowed to delegate.

So the question then becomes - are acts of chessed delegatable or not
(clearly this now easily covers the davening situation, because you
cannot get somebody else to daven for you)?  In general - one of the
fundamental differences between the mitzvah of chessed and the mitzvah
of tzedaka is that the first is done with one's guf and the second with
one's money.  To the extend that is true, it seems difficult to say that
chessed is really delegatable - whoever you give the mitzvah to, it will
never be done the way you do it.  And the very examples of accompanying
the meis and the kala seem to make this point - after all, one  body in
a procession should be just like another, but that is not the way we
hold.  And it is interesting that v'halivias hameis and haknanasas kala
are two of the mitzvos listed in that mishna in peah which concludes
with talmud torah kneged kulom.


> The reason is brought bishnoys eliyohu perek 1 peah "...every 
> word that a person learns is a mitzveh...one blat is many hundreds of 
> mitzvehs...obviously 100 mitzeves is better that just one"
> 

Actually, this does not work very well with the idea that if it is a
mitzvah that cannot be done by others, one has to do it.  If this were
true, then why? Surely one should be mevatel the one to allow the 100,
even though the one is vadai being lost?

> The Taz YD 251:6 brings down RSh"L that asks the question, that how
can it  it be that the ShOr paskens that one can interupt learning 
> for hatzolos  nefoshos, for it says "TT is bigger that Hatz"Nef" and
on  this the RSh"L  bleibs shver. The Taz answers that obviously
"nothing comes 
> before Pik"Nef",  but when it says "TT is bigger" is is referering to
the  schar. Someone who 
> is lucky enough to be able to learn and not have to get involved with
Hat"Nef gets more schar than one who does the Hat"Nef 
> (obviously one who has  in fromt of him both, has no choice but to do
the Hat"Nef, 
> but he gets less  schar than if the situation would never have
occured.
> 

That does intrinsicly seem to shtim with the "shikul" language of the
Shulchan Aruch I brought in my previous post - but then how do you
explain Abaye versus Rava that I also brought in a previous post?  Of
course it is also clear that without the Torah, Abaye would not have
extended his lifespan at all (do you or do you not want to say that Rava
and Abaye were "toyroso umenoso"?) it was just that the combination of
torah plus gimilus chassadim led to a greater atonement than the torah
alone practiced by Rava.  Of course, on another level this statement
might be said to be always true - after all, if there were no poor, sick
or dying people, then there would be a lot less need for gimilus
chassadim, and hence arguably more time for Torah, even for the Abaye's
of this world.  We don't wish people sick so there can be more mitzvos
performed, so somehow the schar of gimilus chassadim must be related to
what there is to do, and it is a lucky society where there is little and
everybody can therefore concentrate on Torah.

> 
> Avrohom Yitszkhok Walters
> Beis Shemesh

Shabbat Shalom

Chana