[Avodah] Talmid Torah

[Chana Luntz]

RMG writes
> I hope I'm not repeating another poster - I didn't follow the 
> entire thread. IIRC, this thread started on Areivim because of an
argument 
> about whether the Chiyuv of TT is 24/7 or just two psukim, i.e.
v'hogisa bo yomam
> v'laylah. 
> 

Actually, I think it started when it was suggested that because of
talmud torah kneged kulom, yeshiva bochrim did not need to do chessed.
One response to this was to argue that the mitzvah of v'hogisa was
fulfilled by saying Shema, but I don't think that encompassed the full
debate.  

> It is clear in Hilchos Birchas Hatorah that the chiyuv of TT  is 24/7,
and
> that is explicitly stated as the reason why we don't have to  make a
new
> Brocha every we time we read Avodah (unless, according to 
> some, there was a hefsek such as shinas k'va). See BY OC 46 s.v. V'im
ba 
> lilmod: 

Well the slight problem with using Hilchos Birchas Hatorah to prove that
the chiyuv of TT based on v'hogisa bo is 24/7, despite the reasoning
there (inter alia brought by the Taz), is that nobody suggests that I
have to make a new brocha every time I read Avodah, despite everybody
agreeing that women are chayiv in making Birchas HaTorah.  Nor is it the
practice in any Beis Ya'akov that I am aware of, that every time they
have a kodesh class they begin it with Birchas Hatorah (on the grounds
that there has been a hefsek eg of of a maths or English class between
the  Birchas Hatorah said in the morning and the kodesh class).

Now two reasons are given for women being chayiv in Birchas Hatorah.
The first is because they are chayav in saying the parsha of korbanos
(certainly a one off, and note, a lot of women who do say Birchas
Hatorah do not say this) and the second is because they are chayav to
learn the halachos that pertain to them.  But given that women do not
seem obligated to repeat birchas hatorah, this would seem to indicate,
based on the logic of the gemora and meforshim such as the Taz, that the
obligation for women to learn the halachos that pertain to them is one
that operates 24/7 (presumably at least until one knows the Shulchan
Aruch cold - since most of the halachos there on some level pertain to
women).

But I believe everybody agrees that v'hogisa bo in its purest form does
not apply to women -therefore, the only way I can see out of this
situation is to hold, contrary to the Taz, that at least one reason for
Birchas Hatorah is due to other aspects of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah,
either not based on v'higosa bo or on a weakened form of v'hogisa bo
that applies to women despite the sifri (I guess you could characterise
it as the aspect of talmud torah that leads to ma'ase, but that doesn't
seem to shtim with the plain meaning of the words of v'hogisa so it
seems easier to say that the source for this aspect of talmud torah is
sited elsewhere). Indeed I think you will find that there are other
commentators who derive the obligation for Birchas Hatorah from psukim
other than v'hogisa.  (On the other hand, I cannot find anybody who
seems to address what seems to me to be a clear kasha on the shita of
the Taz et al).

> 
> KT,
> MYG
> 
> P.S. BTW, IIRC reading Avodah wouldn't require Birchas 
> Hatorah because it is hirhur,

This is not so pashut.  As the Ben Ish Chai puts it after stating that
hirhurim bilvad is mutar, that there are those who say that one who
learns by being meayin in a sefer needs to say birchas hatorah.  The Kaf
HaChaim also brings various meforshim who hold that iyun b'sefer
requires birchas hatorah before it because somebody who is being meayin
in a safer will come to say something out loud (the same logic that the
Taz uses vis a vis writing). (Unfortunately, because the Ben Ish Chai
does not bring his sources, it is not clear to me whether the yesh omrim
is derived from these other meforshim that it is a risk of speaking out
loud when learning from a sefer that is the issue, or because iyun
b'sefer is something more than hirhur bilvad - which I confess is the
way it reads).

In the course of an extensive discussion on the question of hirhur and
ksiva in relation to birchas hatorah in Yabiat Omer chelek 4 siman 8,
Rav Ovadia brings some opinions that the reason (for those who hold the
majority opinion, ie contrary to the Gra, that hirhur does not need
birchas hatorah) why hirhur does not need birchas hatorah is because
hirhurim do not last ie his learning is not established.  It appears
from that teshuva that it is arguable that iyun b'sefer can in some
circumstances be more permanent - and it seems to me that it is even
more arguable that the nature of Avodah, being (in its ideal form) one
of dialogue rather than monologue, lends itself to a greater permanance
than iyun b'sefer, where one is arguably more passive.  Note further the
discussion (in depth in that teshuva of ROY) regarding one who hears
others speaking divrei torah, and what the requirements vis a vis
birchas hatorah are in that case.  It seems to me that a case could be
made, because of the immediacy of response of an internet mailing list
such as Avodah, and the dialogue format, that it is in fact closer to
the communication ideal of talmud torah, and further from hirhur, than
iyun b'sefer and so even those who do not go as far as the Ben Ish Chai
suggests might hold it was necessary to make birchas hatorh in this
case.

 >however writing Avodah would. Which raises the  question, what about
typing Avodah? 


As far as I can see, there are three reasons given why writing requires
birchas hatorah:

A) that when writing one is likely to say the words out loud (the Taz et
al);
B) that writing is a ma'ase, in contrast to hirhur, and a ma'ase
requires birchas hatorah (the Levush et al);
C) that the essence of the talmid torah on which the bracha is being
made is the ability to transfer it to others.  Ksiva, while not the
primary mechanism by which the Torah is required to be tranferred to
others, has the characteristic that it can be used to transfer Torah to
others (including Torah she baal peh, after it was permitted to write it
down) and hence requires a bracha, unlike hirhur, where the torah
thought in essence goes nowhere (see Rav Ovadia's teshuva referred to
above, where this and the meforshim who suggest this is discussed quite
extensively).

Now it seems to me that typing Avodah would require birchas hatorah
whichever of these reasons is held.  Because there seems no reason to
distinguish typing and writing in terms of the likelihood of saying the
words out loud.  And typing is just as much a ma'ase as writing.  And,
in terms of communication, it is stronger than just stam writing, as it
is being written specifically as part of a form of talmud torah
communication.  Just my thoughts on the subject.

Shavuah tov

Chana