[Avodah] Talmud Torah

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> Aren't you conflating the two lists? The mishnay of "Eilu 
> devarim she'ein lahem shiur: hapei'ah vehabikurim" ends with 
> talmud Torah. As does the gemara of "Eilu devarim she'adam 
> ocheil peiroseihem ba'olam hazeh vehaqeren qayemes lo le'olam 
> haba", but that's the one that includes iyun tefillah.
> 

I am confused. There are indeed two lists in the Mishna in Peah, but
they come one right after the other (ie eilu dvarim is there as well, in
the versions of the Mishna I have), and the very end of the Mishna is
talmud torah kneged kulam (it does indeed have talmud torah listed at
the end of the first list as well).  I was assuming that the talmud
torah kneged kulam was going on both lists in the Mishna (ie the kulam
included those mentioned in the first list as having no shiur, as well
as those mentioned in the second as where one eats the perus in olam
hazeh), but even if you say that it does not, and only goes on the
second list, that is the one that contains iyun tefillah.

> Without rishonim, one would think the mishnah in Pei'ah is 
> simply saying that one can be meqayeim the mitzvah with no 
> minimum. That's not necessarily the chiyuv of vehagisa bo. 

The vehagisa bo derivation, as I understood it, came from  "v'talmud
torah kneged kulam", which was the phrase that started this off.  As far
as I know, the reference to  v'talmud torah kneged kulam in Mishna peah
1:1 is the first reference that we have to the phrase - am I wrong?
Yes, you could indeed, withour rishonim, split that Mishna and say -
well the first bit is talking about being meqayeim with no minimum and
see it as  being totally unrelated to the second half.  However a) that
is actually a more forced reading, as it requires splitting the Mishna -
whereas I would have said a more natural reading involved looking at the
two lists together; and b) isn't that what we have rishonim for - to
indicate which possible understandings are more likely within the
mesora?

> But in any case, it's a far cry from requiring learning above 
> other mitzvos. And one would think that the gemara is 
> referring to the fact that someone who learns al menas 
> la'asos can do mitzvos in olam hazeh, thus giving him peiros 
> to consume in olam hazeh without exhausting the qeren.
> 
> The other question is "keneged"? Keneged the other mitzvos 
> she'adam ocheil peiroseihem, or all other 612? If the latter, 
> how can is be keneged 611 mitzvos and Shabbos, if Shabbos is 
> keneged kulam -- the other 611 plus talmud Torah? Similarly, 
> yishuv EY and tzitzis are also called keneged kulam

I agree that there is a problem in reconciling the varies references to
kneged. 

 . The 
> idiom is either a guzmah, or we need to know in what 
> particular way are they equal. Torah could be equal the other 
> 612 in a different way than the other three.

Yes.  The key thing though that some form of talmud torah kneged kulam
is not just the language of the gemora, which may contains what might be
considered mussaric references that may contradict, but is brought down
in some form in the halachic seforim - including that least likely place
to find such things, the Shulchan Aruch (see the references I provided
previously.

 But then we need 
> to know what way to know if it should mean there are times 
> (which times? always?) men should be choosing Torah over 
> other mitzvos.
> 

Yes, exactly - that is the issue.

> And on Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:30:43AM -0000, RnCL wrote:
> :> So how do you learn pshat in 'vetalmud torah keneged kulom"?
> 
> : Well the halachic sources when quoting the reference phrase 
> it slightly differently and add a critical word "shikul", which does 
> rather suggest we are talking about heavenly scales rather than
earthly 
> doings - eg the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 246
si'if 
> 18) "talmud torah shikul kneged kol hamitzvos" ...
> 
> But I thought the mishnah said I can't know secharan shel 
> mitzvos, and thus can't choose a chamurah over a qulah.

It is a good kasha, although one could answer that maybe the exception
proves the rule.  Or, as I implicitly suggested at the end of my
analysis last time, maybe the idea is that it is supposed to weigh on
the mind while you are performing other mitzvos (see what I said there
in comparision with kibud av).

> 
> :                   And the nose keliim, as well as referring to your
> : mishna, also refer back to the gemora in kiddushin 40b in which they
> : were asked which is greater talmud torah or ma'asim and while Rabbi
> : Tarfon said ma'asim, rabbi Akiva said talmud torah because 
> talmud torah
> : brings lyade ma'asim.  Note also that from Megila 3a that 
> in order to
> : hear the megila, the cohanim etc are mevatel from the avodah, and in
> : order to do the avodah, one is mevatel from talmud torah so as kal
> : vchomer one is mevatel talmud torah....
> 
> Which implies that keneged kulam in our context is that it 
> have more peiros for olam hazeh, because it's mevi'ah liydei ma'aseh.
> 

The problem you have with this analysis, similar to the problem I raised
on Birchas HaTorah, is again, women.  If talmud torah is kneged kulam
because you have more peiros for olam hazeh - then surely that applies
to women too - if they learn in order to perform.  Agreed you are
talking about fewer mitzvos to perform, because you are excluding
mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, but in relation to those mitzvos that
women do, why is the analysis not completely the same.  Of course you
might say e hachi nami - but the stronger you make the case that talmud
torah is about meviah liyadei ma'aseh, the odder the distinction between
the teaching we give to the two sexes becomes.  Because if the talmud
torah we are currently providing for the boys in fact is optimised to
bring to ma'aseh, then are we trying NOT to bring the girls to ma'aseh?
And if the teaching we give the girls is optimised to bring to ma'aseh -
then you have to say that we are giving the boys something else, which
is not optimised to bring to ma'aseh (in which case, if you follow this
definition, you have to question whether we are in fact giving the boys
talmud torah).

The easiest and most traditional way out of this conundrum is to say
that there is (at least) two aspects of talmud torah.  The first
bringing to ma'aseh, and that is the kind we have to teach girls too,
and the second is something more theoretical, which does not in fact
necessarily bring to ma'aseh (and thus arguably is not what Rabbi Akiva
and Rabbi Tarfon are discussing), and which is the form that is to be
pushed aside for acting on other mitzvos (except those that are
permitted to be done by others) as per the Shulchan Aruch.  

> Tir'u baTov!
> -mi

Shabbat Shalom

Chana