[Avodah] Talmud Torah

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:

> : 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)...
> 
> I can't speak to your versions, but the second list is woven 
> from the gemara in Shabbos and a beraisa. It is because it's woven
that the 
> Ashkenazi and Sepharadi nusachos differ; Ashkenazim include hachnasas 
> kallah, levayas hameis, and v'iyun tefillah, the Rambam and my
Sepharadi 
> siddur do not.
> 

I was looking at the Kehati version of the Mishna Peah (the second time,
ie when I wrote this) and he certainly seems to think there are two
lists in that first mishna, the one right after the other, ie with eilu
d'varim sheain l'hem shiur and then another eilu d'varim sheadam ochel,
just as we find in morning davening.  However, you are right that
hachnasas kalla, levayas hameis and v'iyun tephila are not in that
Mishna (in either the first or the second list) - all it has as the
second list is kibud av v'aim, gimilus chassadim v'havas shalom bein
adam l'chavero and then ending with v'talmud torah kneged kulam. So
indeed my reference to talmud torah kneged kulam being said in the
Mishna vis a vis v'iyun tephila in my original post in response to RSBA
is not correct - nor strictly speaking does it seem to be correct to
refer to the gemora in shabbas either - ie as you say, the second list
in my siddur appears to be woven from the Mishna in Peah, with additions
added from another list that is given in Shabbas - but the list in
Shabbas regarding v'iyun tephila etc is given following eilu d'varim
sheain l'hem shiur - so it is interesting that in davening we seem to
have moved them from the first list to the second.

> There is a machloqes whether "veha'arev" is a second of three 
> birchos haTorah, or if it's the body of the first berakhah, a
continuation of 
> "la'asoq bedivrei Torah. On the weight of the first opinion, we make
sure to 
> learn from all three chalaqim of talmud Torah -- miqra, mishnah and
gemara. 
> The second eilu devarim is the gemara.

But looking at the gemora (Shabbas 127a), that actually doesn't seem
right either (unless they had a different girsa in the gemora than I
have), because the gemora does not end the list containing v'iyun
tephila with v'talmud torah kneged kulam - so the morning davening does
not seem to be a direct quote, but rather it is as if somebody took the
Mishna in Peah, and added in a couple of extra things (such as v'iyun
tephila) drawn from one of the different lists in the gemora in shabbas
- but for some reason they added them in the second list (ie the shadam
ochel list) rather than the first (whereas from the gemora in Shabbas,
if one was going to add them into one of the two lists, one would have
thought they would go). 

> (Alternatively, the two berakhos 
> correspond to TSBK and TSBP.)

On that basis is the amalgamation of the two lists in the davening an
example of TSBP post the closure of the gemora?
> 
> The Bartenura holds that "ein lahem shiur" refers to a lack  of
minimum shi'ur deOraisa. Which would mean that if talmud Torah has a
minimum 
> shi'ur, the Bartenura would hold it's deRabbanan.
> 

That does, as I think I said, seem a logical pshat read on its own.  But
given the second list (and I confess I am no mishna scholar, and that I
tend to assume that what Kehati says is the Mishna, is the Mishna) in
the Mishna in Peah, and the ending of the mishna with talmud torah
kneged kulom, seems to me to make the more natural holistic reading, if
one had to choose, that of no maximal limit rather than no minimum.
Although to be honest I am not really sure why you cannot have both - ie
even if you can explain the first eilu d'varim as being about having no
minimum, why does this exclude it also being about having no maximum?

> -- 
> Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten

Regards

Chana