[Avodah] Who is a Talmid Chacham

[Chana Luntz]

RZS writes:

>The definition of Torah lishmah is that there is no "output".  If you're
digging holes for a purpose then the value of your work is measured by how
many >holes you produce; but if you're just doing it for exercise then you
can just dig the same hole and fill it in again, over and over, and you've
achieved >every bit as much as if you'd dug up a whole field. 

Well I would argue that the classic definition of torah lishma is to
contrast torah lishma with learning in order to know what to do.  If you
learn eg lulav hagozel right before sukkos in order to know how to pick your
lulav, and what lulav is and isn't possul - that is a classic example of
learning torah in order to know what to do.  If you learn lulav hagozel in
order to understand the various chakiros and understand the depth and
breadth of the Torah better, that is torah lishma.

But that definition certainly believes there is "output".  It is, l'havdil,
more like learning about art or about culture - more like, if you like, a
liberal arts education versus an education purely in order to increase
earning power.  In that case there is clearly more value in those who learn
it well, and to greater depth, than those who don't.  Similarly for Torah
lishma, it is not that there is no more value to those who comprehend the
Torah at greater depth, but a value is placed on them doing it in order to
know the Torah, not in order to know what to do.

But your definition appears to be that there is no intrinsic value in the
Torah itself, except that G-d commanded (some of) us to spend time in it.
If Hashem had decided that instead of spending time in Torah, we should all
spend time digging holes and filling them up, or pushing rocks up hills and
then having them roll down again, then that would be equally good.  It just
so happened that he commanded Torah.  I'm afraid I don't believe that, and I
don't believe most Torah believing Jews do.

> Of course if you do dig up a field then you've also benefited the farmer;
if you come up with moreh'dike chidushim then you benefit klal yisroel for
>generations to come.  But that isn't the point of the learning, it's only a
side benefit.  Hence "echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamam'it", because the zechus
>of limud hatorah is the same.  For that matter, not to get personal, but a
woman who is mechadesh chidushim and is mezakeh the whole world is still an
>einah metzuvah, and has less zechus *for her limud itself* than a poshuter
yid who learns chumash.

Well the classic explanation for the reason for somebody who is ano meztave
v'oseh getting less reward, as per Tosphos and others, is that when one is
commanded, the yetzer hora is much more likely to get in the way and try and
prevent one from doing what one is commanded to do, and one then has to
spend the time and effort worrying about whether one will get it done.  So
that, one who is commanded and then does gets a greater reward than one who
is not commanded and does, for overcoming greater obstacles.  That would
mean that a woman who learns Chumash at the same level as a man would get
less reward for the same level of learning, not that a low level of learning
trumps a high level.

> Echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamam'it is learnt from the poor person's 
> korban versus the rich person's (see Menachos 110a).
>
> Note however that this concept actually contradicts the idea that what 
> counts is the time spent in hard work - ie the amount of ameilus a 
> person puts in, because what it appears to say is that if one gets to 
> the same point, it doesn't matter whether one takes a long time or 
> short time, it is the result that counts

>I don't understand what you're saying.  Echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamam'it
doesn't mean one who puts in more or less effort.  It's one who brings more
or >less.  The whole point is that Hashem values what it cost you, the
effort and sacrifice, not the value of what you brought.  If a few greens
are a more >meaningful sacrifice for you than a fat bull is for the rich
man, then your greens outweigh his bull on the Heavenly scale.

Well there are several ways one could understand this, and indeed you bring
two different ones in the piece above.  

a) One is that HaShem doesn't care about the *value* of the sacrifice only
the *effort* it cost you -if you are poor the effort and sacrifice might be
greater to bring flour than if you are rich and bring an animal. (That is
your second way - starting with "The whole point").

b) A second is that it doesn't matter to HaShem whether a person brings more
or less - so long as he brings what HaShem has told him to bring it is OK,
there are no comparisons being made here (that appears to be your first
explanation - "doesn't mean one who puts in more or less effort, it is one
who brings more or less").

c) A third is that it doesn't matter how much time or effort you put in, so
long as your do it devotedly.

d) A fourth is that it doesn't matter how much time or effort you put into
it, the key thing is that you get to the ultimate result (kaparah from
HaShem) and there are a number of different ways of achieving this.

Tosphos (and the Ritva and Rashba) seems to understand it as (b) - which is
why they have a problem with the fact that in other places it says that you
do have to choose the finest of your flock etc.  If it really doesn't matter
what is brought, why bother with choosing the finest of your flock.  Answer:
You are required to choose the finest of your flock, but you shouldn't be
puffed up with pride because you brought such a nice animal.  Or, the
requirements for choosing the finest of your flock are because
psychologically you might come to disdain the mitzvah if you are told you
could bring any old animal, but these requirements are not really important
in the grand scheme of korbanos.

However the Taz seems to understand it as (c) and also applies it not just
to korbanos, but to tephilla - this is jumping off the Shulchan Aruch, who
says that it is better for one to say little in tachanunim with kavana than
to say much without kavana.  But what the Shulchan Aruch does *not* say is
that it is better (or as good) for one who says little with kavana than one
who says much with kavana.  But the Taz feels there is a connection with
echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamemit, and therefore queries why one who says more
with kavana (ie one who puts in more time and effort) should be equated with
one who says less even with kavana.  And concludes that this is only in
circumstances where the saying of less means that more Torah is being learnt
(and it depends on the machlokus as to whether zman torah l'chud).

And the Sfas Emes understands it as d) - the key thing is that you reach
either dvekus to HaShem or kaparah from HaShem, not how long it took your or
how much of a struggle it was - He tells a parable about two men who both
need to get from one town to another, and one gets there quickly, and the
other does not.  When the second one gets there, he doesn't want to discuss
how he got there, it is enough that he got there in the end, just as the
first one did.

Now it is indeed fascinating that none of these commentators appear to
understand it as (a) - which does seem to be the most straightforward way of
seeing it.  Why don't they say - well a bull to a rich man is as big a
portion of his income as flour to a very poor man, so it is as much a
sacrifice to the one as the other, hence the equivalence?  I don't know.  

It is also noteworthy that the Taz specifically does not apply this saying
to Torah learning, and it would seem from the thrust of Tosphos, the Ritva
and the Rashba that they would not either.

The Sfas Emes might well- although he did not appear to actually discuss it
(and note that if applied to something like Torah learning, his approach
would seem to contradict the idea that one gets a greater reward if one
overcomes the obstacles of one's yetzer hara thrown up by being commanded).


But in order to argue that echad hamemit v'echad hamarbeh is of relevance to
our discussion, you have to say that:

a) the commentators I cited are misunderstanding the mishna - and in fact
your understanding of the mishna is the dominant one, despite all these
commentators who seem somehow to have so missed the point (and I am failing
so far to turn up somebody who does understand it this way, although I do
find it surprising that I haven't as yet, given that it certainly seems
plausible and logical - maybe it is because of the kavana reference - bilvad
shekaven es libo, if the issue is devotion to HaShem, then the level of
effort and sacrifice might be assumed to be also irrelevant); and

b) even if your understanding of the mishna is the correct one (and I can
understand the logic of it as I have said), it can and should be applied to
Torah learning as well as korbanos.

Now there are various reason why I do not think that even were (a) true,
that (b) would be true.  Part of the whole thrust of the discussion
regarding korbanos in the mishna and gemora is that HaShem really doesn't
need our korbanos, and a big one, a small one, what difference does it make,
does he eat them?  Rather the only people who benefit from a bigger rather
than smaller korban are the kohanim, not either HaShem or the baalim
themselves.  Somehow I doubt that many people would say that about Torah
learning.  The mystics, I believe, do see Torah learning as somehow
intrinsically affecting the universe, and for those non mystics, there is
definitely an idea that Torah learning works on a person.  It is a huge step
to say that it is merely the hard work equivalent to digging the holes that
is of value, not the level of understanding attained.  It reduces Torah
learning itself to a form of chok, and even more than that.  Because all the
classic chukim, such as parah adumah, the why may not be comprehensible, but
at least the what is very specifically described.  Here there is no reason
why one should do this rather than anything else except the command of
HaShem (since there is no value in any particular level of achievement), but
there is no actual level of performance prescribed either (ie you are not
even required to meet the minimum level of performance such as sprinkling
the ashes), merely endless time on time spent.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful

Regards

Chana