"V'samtem es divarei eileh al livavchem... v'limadtem osam es b'neichem..."
1) The Alshich writes that these pesukim from our parsha that we say every day in k'rias shema are not separate mitzvos, but rather they go hand in hand. In order to fulfill "v'limadtem osam es bneichem," to teach others, one must first fully commit oneself to Torah and mitzvos. The "v'samtem es divarei eileh al levavchem..." is a prerequisite. If you don't believe it yourself, you can't give it over to others.
One of the problems in MO education is that (there are exceptions, of course) in many, if not most cases, the teachers do not believe in the ideology they are supposed to be teaching. If the school hires a rebbe who identifies with the chareidi community and its ideology, how can he possibly talk convincingly to students about zionism, about the value of secular studies, etc.? If you don't believe in it, how can you teach it?
2) Anyway, getting back to the parsha, the Netziv quotes from Tikunei Zohar (not a very common source for the Netziv to cite) that the parsha of "v'haya im shamo'a" is actually two parshiyos in one. The first section from "v'haya" up until "v'samtem" stands by itself, and then from "vsamtem" until the end is an independent parsha. The difference between the two sections is that the first deals with shemiras ha'mitzvos -- "v'haya im shamo'a... el mitzvosai." When a person's avodah revolves around doing miztvos, then there is a danger of "hishamru lachem pen yifteh livavchem," that they will be led astray and eventually have to be punished by Hashem. The second section, from "v'samtem," is speaking about a person whose avodah centers around talmud Torah. The Yeraim learns that "v'samtem es devarei... al levavchem" means to think about divrei Torah. Here there is no warning of "pen yifteh levavchem" and no threat of punishment. Torah is like a shield. When you are immersed in learning, then the dangers of being led astray are much further removed. The danger of galus is far removed, hence "l'maan yirbu yimeichem al ha'aretz."
The gemara (Brachos 35) asks that there seems to be a contradiction between "v'asafta d'ganecha" and other pesukim that promise an ultimate reward of others doing work for us while we engage in other things. The gemara answers that "v'asafta d'ganecha" is speaking about when Klal Yisrael is not fulfilling "ritzono shel Makom," what Hashem wants. Tosfos on the spot asks: "v'asafta d'ganecha" appears in the context of "v'haya im shamo'a...," which speaks about our observance of mitzvos -- how can the gemara say it applies only when we are not fulfilling "ritzono shel Makom?" The Netziv answers l'shitaso that one can fulfill mitzvos and engage in avodah, but still fall short of the ideal "ritzono shel Makom" which is talmud Torah.
Nefesh haChaim has the same heirarchy -- Torah reigns superme over avodah and any and all mitzvos.
3) A technical question: Tos (Pesachin 50) quotes from the Yerushalmi that a person is not allowed to do melacha on a day that he offers a korban. The Ylmi asks: if so, how can we ever go to work, as every day the korban tamid is offered on behalf of all of Klal Yisrael. Ylmi answers that the pasuk of "v'asafta d'ganecha" is a matir -- we see from the Torah itself that work is allowed.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't understand the Ylmi. According to R' Akiva Eiger (Shu"t Mh"K #9) women are exempt from tefilas musaf; since they are exempt from machtzis ha'shekel, they have no share in communal korbanos, and musaf is a replacement tefilah for the korban. By the same logic women should not have a share in the korban tamid, nor should anyone under 20 according to those shitos that hold the chiyuv of machtzis ha'shekel only starts at age 20. If so, who says "v'asafta d'ganecha" is speaking to everyone? Maybe the pasuk is matir work only for women and others who have no share in the korban tamid, but not everyone else?
(Many Achronim argue on this chidush of R' Akiva Eiger for various reasons, but that's a different topic.)
4) I never like that piskei halacha from R' Chaim Kanievski are usually one word answers without much explanation. Here is an interesting one that I wish he had unpacked his reasoning on: better to daven with a minyan or to daven with hat and jacket later?
מי שנזדמן לו להתפלל בציבור ואין עליו חליפה וכובע, האם עדיף להתפלל בציבור, או להתפלל לאחר מכן ביחידות עם כובע וחליפה?
הגר"ח קנייבסקי: "חליפה וכובע".
I disagree about the Nefesh haChaim's hierarchy. Did you see the haqdamah? Bekhol zos, what is the lesson R' Chaim Volozhiner repeatedly told his son R Yitzchaq?
ReplyDeleteוהיה רגיל להוכיח אותי על שראה שאינני משתתף בצערא דאחריני וכה היה דברו אלי תמיד שזה כל האדם לא לעצמו נברא רק להועיל לאחריני ככל אשר ימצא בכחו לעשות
Besides, I don't see it in the text itself either. Shaar 1 talks about how mitzvoa (ma'aseh) aligns= the kochos of this world with those of higher ones. Shaar 2 talks about how tefillah (dibbur) draws down shefa into this world. And shaar 4 talks about how talmod Torah (machashavah) energizes the world and gives it nitzchiyus. But where do you see a ranking of these tasks?
(Sha'ar 3 is about the two aspects of tzimtzum, necessary to understand the difference in kind between the lishmah of mitzvos and tefillah and the lishmah of learning. And "the chapters" between she'arim 4 & 4 are also about machashavah, but more about will and middos than about talmud Torah.)
In terms of what RCV gave his son... I believe that in the original each shaar was its own text, and the chapters were a collection in yet another notebook. R' Chaim gave R Yitzchaq the stack and asked him to redact it into a single volume. But because the haqdamah says he was given multiple notebooks, we cannot be sure the she'arim were originally written to contrast each other.
4:30 "Moreover, the Torah is greater in light and kedusha than all the mitzvos together, i.e. even if a person were to fulfill all 613 mitzvos in their entirety in complete fashion, theyway they should be fulfilled, in every detail and with full intent and purity and holiness... even so, the mitzvos have no value relative to and cannot be compared to the holiness of Torah..." etc.
DeleteIn the chapters preceding that one the NhC speaks extensively about the superiority of Torah over the olamos, over mitzvos, over everything.
That's the classic contrast between the Tzava'a of the BShT where he says the ikker is dveikus, but what can you do, you have to learn too, and here, where he says that the ikker is Torah, and what can you do, you have to have some avodah too.
DeleteREE: You are identifying deveiqus with mitzvos maasios, and I'm not sure why that's more true than with talmud Torah.
DeleteThis is like what I was saying in my first comment... In each of the booklets R' Chaim posits how that booklet's topic is uniquely important for the maintenance of the universe. While qedusha is associated with Torah, tzelem Elokim is associated with mitzvos maasiyos.
And as 4:30 itself says, while there is no light like the light of Torah, it cannot exist without the lamp of mitzvos, and the mitzvos ground that light. The way 4:30 closes by referring back to 1:6:
והטעם בזה גם כן כמה שכתוב לעיל. שהמצות במקור שרשן קשורות ותלויות בסידור פרקי המרכבה העולמות וכחות העליונים. ומקור שרש העליון של התורה הקדושה היא מאד נעלה מעל כל העולמות והכחות כולם והיא המתפשטת בפנימיות כולם ומקבלים ממנה עצם חיותם ושפעת קדושתם. לכן היא הנותנת ומשפעת החיות והקדושה והאור להמצות כולן:
Meanwhile, the way R Chaim actually raised his son was that mitzvos maasiyos, tefillah and learning are all handmaidens to position you להועיל לאחריני. He literally calls it "כל האדם". Not learning, tefillah, or the ritual mitzvos -- nothing the NhC directly focuses on!
(You get this in Mussar books too. Whatever middah you're working on then is the central keystone to the whole character of an eved Hashem. And then you get to the next middah, and you learn that you can view avodas Hashem in a way that makes it the keystone.)
I love your kashe, that maybe v'asafta is only for people that are not chayav in Machtis hashekel, i.e., women. I would say that if that were the case, you wouldn't need a passuk, but arguendo, I like the idea, and it explains a lot.. The men should sit and learn, and the women should go out and earn a living.
ReplyDeleteNefesh haChaim has the same hierarchy -- Torah reigns supreme over avodah and any and all mitzvos.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what in Nefesh HaChaim you are referring to but if you mean what he says about the Machlokes Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai about "v'asafta d'ganecha" where the Nefesh HaChaim says that even Rav Yismoel who says follow the minhag Derech Eretz by working your land and learn Torah when you are not working does not mean you should take off from learning to work but rather even when you are working you should be thinking in learning the whole time, many years ago when I was learning in Brisk, Rav Dovid Solovatchick shlit'a asked on that Nefesh HaChaim that if that is truly the meaning og the Gemora then how is it possible those who followed Rabbi Yishmael by working and learning, עלו בידן ; how is possible to have a mass society of people so into learning that even when working their fields they don't take their minds off learning, it is hard enough to focus exclusively on learning in the Beis Medrash, how is that possible in the fields?
He didn't have an answer and I'm still looking for one.
See R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar on the parsha who asks the same question and answers that perhaps having in mind the 6 mitzvos temidiyos is enough:
Deletehttps://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19887&st=&pgnum=80
Along the same lines, I believe (and I've written it here before) that while people think torah u'mada or torah and derech eretz or whatever u want to call it is easier than torah only, or is torah-ligh, the contrary is true. To really live up to that model means being 100% as engrossed in torah as someone sitting in beis medrash and on top of that pursuing secular interests. It does not diminish a person's responsibility, it adds to it.
Re Reb Chaim, you realize that the whole Torah world demands his time. I too would love to see him expand on that. If I had to guess, I would say that hikon is a threshold. It obviously does not mean it's better to not daven at all, but choosing between minyan/tefillos niskabel and not, it comes first.
ReplyDeleteWas thinking as well that Rambam never spells out that there is a chiyuv of tefilah b'tzibur, just that it is an eis ratzon, but hikon is a real chiyuv.
DeleteIt's not just this issue, but every time I read stuff from GR"CH it is almost always one of three answers: mutar, asur, efshar. Or simply a quote of a mareh makom from a gemara. It robs the enjoyment of being able to analyze how he thinks and sees sugyos.
But his many sefarim, as you must know, are gold.
Delete2) a. so Mishlei 22:6, hanoch la'naar al-pi...lo-yasur*, would stress >l'dabeir bam< (:19) more than the mitzvahs themselves? *v'sartem, :16
ReplyDeleteb. pen-yifteh livavchem.
what happened to tzitzis as a reminder to ignore straying hearts? they got lost in the blurrr of the physical execution of one great slate of commands, whereas study brings one to consider each mitzvah as a discreet feature of the realm: when you sit; and when you walk; and when you lie; and when you rise in the morning >to don tzitzis<, :19
c. maybe one feeds his animals before himself, :15, and one day resents it, and turns away to strange gods*. but if he studies, 11:15 becomes less rigid, maybe just an asmachta, a midas chasidus; maybe if one is hungry, he can eat first; maybe once he gives the command to "others" ["Brachos 35"] to feed his animals, he may himself eat immediately-- maybe one is not so mindlessly captive as he felt himself to be...
*or makes of animals [or of animal statues/shapes], gods!
3) "...matir work only for women and others who have no share in the korban tamid"
would they need a matir if it was never asur-- in korbanic terms-- for them to work? but maybe if a man's wife, daughters, sons and hired workers under 20, slaves, are forbidden from gathering his grain when he himself is forbidden, then it is they who would receive this matir (but not "everyone")?