We seem two
approaches as to how to view the issur of learning Torah for an avel. Either it’s to avoid simcha or it’s
because the avel is supposed to be “shocked into silence.” Based upon this we can understand the machlokes
cited in Shulchan Aruch (ibid: sif 3) if on the 9th of Av
one is permitted to learn if you don’t say the words. If the reason is to avoid simcha, it
should still be prohibited, however, if the reason is just to be silent, it
would be permitted. [It is noteworthy that we see from here that there is a fulfillment of Talmud Torah even without speaking out the words.]
Regarding, the limud
itself from פקודי ה' ישרים משמחי לב, it needs to be understood why that should
be limited to learning Torah. The possuk
isn’t merely referring to Torah, it’s referring to mitzvot as well, for ex. The
Radak: פקודי י״י – היינו מפרשים פקודי מצות כתרגומו,
אלא שאמר אחר כן מצות יי׳, לפיכך נפרש פקודי מגזרת והיה האכל לפקדון (בראשית מא לו),
שהוא ענין הגניזה וההנחה. והם הדברים שהשכל מורה עליהם, Malbim:
החלק של המצות הנקראים בשם פקודים, שהם מיוחדים
לזכר ע״י דברים אמוניים (כמו המועדים על יצ״מ) או במדות (כמו מצות פריקה וטעינה פאה
ומתנות עניים וכדומה), נבדלים מן הפקודים כמוהם שעשו בני אדם עפ״י הסכמתם שאינם ישרים. So
why is learning prohibited but mitzvot are permitted? Rav Bakshi-Doron (Binyan Av volume 5 #71)
explains that when it comes to other mitzvot, simcha enhances the
fulfillment of the mitzvah, but one can do the barebones, basic action of the
mitzvah even without simcha.
However, simcha is part of the mitzvah of learning! One who learns without simcha is
lacking is his fulfillment of Talmud Torah.
[Of course, there is no way to see that difference in the verse, you
will have to say that was the understanding of Chazal.]
you want to learn that the rambam holds that even on tish'a b'av the source for the issur limud is האנק דום? How can that be. If that were so, shouldn't it be assur to learn דברים הרעים yet even the rambam would agree that דברים הרעים are mutar to learn on tish'a b'av.
ReplyDeleteAnd with regard to the diyuk that there is a kiyum of limud hatorah with thought from s'if 3, see magen avraham who understands it differently.
I don't undrstand rav bakshi-doron's answer. The gemara understood that learning torah is the cause of the simcha not that one must be בשמחה in order to truly learn. If the din would be like him, it would be mutar to learn just one would have to learn without simcha. clearly chazal learnt from this passuk that learning will bring one to simcha. which just brings us back to the original wuestion of how do we know that it is talking about learning. Another question we can ask is that even if I were to grant you that we are talking about limud hatorah, perhaps it is just halachik sections, as is implied from the lashon pekudim, but aggadic parts should have been permitted.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the magan avrohom that way for I assume that the simcha comes because of the mitzvah, not as stam words of Torah. I think his point is this idea itself, even though its not the optimal way of doing the mitzvah, there is still some form of mitzvah and that has simcha.
ReplyDeleteif that is the correct understanding of the magen avraham, how do you understand the comparison to limud b'iyun devarim hara'im. acc. to my understanding the comparison was simple, just like thought is something one would not have thought is in the geder of the takana because it is not a mitzvah, still assur because it practically brings simcha so to limud devarim hara'im which chazal did not include in the geder hatakana is still assur if it practically brings simcha. acc. to you there should be an obvious distinction. granted that chazal would assur limud hatorah with thought because it is somewhat of a kiyum of the mitzvah and it brings simcha. limud devarim hara'im however was never included in the takana and one would still have to prove that it should be assur if it brings simcha
ReplyDeleteI understand him to be proving that simcha is the driving force of the issue, just as thinking in learning is prohibited because of simcha (even though its an incomplete fulfillment of the mitzvah, so too saddening topics, even though they may be learnt, if it's learnt in a manner of simcha, its prohibited. His point (in my opinion,) is that its not a idea of some kind of geder of what what you can or can't learn (as you seem to be suggesting,) it is that Chazal prohibited any form of the mitzvah of learning if it brings simcha
ReplyDelete