The Wrong and Right Type of לא לשמה -Berachot 17a

The beginning and the end of the first amud of this last Shabbat's daf focuses on the concept of לשמה, loosely translated as doing something for the right purpose. This is a topic that I already touched upon in my previous post on the 4 Amot of Halakha. However, today's daf especially when learned with Rashi and Tosfot brings up an apparent contradiction which requires its own treatment.

The Gemara begins with a prayer that students involved in Torah learning לא לשמה, not for the right purpose, should eventually be involved in Torah learning לשמה, for the right reason. So far, so good.

Later the Gemara makes a much more shocking statement.

מרגלא בפומיה דרבא תכלית חכמה תשובה ומעשים טובים שלא יהא אדם קורא ושונה ובועט באביו ובאמו וברבו ובמי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין שנאמר {תהילים קיא-י} ראשית חכמה יראת ה' שכל טוב לכל עושיהם לעושים לא נאמר אלא לעושיהם לעושים לשמה ולא לעושים שלא לשמה וכל העושה שלא לשמה נוח לו שלא נברא

A favourite saying of Raba was: The goal of wisdom is repentance and good deeds, so that a man should not study Torah and Mishnah and then despise¹⁵  his father and mother and teacher and his superior in wisdom and rank, as it says, The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, a good understanding have all they that do thereafter.¹⁶  It does not say, 'that do',¹⁷  but 'that do thereafter', which implies, that do them for their own sake, לשמה, and not for other motives.¹⁸  If one does them for other motives, לא לשמה, it were better that he had not been created. (http://halakhah.com/berakoth/berakoth_17.html)

Rashi and Tosfot both point out that this categorical condemnation of people who learn Torah לא לשמה, for other motives, contradicts another Gemara in פסחים דף נ עמוד ב which contains the famous statement:

לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה

A person should always be involved in Torah and mitzvot even not for the right motives because from doing them for the wrong motives, שלא לשמה, one will come to do them for the right motives, לשמה.

Rashi and Tosfot both answer that there are different types of לא לשמה. Sometimes one can do a mitzvah שלא לשמה and it is a positive act that could eventually lead to לשמה. At other times לא לשמה is purely negative and nothing positive could ever come out of it.

The first case of לא לשמה which is discussed in Pesachim is when one learns Torah so that he will receive honor. This is the case of מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה, doing it for the wrong motive can eventually lead to doing it for the right motive. The second case of לא לשמה which our Gemara in Berachot speaks about (and Taanit 7a, see הגהה on the side of Berachot 17a) is when one learns in order to annoy others or as Tosfot in Pesachim adds to beat down others and lord over them. In this case, one is using Torah as a weapon to humiliate others and no positive outcome can come from it.

Interestingly Tosfot in Pesachim (50b) adds another factor to לא לשמה. He is not ללמוד על מנת לעשות, learning Torah for the sake of doing the mitzvot. Tosfot in Sota (22b) elaborates on this. He says that since such a person is not learning Torah in order to better fulfill the mitzvot either out of love or fear, he is compounding his sins. Because now rather than sinning out of ignorance, a case of שוגג, he has full knowledge of his sins and yet he still cannot hold back from fulfilling his heart's desires.

Probably the most interesting source on this topic is from Nazir 23b. The Gemara brings an example of מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה, positive לא לשמה, from Balak the King of Moav who brought 42 sacrifices to G-d for the wrong reasons, and therefore merited that one of his descendants was Ruth the convert who sired the Davidic line of Jewish kings (and Moshiach). What is amazing about this example is that Balak was not just bringing these sacrifices for less than lofty motives. He was bringing them in order to try to convince G-d to allow Bilaam to curse the Children of Israel. Isn't this the worst possible example of using mitzvot as a weapon which can never be a positive לא לשמה? I welcome your answers to this question in the comments section of this blog.

Some thoughts on the Mitzvah of אבילות, Mourning -Berachot 16b

On Sunday, I asked why an אבל on the first day of שבע after the קבורה is obligated in שמע. Based on the conclusion of the Gemara both there and on our daf, a חתן marrying a בתולה is exempt from שמע because he has טירדה, distress, and the distress is due to a mitzvah. This is contrasted to a חתן marrying an אלמנה who has a mitzvah but less distress and one whose ship sunk who has distress but no mitzvah. The Gemara puts the אבל in the same category as one whose ship sunk since he has distress but no mitzvah. But is this really the case? Doesn't the אבל have a mitzvah to feel distress over the מת that has died? So he too should be exempt due to his distress with is related to a mitzvah.

I asked my question once again at the Daf Yomi shiur that I give every Thursday night in Congregation Ahavas Achim B'nai Jacob and David in West Orange, NJ. (There is a rotation so a different person gives the shiur each night of the week.) I argued that the mitzvah of אבילות should be analogous to the mitzvah of שמחה, joy, on Yom Tov, or the mitzvah of כוונה, intent, when one prays. 

In each of these mitzvot one has a מעשה המצוה, an action one does to fulfill the mitzvah, and a separate קיום המצוה, what causes the mitzvah to actually be fulfilled. For example, by the joy of Yom Tov, the Rambam (הלכות שביתת יום טוב פרק ו' הלכה יח) lists many actions for this mitzvah including eating meat and drinking wine, buying new clothes or jewelry, or giving sweets to children. However, each of these actions is supposed to lead to a קיום המצוה, the feeling of happiness on the Yom Tov. The actions are a means to this end but the mitzvah is to fell joy NOT to eat meat. A vegetarian, for example, who does not enjoy meat would not have a mitzvah to eat meat on Yom Tov.

Likewise, in prayer, the reciting of the words is merely a מעשה המצוה. The קיום המצוה is in the כוונה שבלב, the feeling engendered in one's heart. As the Gemara says often, while by other mitzvot like קריאת שמע, there might be a dispute whether the mitzvah requires כוונה, by תפילה everyone agrees that without the כוונה שבלב, the prayer is meaningless. The קיום המצוה is in the כוונה.

I always thought that אבילות, mourning, worked the same way. The tearing of קריעה, the accepting of consolation, ניחום אבלים, the sitting of שבע near the floor, the abstaining from bathing etc. were merely the מעשה המצוה. While the קיום המצוה was in the feeling of sadness and distress. 

In my shiur, some of the participants argued that I might be wrong. Perhaps the actual mitzvah by אבילות are these actions. One fulfills אבילות even without the feeling of distress and sadness. This would explain the distinction in our Gemara. The sadness of the אבל is not considered to be the mitzvah and therefore the אבל is obligated in קריאת שמע. 

The better way to understand אבילות is that these actions are designed to give us the space and time to mourn, to feel the loss. But this feeling is completely subjective and cannot be legislated by the Torah. The Torah in its wisdom understands that אבילות is a profoundly personal experience. The actions are there to help each person get through this experience but ultimately each experience is up to the individual.

The 2 Types of Fear - Berachot 16b

Today's daf concludes with a series of voluntary supplications that some of our greatest Tannaim and Amoraim added after completing their שמונה עשרה. Many of these תחינות have made it into our liturgy either to be recited on a voluntary basis immediately following the שמונה עשרה before taking 3 steps back and saying עשה שלום or an integral part of other prayers. One of the most famous has become a part of the special Tefilla we say the last Shabbat of every month to inaugurate Rosh Chadash. This prayer appears in the Talmud as follows:

 רב בתר צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהינו שתתן לנו חיים ארוכים חיים של שלום חיים של טובה חיים של ברכה חיים של פרנסה חיים של חלוץ עצמות חיים שיש בהם יראת חטא חיים שאין בהם בושה וכלימה חיים של עושר וכבוד חיים שתהא בנו אהבת תורה ויראת שמים חיים שתמלא לנו את כל משאלות לבנו לטובה 

Rab on concluding his prayer added the following: May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, to grant us long life, a life of peace, a life of good, a life of blessing, a life of sustenance, a life of bodily vigour, a life in which there is fear of sin, a life free from shame and confusion, a life of riches and honour, a life in which we may be filled with the love of Torah and the fear of heaven, a life in which Thou shalt fulfil all the desires of our heart for good!

This beautiful Tefilla seems to beseech G-d for a life full of fear of G-d twice, once when we ask for "fear of sin" and a second time when we ask G-d for the "fear of heaven". The Eitz Yosef commentary on the Ein Yaakov explains that this teaches us a profound distinction between 2 different types of fear of G-d, what in English we might call the fear of G-d vs. the awe of G-d.

He explains that the first type of fear described here as a fear of sin is a low level fear which involves יראת העונש, a fear of punishment. I am afraid to sin because if I do, I am afraid that G-d will punish me. While obviously this type of fear is better than no fear at all, a religious experience predicated on this type of relationship with G-d, who is the "big cop in the sky" who will catch me if I am sinning is not something that is exemplary. It cannot possibly be that great people in Tanach like Avraham, Ovadiah, and Iyyov who are described as fearing G-d merely had this level of fear of sin.

He then explains that the second type of fear, described in this prayer as " fear of heaven" is actually awe of G-d, described in Hebrew as יראת הרוממות, awe of G-d's loftiness. This is a very lofty level of fear where in one's religious experience one becomes so enameled with the greatness of the Master of the Universe that he lives in constant awe of his greatness. This is the awe experienced by our great people throughout history. It is an experience that although hard to reach should be an aspiration for us all.

Summing up Berachot Perek Aleph – Finding Kedusha in the Mundane World by Shimon Lerner @slerner

Since I am unable to keep up with @TechRav's furious pace of a post a day, I am going instead to try and give a bit of birds-eye-view insight into the first perek (mostly relating to the Mishna, but perhaps worth reexamining some of the Gemara upon obtaining this new perspective).

Before receiving the Torah (at the very point in time when Am Yisroel was about to accept the yoke of Heaven for the very first time) Hashem tells Am Yisroel that they are to become a "Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation". As astutely pointed out in the #dafchat:

https://twitter.com/mikeolshin/status/234429754848190464

This is indeed hinted at in the first two mishnayos.

However I think that the message goes even deeper. There are many moments in our daily routine where we actually try to perform acts in a similar fashion to the Kohanim. This starts with washing our hands when we wake which according to the Rashba is reminiscent of the Kohanim preparing to do the Avoda:

ולפיכך אנו צריכין להתקדש בקדושתו וליטול ידינו מן הכלי ככהן שמקדש ידיו מן הכיור קודם עבודתו

שו"ת הרשב"א חלק א סימן קצא-

It continues with a number of Halachos brought in the Tur comparing us while we pray to a Kohen while doing the Avoda:

ומעומד דומיא דעבודה דכתיב לעמוד לשרת, והשוואת הרגלים ככוהנים בשעת העבודה... וראוי לו שיהיו לו מלבושים נאים ומיוחדים לתפילה כגון בגדי כהונה" -טור או"ח סימן צ"ח

A third example is Friday night when every father blesses his children with the blessing of Bircas Kohanim. (I used to have more examples, but seem to have misplaced my list. Contributions from readers in the comments are welcome!)

The Mishna is thus implying that when we say the Shema and accept the yoke of Heaven we should once again picture ourselves as Kohanim entering to eat Terumah. Why eating Terumah? (and why indeed so many examples of eating as @TechRav asked?)

This example of eating Terumah concisely summarizes our job in this world - to impart even onto the most simple and mundane tasks an element of Kedusha. All of our interactions in this world can and should be elevated to a status of holiness through our actions and intentions. This is the ideal to which we must aspire.

But there is a danger when we all consider ourselves Kohanim. This is the trap that Korach fell into when he claimed "the whole nation is holy!". Korach was unable to distinguish between techeiles and lavan (as according to the medrash he and his followers wore garments of only techeiles). He could not see that each person has a specific task and falls onto a specific shade within the spectrum. He did not differentiate between the ideal (tachlis) and the practical implementation.

So as the night comes to an end our time of contemplation and dreaming about our place in the world is superseded by our need to get up, act, and implement these ideals in the real world. At this point, when we begin to distinguish between techeiles and lavan, we must once again say the Shema this time focusing on our own unique specific day-to-day tasks.

These two ideas, of finding Kedusha in this world, while each person finds their own place on the spectrum are both in sync with the opinion of Beis Hillel in Mishna Gimmel. As expressed in their words: "Every person recites Shema as he is, and he may do so in whatever position is most comfortable for him". This statement contains both of these sentiments. On the one hand it clearly outlines the need for each person to find his/her own unique expression. On the other it underlines the fact that even when engaging in Holy tasks and pursuits, they should feel natural, as it is indeed the goal to bring these Holy elements even into our mundane world. (As pointed out by I. Knohl ['A Parasha Concerned with Accepting the Kingdom of Heaven', Tarbiz, 53 (1983), pp. 11-32 (Heb.) and Rabbi Y. Nagen [Nishmat Hamishna http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/yakov-negen/yakov-negen01.pdf] this is very much in line with Beis Hillel's general approach especially as seen in Avos De'rabbi Nosson where Hillel Hazaken declares taking care of one's hygiene to be a Mitzva. [see also http://thinkingdafyomi.com/the-law-and-the-spirit-berakhot-11/]

Finally we get to Mishna Dalet which introduces us to the world of Berachos. Brachos (blessings) are one of our most powerful tools which can be used exactly for the purpose of bringing sanctity into mundane activities. Instead of just sitting down to eat we first make a Beracha contemplating from where we got the food, giving thanks to Hashem and thus elevating the entire experience. In juxtaposition with the previous mishna, this one dictates very strict precise rules regarding the Beracha. Everyone agrees that when it comes attention must be paid even to the smallest of details.

This encapsulates our mission from the moment of Yetzias Mitzrayim when we were given this task, and until the Yemos ha'moshiach, at last connecting us to Mishna Hei. (there is room for some improvements regarding the framework, and I'm open suggestions from the audience.)

To sum it all up, one of the hidden lessons of the first perek:

• As we say the Shema we should be aware of our mission to bring Kedusha into this world.
• We must realize this on the ideal level (night),
• as well as the practical level (day).
• Each person has their own unique part in this mission,
• All the time being careful and sticking to the formula, especially when applying the powerful tool of Berachos.

Your Loving-Kindness in the Morning and Your Faithfulness at Night -Berachot 12a

Today's daf contains an astonishing statement.

אמר רבה בר חיננא סבא משמיה דרב כל שלא אמר אמת ויציב שחרית ואמת ואמונה ערבית לא יצא ידי חובתו שנאמר {תהילים: צב-ג} להגיד בבקר חסדך ואמונתך בלילות

Rabba Bar Chinana Saba says in the name of Rav: Whoever does not say Emet Veyasiv (Is true and firm) at Shacharit and Emet VeEmuna (Is true and faithful) at Arvit has not fulfilled his obligation. At it is written: To tell Your loving-kindness in the morning and Your faithfulness at night. (Psalms 92:3)

This statement comes after the Gemara has already decided that ברכות אין מעכבות זו את זו, the Berachot of Shema do not restrict each other, meaning one can fulfill one of the Berachot of Shema without reciting the other.

The Tur seeks to greatly limit this statement by saying that the Gemara does not mean to say that one will not fulfill his obligation of Shema of day or night without saying the proper phrasing. Rather, one will not fulfill the mitzva fully as it was intended but really one will fulfill Shema even without the Berachot.

However, the Beit Yosef cites Rav Yosef Isserles, the Terumat Hadeshen, who quotes in the name of Rav Hai Gaon that one would not even fulfill Shema at all if he recited the wrong phraseology. (This is based on Rav Hai Gaon's opinion that the Berachot in fact do restrict each other and only the order of the Berachot אין מעכבות זו את זו do not restrict one from fulfilling the mitzva.)

The Ben Yehoyada tries to learn the Gemara literally but still follow the Halachic decision of the Tur. He interprets the Gemara as saying that if one has not recited Emet VeYasiv at Shacharit and Emet VeEmuna at Arvit he might have fulfilled the obligation of Shema but he has not fulfilled ether of these two berachot. Based on this interpretation, these two blessings are intimately intertwined and one cannot fulfill one without the other.

Why are these two phrases so important? Rashi and Tosfot both explain that the Beracha of Emet VeYasiv focuses on the kindness and open miracles that G-d did for us during the Exodus while Emet VeEmuna focuses on our faith that G-d will perform similar miracles in the future redemption, bimehera beyamenu. Tosfot gives a second explanation that Emet VeEmuna focuses on our daily faith that G-d will return our soul to us after a night of sleep.

I believe that one can truly understand the importance of this blessing by focusing on the proof-text. The full context which comes from the Mizmor we say on Shabbat is:

ב  טוֹב, לְהֹדוֹת לה';    וּלְזַמֵּר לְשִׁמְךָ עֶלְיוֹן.

ג  לְהַגִּיד בַּבֹּקֶר חַסְדֶּךָ;    וֶאֱמוּנָתְךָ, בַּלֵּילוֹת.

It is good to give thanks to G-d, and sing of Your exalted name.
To tell in the morning Your acts of living-kindness, and Your faithfulness at night.

These verses explain the nature of miracles. In reality, miracles occur every day. The sun rising is a miracle. Childbirth is a miracle. But these miracles are within natural events. G-d כביכול is hiding behind a curtain as he runs the world. However, there are brief moments in time where G-d removes the curtain and shows that he is really there. These are the open miracles like the miracles of the 10 plagues and the splitting of the Sea. It is in these moments that G-d's presence in the world is a clear as בקר, the day, and all we have to do is give thanks and sing songs to G-d as the Children of Israel did by reciting Az Yashir.

I like to compare this to a scene from the classic film, the Wizard of Oz. The wizard appears with great fire and circumstance and then Toto the dog runs to the back to reveal the man behind the curtain controlling everything. After that moment, even as Dorothy and her friends gazed at the image of the great wizard they were no longer afraid. They knew there was really someone controlling everything behind the curtain.

Similarly, when we experience G-d כביכול peaking out from behind his curtain when he does open miracles, we should sing his praises. We should tell in the morning of his loving-kindness. But this is not enough. It should also lead us to faith in G-d even during the times where he appears to be hidden. During the long nights of the exile we keep our faith in the G-d who we glimpsed once in the morning of our redemption. This is why as Ben Yehoyada pointed out these two blessings of the morning and evening are so intertwined. If our אמת ויציב in Shacharit does not lead to אמת ואמונה at Arvit then there is something kacking in both Berachit. It is the true and established fact of G-d's open presence in the world illustrated by the redemption from Egypt which keeps us faithful in a final and future redemption during the long night of our exile.

Why isn't the mourner exempt from saying Shema? -Berachot 11a

Today's daf contains the complicated topic of when one involved in a mitzva is exempt from Shema. Within this discussion, the Gemara deduces that a Chatan on his wedding night if he is marrying a Betula is exempt from the Shema because he is טריד, usually translated as burdened or agitated, with the burden of the mitzva he is about to perform. The Gemara contrasts this with a person whose ship has sunk at sea or a person in Aveilut, mourning, who is burdened and yet is obligated to say Shema anyways since the burden is not a burden brought about due to a mitzva.

This distinction between the mourner who is טריד and the Chatan on his wedding night who is טריד has always puzzled me. Isn't the mourner also burdened due to a mitzva, namely the mitzva of Aveilut, so shouldn't he ALSO be exempt from Shema like the Chatan? I looked through many Rishonim and Acharonim to see if they address this question and have yet to find one who does. Am I missing something obvious here?

The closest anyone comes to dealing with this question is the פני יהושע who points out that the fact that the verse excluded the mourner on the first day of mourning specifically from the mitzva of Tefillin indicates that he is obligated in all of the other mitzvot. However, this seems like circular reasoning to me when applied to my question. The mourner is obligated in Shema because the Torah did not specifically say he is exempt? Maybe it was obvious that the mourner should be exempt from Shema based on the same logic as the Chatan on the night of his wedding to a Betula! Namely, that he is burdened and the burden is a mitzva burden, the mitzva of mourning, and not a רשות, a non-mitzva burden, like the one who is bothered by the fact his ship has sunk in the sea! I would appreciate anyone who could provide me with an answer to tis question (in the comments below or on Twitter) or at least point me in the right direction.

Thoughts on Berachot 10a: Condemn the Sin, NOT the Sinner

This past Shabbat's daf, introduces us to Bruriah, the sagacious wife of Rabbi Meir. In the story recorded in the Talmud, Rabbi Meir was being harassed by a Biryoni, some type of outlaw, so he prayed that this man should die. Bruriah retorted with an interpretation of the concluding verse from Tehillim Chapter 104. She pointed out that the verse does not say, "Let hot'im (sinners) cease". Rather it is written, "Let hatta'im (sins) cease". Furthermore, the verse continues, "and let the wicked men be no more" which is superfluous. Bruriah asked that if there will no longer be sinners then of course the wicked would be no more! Rather Bruriah deduced that instead of praying for the death of sinners, the verse is teaching us that we should pray that they do Teshuva so that sin is removed from the world and there will be no more wickedness.

This brilliant interpretation teaches us a profound distinction. We are enjoined to hate the sin but not the sinner. The sinner does not need to be defined by his bad deeds. Rather, he is inherently a good person who has made bad choices and fallen into sin. This is confirmed later in the daf when we learn that every person has a Neshama Tehora, a pure soul, within him or her. This soul remains pure for the entire lifespan of a person even if the person has fallen into impure sinful actions.

This approach to humanity is profoundly different from the approach of other religions, lehavdil. We do not believe that man is born inherently sinful. Rather, man is created with a pure soul that remains pure. It is his actions that can become sinful but this does not need to define him as a person.

This has an important halakhic application. Maimonides in Mishne Torah Hilkhot Gerushin, Chapter 2, Halakha 20 describes the Halakha that although a forced Get, divorce document, is pasul, Beit Din can threaten a recalcitrant man who refuses to give his wife a Get with physical harm until he consents to give her the Get. How could such a Get given under duress possibly be kosher?

Rambam explains:
With regard to this person who [outwardly] refuses to divorce [his wife] - he wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him. Therefore, when he is beaten until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents [to the divorce], he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully.

This Rambam reflects the idea that every Jewish person is considered to be inherently a good and pure person with the best of intentions. Really such a person would of course want to do the right thing. It is only his yetzer hara, his evil inclination, which compels him to act otherwise. So by Beit Din threatening harm, they are merely helping this Jew do what he really deep down wants to do. They are helping him do the right thing.

This is a very important lesson to realize in parenting and teaching. One should never call a child a bad child. Rather one should say that he might have done a bad thing, but that does not mean that he is a bad person. I have heard many stories of great rabbis who disciplined their children when necessary while reflecting this essential understanding. They would say to their child something like "You are better than that" or "That is not like a mensch like you".

This is not just a good parenting strategy. It is the Emet. Every Jew is born with a pure soul. We might sin and do the wrong thing sometimes but we should never let this define us as a person. Like Bruriah who took David Hamelech's example from Tehillim, let us pray that sins should be removed from the world so that there will no longer be wickedness and we will all reach the full potential that Hashem has in store for us.