Between Awe and Joy -Berachot 22b and 30b

A few days ago on Berachot 22b, the Gemara presents an analogy between Torah study and the experience at Har Sinai. The Gemara states that just like we approached the Revelation at Sinai with אימה, יראה, רתת, ובזיע, with dread, fear, trembling, and quacking, so too we should approach daily Torah study with the same reverence and awe. I asked on Twitter how we can reconcile this with the the verses from Tehillim 19: תּוֹרַת ה' תְּמִימָה, מְשִׁיבַת נָפֶשׁ... פִּקּוּדֵי ה’ יְשָׁרִים, מְשַׂמְּחֵי-לֵב. The Torah of Hashem is pure, it calms the soul...  The laws of Hashem are upright, they make the heart happy. In Psalms there is a clear association between Torah study and שמחה, happiness, while the Gemara in Berachot based on verses from Devarim 4 presents one's approach to Torah study to be one of fear and dread.

At first thought, one could explain that this is another example of the 2 different types of יראה, fear and awe which I have blogged about in the past. However, here the יראה experience is coupled with אימה רתת ובזיע, dread, trembling, and quacking. This awe inspiring experience is much closer to "awe"ful than "awe"some and seems to focus on true fear when approaching Torah learning which is hard to reconcile with joy.

After posing this question, I received responses from a number of my fellow #DafChat participants. You can find these responses here, and here, and here. I would like to focus on one response in particular by Shimon Lerner, a frequent guest poster to this blog, who suggested that this is similar to "וגילו ברעדה" in davening which can be found on Berachot 30b.

The Gemara there analyzes the verse from Tehillim 2, עִבְדוּ אֶת-ה’ בְּיִרְאָה; וְגִילוּ, בִּרְעָדָה, serve Hashem with awe and rejoice with trembling. The Gemara explains that in the place of rejoicing there should also be trembling. This Gemara seems to find no contradiction between rejoicing and trembling, between awe and dread on the one hand and happiness on the other.

The Rif on the Ein Yaakov expands this to describe both prayer and Torah study as Shimon Lerner had anticipated. He explains that one should always approach one's service to G-d, whether in the form of prayer, Torah study, or other mitzvot with level headedness and seriousness. This is despite the fact that it also says (Tehillim 100) עִבְדוּ אֶת-ה’ בְּשִׂמְחָה, to serve Hashem with happiness. One should approach G-d with joy but this joy should never get out of hand, leading to levity. It should always be tempered by trembling.

This is perhaps the meaning of Berachot 22b as well. One should approach every day of Torah learning with the same dread and awe as the original revelation at Sinai. However, this does not mean that one cannot and should not take pleasure in learning. Torah was meant to give us joy. However, when approached with an initial level of seriousness, we can be assured that the joy of Torah will always be in a respectful fashion and will never descend to levity and silliness.

This is something to think about especially as we approach the new school year.  As a Rebbe, I want my students to have fun in my class but fun alone is not enough. My students need to gain from the experience. This can only occur when they show a healthy dose of respect and seriousness for what is being studied. 

Happiness without reverence can quickly descend into silliness. At the same time, reverence without joy will rarely create an atmosphere where students will like what they are learning and begin to pursue a path towards life-long Torah study. It is the job of the teacher to strike a healthy balance between these two opposing but important values.

Serving G-d with One's Heart and a Woman's Obligation to Pray -Berachot 20b

Today's daf states that women are obligated in תפילה because דרחמי נינהו, Tefilla is asking Hashem for mercy which women would need to do just like men.The question is what is the halakhic status of this Tefilla asking G-d for mercy? Is this considered to be Torah ordained or merely rabbinic in nature?

The Rambam in ספר המצוות lists as a Torah commandment of עבודה שבלב, to serve G-d with one's heart. He then continues by asking what is this עבודה שבלב? Tefilla.

The Rambam reiterates this idea in Mishneh Torah where he writes:

רמב"ם הלכות תפילה ונשיאת כפים פרק א

הלכה א 

מצות עשה להתפלל בכל יום שנאמר ועבדתם את ה' אלהיכם, מפי השמועה למדו שעבודה זו היא תפלה שנאמר ולעבדו בכל לבבכם אמרו חכמים אי זו היא עבודה שבלב זו תפלה, ואין מנין התפלות מן התורה, ואין משנה התפלה הזאת מן התורה, 

It is a positive Torah commandment to pray every day, as [Exodus 23:25] states: "You shall serve God, your Lord." Tradition teaches us that this service is prayer, as [Deuteronomy 11:13] states: "And serve Him with all your heart" and our Sages said: Which is the service of the heart? This is prayer.
The number of prayers is not prescribed in the Torah, nor does it prescribe a specific formula for prayer. Also, according to Torah law, there are no fixed times for prayers. (Translation courtesy of Chabad.org Mishneh Torah (English)) 

The Ramban argues on this. He says that daily תפילה is not מדאורייתא at all. Rather it is the kindness of Hashem that he accepts our prayers. The only מצוה is to daven in an עת צרה, a time of distress. In times of trouble, we as a community should turn our hearts towards Hashem in prayers.

The following excerpt on Prayer in the Teachings of Rav Soloveitchik based on a lecture by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein sheds light on this argument.

The Rav's daring comment on this debate ran as follows: the Rambam fundamentally agrees with the Ramban. Indeed, tefilla is obligatory only "in times of trouble," but the Rambam perceives man as existing in a perpetual state of crisis. Were it not for God, he could not exist for a single moment, and there can be no greater trouble imaginable than a person who is, heaven forfend, disconnected from God. Hence, we may deduce that the individual is in a constant state of crisis and needs God's contact and His mercy every day.

This argument between the Rambam and Ramban actually has a practical application a נפקא מינה להלכה in regards to a woman's obligation to pray.

According to Rambam, women are obligated in the Torah obligation of prayer which is to pray once a day. However, women are exempt from the later rabbinic enactments about the time of prayer, number of prayers, and the form and structure that prayer takes since this is all מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמה. However, according to the Ramban the entire obligation of daily prayer is rabbinic. The rabbis who obligated us to pray 3 times a day included the obligation to say שחרית ומנחה for women as well since it is בקשת רחמים.

The Mishna Berurah ( קו:ד) follows the opinion of the Ramban and writes that women should daven שמונה עשרה of שחרית ומנחה daily as well as the first פסוק of שמע, אמת ויציב until שמונה עשרה in order to be סומך גאולה לתפילה. But women do not have to say מעריב because it is a רשות, optional. Women are also obligated to say ברכות השחר ברכות התורה and פסוקי דזמרה. A woman can fulfill her ברכת התורה by saying אהבה רבה.

A woman who is so involved in child rearing that she has no time to daven should recite a short תפילה that includes שבח בקשה והודאה. The son of the חפץ חיים writes about his mother that she hardly ever davened שמונה עשרה when they were little and the חפץ חיים exempted her becasue she was so involved in raising the children. This short תפילה for women could be ברכות השחר and ברכות התורה which both contain these elements. The 3 blessings of ברכות התורה include these:

Praise-שבח

  ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעסוק בדברי תורה

Blessed are you Hashem, our G-d, King of the Universe, who has  made us holy through his commandments, and has commanded us to engage in the study of the words of Torah. 

Request-בקשה

  הערב נא ה' אלהינו את דברי תורתך בפינו ובפה עמך בית ישראל ובצאצאינו ובצאצאי עמך בית ישראל 

ונהיה כלנו וצאצאינו מלומדי תורתך ויודעי שמך ברוך אתה ה' המלמד תורה לעמו ישראל Please Hashem our G-d, make the words of Your Torah sweet in our mouths and in the mouths of Your people, the house of Israel, so that we, our descendants, and the descendants of Your people, the house of Israel, may all know and study your Torah for its own sake. Blessed are you Hashem who teaches Torah to his nation Israel. 

Thanks-הודאה

 ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר בחר בנו מכל העמים ונתן לנו את תורתו. ברוך אתה ה' נותן 

התורה

Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the Universe, who has chosen us from all the peoples and given us His Torah. Blessed are you, Hashem, Giver of the Torah. (Translation from the Koren Sacks Siddur.)

The Power of the Word -Berachot 19b-20a

Often when I teach Gemara my students quibble with the many Halakhic complexities that our rabbis derive from even one word of the Torah text. For example, on the bottom of yesterday's daf and the top of today's our sages derive that while someone who is going to bring קרבן פסח or to perform ברית מילה on his son cannot be מטמא if he hears that a close relative dies, he can and should be מטמא for a מת מצוה, an unidentified deceased person who has no one to bury him. The topic of מת מצוה and the importance of כבוד הבריות, human dignity, is a fascinating one which I hope to revisit in future postings.

This halakha is derived from the following verse:

ז לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ, לְאָחִיו וּלְאַחֹתוֹ--לֹא-יִטַּמָּא לָהֶם, בְּמֹתָם: כִּי נֵזֶר אֱלֹקיו, עַל-רֹאשׁו

He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die; because his consecration unto God is upon his head.

How do they derive this? From the seemingly extra word וּלְאַחֹתוֹ. The Gemara deduces that since we already know one can't become impure for a brother, the extra word sister must teach us that while for a relative one cannot become impure, one is obligated to make himself impure for the מת מצוה.

These are the types of דרשות that drive many of my students crazy. All this from an extra word? What difference does this word make? Today when I inadvertently made a mistake with one extra word in a Lookjed Listserve posting, I discovered how powerful an extra word can be.

I was commenting about this blog and the move by many to utilize social media for the Daf Yomi using the hashtag #DafChat and #DafYomi. I wrote:

In addition to the various Daf Yomi resources listed, many of us have been working to create a Daf Yomi community online through various social media and Web 2.0 tools. The progressive vision of Rav Meir Schapiro that Jews worldwide should all be on "the same page" and the power of Twitter to allow real-time global discussion seems like a natural shiduch.

I have blogged about using the hashtag #DafChat (#DafYomi is also a natural one) to facilitate this discussion. You can read my blog post here: http://techrav.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-siyumhashas-140edu-and-importance.html

One great example of this is the new twitter account Tweet The Daf, http://twitter.com/TweetTheDaf, devoted to sending 3-5 to tweets daily about the Daf.

I have also created a new blog devoted to discussion of the Daf. You can access it here: http://dafchat.blogspot.com/ I welcome your comments, constructive feedback, and guest blog posts so that this can truly become a world-wide Daf Chat.

Here's hoping that we can continue to live-tweet the Daf Yomi for the next 7 and 1/2 years (assuming Twitter is still around then).

Note the word "also" that I have placed in bold and italics. I meant to give three examples about using social media for the Daf Yomi: my TechRav blog post, a great twitter account called TweetTheDaf, and this new DafChat blog. I did NOT mean to imply that I created the TweetTheDaf Twitter account. I have not. I merely wanted to publicize this great resource and, since the name of the creator of TweetTheDaf is not listed on the account, I did not think it was appropriate to share it on a public forum.

However, from some emails that I have received in response to my posting, I appear to have caused a misunderstanding by adding the extra word also. This word implied to some that I was saying that in addition to the blog post and new blog, I had also created this TweetTheDaf Twitter account, which is NOT true. (One of the reasons for this post is so I can publicly correct this misunderstanding.)

This has been a humbling lesson for me about the power of the word. Every extra word, especially in a written format has a meaning and one must be VERY careful when composing responses. When speaking one has the benefit of verbal and visual cues like inflexion and body language. All of this is not possible in a written forum. Every word counts so choose your words CAREFULLY. This is especially important when writing on social media whether in blogs, Twitter, or Facebook, since one potentially could be writing for a very large audience.

If this is true for human beings then kal vechomer the same is true for the divinely written words of the Torah. Hashem carefully chose each word in the Torah for a reason. It is only logical that our sages should seek to derive lessons and halakhot from every single word of the Torah.

I would like to publicly thank the creator of TweetTheDaf for the valuable service he has done להגדיל תורה ולהדירה and apologize for any misunderstanding that I might poorly chosen words in my Lookjed posting might have caused.

לועג לרש, Tzitzit and our Sensitivity for the Deceased -Berachot 18a

Today's daf introduces us to the concept of לועג לרש, ridiculing the helpless, that our sensitivity extends to the deceased. The Gemara enjoins Rav Yonatan against walking in the cemetery with his Techeilet, his blue thread from his tzizit, dragging along the floor because this will cause displeasure to the deceased who are no longer can fulfill the mitzva of tzitzit. This is codified in Halakha that even one who normally wears his tzitzit out should cover up his tzitzit in a cemetery (see Mourning in Halacha 10:13 and 42:30).

Ironically, Tosfot points out that the Gemara in מנחות דף מא עמוד א rules that a deceased person should be buried in shrouds that have tzitzit, also for the same reason of לועג לרש. The reason brought is that if the deceased was used to always wearing tzitzit in his lifetime, it would cause him great displeasure to not be wearing tzitzit in his final resting place, as a constant reminder of the fact that he no longer needs tzitzit. Tosfot in Niddah 61b questions why we have a custom nowadays to remove tzitzit from the deceased or at least render them pasul by cutting off one of the fringes. For an excellent discussion of this Tosfot, see Rabbi Gedaliah Hochberg's lengthy treatment here.

It is interesting to note that the Rashba gives a dramatically different reason for the deceased being buried with tzitzit. He says this is based on the dispute in Shabbat 141b whether mitzvot will still be obligated in the future time of תחית המתים, resurrection of the dead. Those who hold that mitzvot will still be in effect at this time obligate one to bury the deceased in his tzitzit so that he should be able to come back to life already performing this mitzva on his garment.

The fascinating lesson of this complex discussion is the great sensitivity we all must have for the deceased. We are sensitive to their feelings so as not to unknowingly taunt them whether by what we are wearing or what we are depriving them of wearing. Likewise, we want to put them into the best position possible to prepare them for the תחית המתים, a time that we all await as a basic tenet of our faith.

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.