One of the issues that arose in the course of learning these aggados is whether one is able to make a birchas hatorah on reading and translating even without understanding the code. In most aggadata we are able to draw a message or a point which without question would qualify as limud ha'torah and warrant a birchas hatorah, even if we don't fully understand the message. However, particularly in the stories of Rabba Bar Bar Chana, where each parable is nothing more than a metaphor and has no "pashut pehsat", it is fair to wonder whether reading and translating would warrant a birkas ha'torah. Surely, to learn the gemara with the maharsha or the gr"a it would be serious limud ha'torah, but what about merely reading and translating the words? Similarly, when one would learn the refuah gemaras in the 7th perek of gittin, on which r' akiva eiger in hilchos aveilus has pointed out no longer apply, would they warrant a birchas hatorah?
The entire question is based on the assumption that if one were to read chezkas habatim or any other gemara, without having any understanding what the gemara is saying, would not qualify as limud and would not require a birkas hatorah. I always assumed that we follow the shulchan aruch of the gra"z who writes (hilchos talmud torah 2:12-13):
אך אם מוציא בשפתיו אע"פ שאינו מבין אפילו פירוש המילות מפני שהוא עם הארץ הרי זה מקיים מצות "ולמדתם" ולפיכך כל עם הארץ מברך ברכת התורה בשחר לפני הפוסקים וכן כשעולה לספר תורה, במה דברים אמורים בתורה שבכתב אבל בתורה
שבעל פה אם אינו מבין הפירוש אינו נחשב לו לימוד כלל
Clearly, the ba'al hatanya holds that in torah sh'bal peh, one who does not understand isn't learning at all (although he writes afterward that he should still read through the material because in the world to come he will merit to understand all the torah that he read, but his mind couldn't grasp on this world).
The magen avrohom (50:2) seems to disagree and hold that we don't make any distinction between torah she'biksav and torah she'bal peh. One who doesn't understand is not considered to be learning at all.
But, R' Menachem Levin pointed out to me that the Maharil in the teshuvos (chadashos 45) may hold exactly the opposite of the magen avrohom. The context of the maharil is a justification for woman making birkas hatorah, even though we consider women learning to be "tiflus". The maharil argues: 1. The rambam says that tiflus is only in the oral torah, but not the written. 2. even in oral torah, it is tiflus to teach her, but if she learns herself she gets reward like an eino metzuveh v'oseh. 3. they have a mitzvah to learn mitzvos that pertain to them, as we see that even a goy receives reward for learning the mitzvos that pertain to him. 4. The Rabbonon were mesaken sections of torah that should be recites as a tefillah, such as seder korbanos, which women need to say and need to make birchas hatorah on. In the course of the final argument, the maharil writes:
ואם כן מחייבי נמי לסדר ענייני קרבנות, קראי, ושמא נמי מתניתין דאיזהו מקומן, ותפילות אין שייך דאינן מבינות, ומ"מ הוי כאילו הקריבו קרבן משום עקימת שפתים, דליגרוס איניש אע"ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר, ופשיטא דאיש חייב לברך אע"ג דאין מבין קריאתו וגרסתו
The maharil seems troubled by saying birchas hatorah on sections of korbanos that they don't understand, to which he responds that the reading itself demands a birchas hatorah, even without any understanding. However, it is not clear to me that these statements of the maharil are going on the oral torah. Perhaps the maharil agrees with the shulchan aruch ha'rav and holds that the written torah requires a birkas hatorah even without understanding, but not the oral torah.
In light of this, i think it is a fair question whether merely translating the stories of rabba bar bar chana qualifies as "understanding" torah she'bal peh and warrants a birchas hatorah, or not? The Rashbam at the start of the sugya refers to the stories as שיחת חולין של תלמידי חכמים, which may indicate that unless one spends time learning the meaning, it is no more than sichas chulin.
3 comments:
I remember hearing from my Rabbeim,
The Gemara in Megilla says "Mevatlin Talmud Torah L'Mikra Megilla"
The Meforshim ask isn't Mikra Megilla also a form of Talmud Torah?
Someone (Perhaps the Bais Efraim)answers if you can learn something deeper and you learn something only "on surface", it is almost considered Bittul Torah.
The source of that is a rashash (and maharatz chiyus) in megilla 3a who raises the question. The rashash answers by making a reference to y.d. 246:4 (it says 3 but it is a typo), where the shulchan aruch writes that after one is familiar with torah she'biksav, the ikur limud for him is torah sh'bal peh, so that torah she'biksav would be considered a bitul torah. also see chagiga 10a where the gemara itself seems to indicate that. nonetheless, in regard to birkas hatorah the gemara in brachos 11b implies that the closer you are connected to torah she'biksav, the more it requires a birkas hatorah (see rashi). Meaning, birkas ha'torah is more connected to the word of G-d, than it is to the level of study. My point here is that if it is not "the word of G-D" and not being understood at all, it doesn't qualify as torah (even according to what we pasken that all forms of torah require birkas hatorah).
I just returned from Mincha and did the research.
According to back of the Mesivta Gemara, the Bais Ephraim gives the answer I quoted above. (the Rashash you mentioned is also quoted).
I agree with you that this would not affect the Chiyuv of Birchas HaTorah, just food for thought!
Post a Comment