YESHIVAT HAR ETZION VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH PROJECT(VBM)
****************************************************************

           YHE-ABOUT: UPDATES AND SPECIAL MAILINGS



                   STUDY - TALMUD TORAH

               by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein



[This article originally appeared in Contemporary Jewish 
Religious Thought, ed. Arthur Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr, 
Free Press, 1987.]


	In Jewish thought and experience, few values are as 
cherished as talmud Torah, the study of Torah; and few 
cultures, if any, have assigned to learning of any kind - let 
alone the mastery of scriptural and legal texts - the status 
it enjoys within Judaism.  That priority is not the result of 
much-vaunted Jewish intellectualism.  Quite the contrary:  it 
is, if anything, the latter's cause rather than its effect.  
Its true source is the specifically religious role that Jewish 
law and tradition have accorded talmud Torah.

	This religious role is multifaceted.  The study of Torah 
constitutes, at one level, a halakhic act, entailing the 
realization of a divine commandment - and one of the 
preeminent commandments at that.  As such, it has a dual 
basis.  On the one hand, it is a distinct normative category, 
positing specific goals and prescribing, like other mizvot, 
clearly defined conduct enjoined by a particular mandate.  The 
mizvah of talmud Torah charges the Jew to acquire knowledge of 
Torah, insofar as he is able; but it addresses itself 
primarily to the process rather than the result.  Its minimal 
demand, some daily study of Torah, is formulated in verses 
included in the first portion of the Shema:  "Take to heart 
these instructions with which I charge you this day.  Impress 
them upon your children.  Recite them when you stay at home 
and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up" 
(Deut. 6:6-7).  On the other hand, it is included in the far 
more general charge enjoining the Jew "to love the Lord, your 
God, and to serve Him with all your heart and soul" (Deut. 
11:13) - that service requiring, as the midrash postulates, 
the study of Torah apart from ritual and prayer (Sif. Deut. 
5).

	At a second level, talmud Torah is viewed axiologically - 
both as an independent value and as a means of ensuring and 
enriching spiritual existence, both personal and collective.  
Engagement with Torah for its own sake, lishmah, is a prime 
goal.  Its raison d'etre need not be sought by reference to 
other categories, moral or religious.  Can study that "only" 
entails live contact with the revealed and expounded divine 
Word be less than invaluable?  Obviously, that contact can 
ordinarily have instrumental value as well - in two respects.  
First, study provides knowledge requisite to halakhic living 
even as it deepens halakhic commitment.  Second, since talmud 
Torah enables a person, within limits, to cleave unto God, it 
has moral, passional, and pietistic repercussions.

	These elements exist on the collective plane as well.  
Beyond them, however, one may note a more strictly public 
aspect.  As Torah itself is the basis of Israel's covenant 
with God, so is its study a means both of cementing that bond 
and of providing communal uplift.  In one sense, this applies 
to the oral Law in particular, as the intimacy of the 
covenantal relationship is experienced within it uniquely.  
"Rabbi Yohanan stated:  'The Holy One, blessed be He, entered 
into a covenant with Israel only because of oral matters, as 
it is written [Ex. 34:27]:  "For after the tenor of these 
words I have made a covenant with thee, and with Israel"'" (BT 
Git. 60b).  The principle, however, applies to Torah in its 
entirety, with its full conceptual and experiential import.

	At a third level, the role of talmud Torah is conceived 
in cosmological and mystical terms, bordering in some 
formulations, on the magical.  From this perspective, it 
attains continuous cosmic significance as a metaphysical 
factor affecting the fabric of reality - indeed, as that which 
supports and sustains the very existence of the universe.  The 
Talmud cites this concept in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, who, 
interpreting a biblical verse in this vein, saw it as 
attesting to the significance of Torah:  "Rabbi Eleazar said:  
'Great is Torah for, were it not for it, heaven and earth 
would not exist, as it is stated [Jer. 33:25], "If my covenant 
be not day and night, I have not appointed the ordinances of 
heaven and earth"'" (BT Ned. 32a); and elsewhere the Talmud 
explains the gravity of bittul Torah - literally, "the 
negation of Torah," that is, the failure to study it 
adequately - on a similar basis (BT Shab. 33a).  Rabbi Hayyim 
Isaac Volozhiner, founder in 1802 of the archetypal Lithuanian 
yeshiva and the most vigorous modern proponent of this view, 
went so far as to arrange for some measure of Torah study at 
his yeshiva at all times in order to ensure cosmic existence.  
To many, this may surely seem naively bizarre 
anthropocentrism.  Be that as it may, the underlying attitude, 
shorn of its literalist application, is deeply rooted in 
rabbinic tradition.

	The object of study can of course be any and every part 
of Torah.  The Midrash, commenting upon the verse "Give ear, 
my people, to my teaching" (Ps. 78:1), notes:  "Let not one 
tell you that the psalms are not Torah, for they are indeed 
Torah, and the prophets are also Torah...as are the riddles 
and the parables" (Mid. Ps. ad loc. Ps. 78:1).  And from a 
purely normative standpoint, the mizvah is fulfilled, 
regardless of which area of Torah is being studied.  
Historically, however, the major emphasis - particularly, but 
not exclusively, at more advanced levels of scholarship - has 
been upon the Torah she-be-al peh, the corpus of law and 
tradition, homily and exegesis, primarily formulated and 
preserved in the Talmud.  Jews often recited tehillim (psalms) 
as a pietistic exercise, but learning was more likely to deal 
with the Mishnah, the Gemara, or the collection of talmudic 
aggadot, Ein Ya'akov.  The Talmud itself postulates that 
periods of study should be apportioned, "one third to 
Scripture, one third to midrash, and one third to Talmud [that 
is, Gemara]" (BT Kid. 30a).  However, one classical medieval 
authority, Rabbenu Tam, held that the study of the Babylonian 
Talmud sufficed, since all three elements were blended within 
it, while another, Moses Maimonides, stated that this counsel 
applied only in the early stages of intellectual development, 
during which the raw material of Torah was being absorbed and 
digested, but that once the infrastructure existed a person 
should devote himself to the subtle analysis of the Gemara.  
Whatever the rationale, the primacy of Torah is fairly clear.

	The primacy derives, in part, from concern about 
potentially heterodox tendencies springing from direct and 
independent study of Scripture.  Primarily, however, it is 
grounded in the centrality of law and rabbinic tradition 
within Jewish consciousness and experience.  The encounter 
with God as commander lies at the heart of Jewish existence; 
to the extent that it is realized through talmud Torah, the 
legal corpus, as developed within the oral tradition, is a 
prime vehicle for this encounter.  To an outsider, much of 
traditional talmud Torah no doubt borders on the absurd.  From 
a purely rational or pragmatic perspective, the prospect of a 
group of laymen studying the minutiae of complex and often 
"irrelevant" halakhot may indeed be bizarre.  In light of 
Jewish commitment and experience, however, it is thoroughly 
intelligible.

	That commitment is the key to the traditional conception 
of the nature of talmud Torah.  Study is of course an 
intellectual and largely critical activity, but in this case 
it is significantly molded by its religious character.  The 
effect is both enriching and constricting.  On the one hand, 
Torah study, regarded as an encounter with the Shekhinah (the 
divine Presence), is enhanced by an experiential dimension.  
Hence the importance that the rabbis assigned to the 
confluence of prayer and study:  They urged that one should 
preferably engage in both at the same place, even if in most 
views this entails praying in private rather than in public.  
In this vein, talmud Torah can assume an almost visceral 
quality, and aggadic texts abound with similes comparing Torah 
study to sensuous and even sensual activity, elemental and 
exotic alike.  Commenting upon the verse "A lovely hind and a 
graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times" 
(Prov. 5:19), Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman expounds:  "Why were the 
words of the Torah compared to a hind?  To tell you that the 
hind has a narrow womb and is relished by its cohabitants at 
each and every moment as at the first hour....Why were Torah 
words compared to a nipple?  As with a nipple, however often 
an infant fondles it he finds milk in it, so it is with Torah 
words.  As often as a man ponders them, he finds relish in 
them" (BT Er. 54b).

	Conceived in such terms, talmud Torah is invested with a 
dual nature.  In part, it is oriented to accomplishment, with 
the acquisition of knowledge and skills being obvious goals.  
Teleological considerations aside, however, the process, as 
has been noted, is no less important than its resolution; and 
even if one has retained nothing, the experience itself - live 
contact with the epiphanous divine will manifest through 
Torah, and encounter with the divine Presence, which hovers 
over its students - is immeasurably important.  Talmud Torah 
is not just informative or illuminating; it is ennobling and 
purgative.  He who studies Torah, says the Mishnah, "is called 
friend, beloved, lover of God, and lover of men.  He rejoices 
God and men.  The Torah invests him with modesty and reverence 
and enables him to be virtuous, pious, upright, and faithful.  
It distances him from sin and draws him near to virtue" (M. 
Avot 6:1).  It is this emphasis upon process and its purgative 
character that renders abstruse study both possible and 
meaningful.  From a pragmatic standpoint, much talmud Torah is 
futile or irrelevant, or both.  Religiously regarded, however, 
it is eminently sensible.  The bather is refreshed, regardless 
of where he dips into the ocean.  Does he refrain from going 
to the water merely because he cannot reach the other shore?

	But if the religious conception of talmud Torah extends 
its horizons in one sense, it constricts them severely in 
another.  The religious view implies, in effect, that study 
that is not grounded in commitment is, at best, of limited 
value, and that has indeed been the traditional position.  
With reference to more extreme cases - presumably those 
involving patently negative attitudes - the rabbis stated that 
while Torah is life-giving to those who approach it rightly, 
"to the sinister, in relation to it, it is a poisonous herb" 
(BT Shab. 88b).  However, even purely dispassionate study, the 
very ideal of much of the academic world, has been regarded 
with great reservation.  This attitude has not been grounded 
in a mystical view of Torah as a gnosis to be reserved for the 
initiate; it has sprung, rather, from the perception that 
talmud Torah cannot be realized by approaching sacral material 
from a secular perspective.

	While the sacral character of talmud Torah has generally 
been universally assumed by Jewish tradition, its scope has 
been very much in dispute.  Of course, relatively few have 
doubted that much learning is a desirable thing; but opinions 
have differed over how much could be normatively demanded or 
ordinarily expected.  Some have held that while the mizvah of 
talmud Torah clearly required a modicum of daily study, 
anything beyond the barest minimum was more a matter of lofty 
aspiration than of halakhic duty.  Others, however, have 
insisted that while minimal daily study could be singled out 
as an inescapable and irreducible charge, maximal commitment - 
flexibly perceived - constituted an obligation rather than a 
meritorious desideratum.  As Rabbenu Nissim, one of the last 
of the great medieval authorities, put it in the fourteenth 
century:  "Every person is obligated to study constantly, day 
and night, in accordance with his ability" (Comm. on BT Ned. 
8a).

	The key phrase is, of course, "in accordance with his 
ability" (kefi koho), but its practical substantive import 
remains wholly amorphous so long as one has not come to grips 
with the critical question of the relation of talmud Torah to 
other areas of human endeavor, secular or religious.  In one 
sense, this is simply a variant of the broader problem of the 
definitions of priorities and the apportionment of energies, 
resources and commitment between the mundane and the spiritual 
realms, respectively.  This specific point was debated in the 
twelfth century by Rabbenu Tam and his grand-nephew, Elhanan 
ben Isaac of Dampierre, who, in interpreting the aphorism 
"Excellent is talmud Torah together with a worldly occupation" 
(M. Avot 2:2), disagreed as to which component was primary.  
Presumably, they dealt with practical rather than axiological 
primacy; nevertheless, their controversy is clearly 
significant.  At a second level, however, the problem concerns 
the relation between different elements of the spiritual life 
proper - between the outreach of charity and gemilut hasadim 
as opposed to self-centered spirituality; or between talmud 
Torah and prayer as aspects of the contemplative life.

	Surveying much of the current yeshiva scene and its 
recent east European, and particularly Lithuanian, background, 
one often gets the impression that, as a spiritual value, 
talmud Torah is not only central but exclusive.  From a 
broader perspective, however, the picture is more balanced - 
especially with reference to the talmudic sages.  Statements 
to the effect that "talmud Torah is equal to them [that is, a 
list of key mizvot] all" (Pe'ah 1:1), or the famous counsel 
"Turn it over and turn it over [that is, the torah] for all is 
in it" (M. Avot 5:25), are complemented by sharp asseverations 
that single-minded talmud Torah is not only incomplete but 
distorted.  "Whoever says that he has nothing but Torah," 
expounds the Talmud in the tractate Yevamot, "does not even 
have Torah.  Why?  Rav Papa said, 'Scripture states, "Study 
them and observe them faithfully" [Deut. 5:1].  Whosoever 
relates to observance relates to study, whosoever does not 
relate to observance does not relate to study'" (BT Yev. 
109b).  Elsewhere, we encounter an even more radical 
statement.  "He who engages solely in Torah [study]," declares 
Rav Huna, "is one who has no God.  For it is written [II 
Chron. 15:3], 'Now for long seasons Israel was without the 
true God.'  What is meant by 'without the true God'?  It means 
that he who engages solely in Torah [study] is as one who has 
no God" (BT Av. Zar. 17b).

	Unquestionably, emphases differ among both the talmudic 
sages and subsequent generations.  The Talmud relates that 
when Rav Huna saw Rabbi Hamnuna prolonging his prayer at the 
expense of talmud Torah, he commented:  "They forsake eternal 
life and engage in temporal life"; and it goes on to explain 
that Rabbi Hamnuna evidently held that there should be "a time 
for prayer apart, and a time for Torah apart" (BT Shab. 10a).  
Analogously, the practice of the Palestinian amora Rabbi 
Joshua ben Levi, who "would not go to a house of mourning save 
to that of one who had been childless, for it is written, 
'Weep sore for him that goeth away, for he shall return no 
more nor see his native country' [Jer. 22:10]" (BT MK 27b), 
presumably so as not to divert time and energy from talmud 
Torah, reflects this singular emphasis.  But one principle is 
beyond question, namely, that Torah exists within a larger 
axiological complex.  It both complements other values and is 
complemented by them, and even if it reigns supreme, it surely 
does not rule alone.

	Clearly, then, the assertion of Rabbenu Nissim that one 
is obligated to engage in talmud Torah "day and night, to the 
extent of one's ability [kefi koho]," remains, in practical 
terms, ill defined.  Only after one has determined the scope 
of other legitimate concerns and has allocated to them their 
respective time and effort does kefi koho become clear.  
Nevertheless, the formulation - with its implicit assumption 
that there is a basic total commitment to talmud Torah from 
which one then subtracts - is highly significant in its own 
right.  It clearly reflects the singular importance that, 
whatever the continuing dialectic between intellection and 
implementation, Judaism has uniquely assigned to the study of 
Torah, even at the popular level.  One might note that the 
concern with talmud Torah attains further significance as a 
source of the heightened time-consciousness that is so 
integral a part of Jewish sensibility and experience.

	Finally, as to the scope of talmud Torah, it is very 
broad in one sense and extremely limited in another.  As a 
value, its range is well nigh universal.  It relates to 
Gentiles and Jews alike, to both men and women, to children as 
well as adults.  "Rabbi Meir stated, 'Whence that even a 
Gentile who engages in [the study of] Torah is as a high 
priest?  For it is stated [Lev. 18:5], "Which if a person do 
[i.e., the mizvot], he shall live by them."  It does not say, 
"Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites," but "a person"'" (BT Sanh. 
59a).  As a normative mizvah, however, it devolves only upon 
Jewish men.  For others, it is regarded in part as an 
admirable aspiration and in part as a means for acquiring the 
knowledge requisite for the fulfillment of other mizvot, but 
not as a duty to pursue knowledge for its own sake.  Moreover, 
concern lest half-baked knowledge be abused has, at times, 
actually led to discouraging such voluntary study.  This fear 
of dilettantism has, historically, been a prime reason for the 
relatively limited level of Torah study by women.  Given the 
changes in women's overall social and educational status and 
the nature of their total cultural experience within the 
modern world, many have felt that this benign neglect is no 
longer warranted; and, indeed, since the turn of the century, 
much has been done to redress the imbalance in the talmud 
Torah of men and women.  How far this process will develop and 
whether it has built-in halakhic limits remains to be seen.  
Be that as it may, the axiological and historical centrality 
of talmud Torah remains a cardinal fact of Jewish spiritual 
existence.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
------------

Louis Ginzberg, "The Rabbinical Student," in Students, 
Scholars and Saints, 2nd ed. (1958).
Aharon Lichtenstein, "Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic 
Independent of Halakha?" in Marvin Fox, ed., Modern Jewish 
Ethics: Theory and Practice (1975).
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (1983).

***********************************************************************

To subscribe send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il: subject:(leave 
blank or type word 'subscription'), on first line of text 
type: subscribe yhe-holiday  .

For a complete list of YHE Virtual Beit Midrash curriculum, 
send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il:, on first line of text type: 
get yhe-about courses .

Copyright (c) 1995 Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.

***********************************************************************

SHIURIM MAY BE DEDICATED TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS - YAHRZEITS, SEMACHOT, 
BIRTHDAYS, ETC.  PLEASE E-MAIL YHE@JER1.CO.IL FOR AN APPLICATION AND A 
LIST OF OPPORTUNITIES.


                     YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
                     VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
               ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
        E-MAIL: YHE@JER1.CO.IL or OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL