The context is the reading from the Torah. Other Amoraim in preceding this story say one may not leave during that time, except perhaps between people called to the Torah, and others following this story stress the importance of learning Shnayim Mikra VeEched Targum.רב ששת מהדר אפיה וגריס
אמר אנן בדידן ואינהו בדידהוRav Sheshet turned away his face {faced the other direction} and learned.He said: We with ours, and they with theirs.
Thus, during kriyat HaTorah, Rav Sheshet would not pay attention to the laining but would learn gemara. {I am being approximate here - gemara meaning mishnayot, braytot, and their analysis by Amoraim.}
May one follow his example? Many see a contradiction in Bavli Sotah, where we see one may not speak during kriyat haTorah, even in matters of Torah. As a result, some reinterpret this story:
Rabbenu Chananel says that Rav Sheshet was different in that תורתו אומנתו, Torah was his profession. This is a high level of scholarship, such that most others are not on this level, and so it would not be permitted for them.
This seems to me like a cop-out, much like the oft-used excuse by the stama: adam chashuv shani - "a distinguished man is different."
Also, if he only meant himself, Rav Sheshet should have said ana bedidi, "I with mine," not anan bedidan, "we with ours." It seems that this is addressed to other talmidei chachamim, and not just yechidim shebeyechidim.
For similar cause I would dismiss the idea that Rav Sheshet was allowed to do this because he was blind. At first glance, it is compelling. Rav Sheshet was blind and is therefore exempt from studying the Written Law, while he was obligated in the Oral Law, in which he engaged himself. Firstly I would like to have seen more context in the gemara showing that is was because he was blind, but more than that, I would have expected ana bedidi. It really seems to me he is directing this at his students as well.
I also would reject the idea that he was doing this between aliyot (another harmonization with gemara Sota). Even though just before we had a statement about leaving between aliyot, if this were so, what exactly are "they" engaged in while he is engaged in his own? It seems that they are engaged in Mikra, while he and others in his company should be engaged in gemara.
I would also reject the idea that he did this since he already had heard laining with a previous minyan, and was now learning through all of tefilla, and felt free to ignore kriyat haTorah as well. This is not pashut peshat of the gemara. True, it is a possible interpretation of his statement, but is forced, and the context is imposed upon the text.
Rather, the simplest reading of this gemara is that it is Rav Sheshet's opinion that kriyat haTorah is a time in the middle of prayer set aside to have the community learn Torah. Each person should learn on his level. For most people, all they can do is listen to the Torah being read and translated, and like this, they are learning Torah on their level. However, for talmidei chachamim, who know how to learn gemara, they can spend this time more productively by engaging in learning in Torah on their own level. Thus, אנן בדידן ואינהו בדידהו, we engage in learning our Torah appropriate for us, that is gemara, while they learn Torah appropriate for them.
I think this is pashut peshat in this story, and as a result, Rav Sheshet would hold that a specific level of educated individual should learn gemara during kriyat haTorah rather than listening to the Torah being read.
What then to make of the gemara in Sota 39a? The gemara there reads:
and see Tosafot there.
אמר רבא בר רב הונא
כיון שנפתח ספר תורה אסור לספר
אפילו בדבר הלכה
שנאמר (נחמיה ח) ובפתחו עמדו כל העם
ואין עמידה אלא שתיקה
שנא' (איוב לב) והוחלתי כי לא ידברו כי עמדו לא ענו עוד
ר' זירא אמר רב חסדא
מהכא (נחמיה ח) ואזני כל העם אל ספר התורהRava bar Rav Huna said:
Once the sefer torah is opened it is forbidden to talk
Even in a matter of halacha
As it states in Nechemiah 8:5:
Iyyov 32:16:
{so we see that 'amdu = standing still, such that they do not speak.}
טז וְהוֹחַלְתִּי, כִּי-לֹא יְדַבֵּרוּ: כִּי עָמְדוּ, לֹא-עָנוּ עוֹד. 16 And shall I wait, because they speak not, because they stand still, and answer no more?
Rabbi Zera cited Rav Chisda: from here: (two psukim earlier, Nechemia 8:3):
I think that this need not contradict Rav Sheshet. What is being forbidden in Sotah is specifically speaking to one's fellow - they deduce an obligation to remain silent. Rav Sheshet was not speaking to his fellow man. He turned around and was learning by himself! Certainly even dvar halacha is forbidden to speak, but not to learn silently.
In fact, there is a pasuk that tells us this, as interpreted in Pirkei Avot:
In Eicha 3:28:
כח יֵשֵׁב בָּדָד וְיִדֹּם, כִּי נָטַל עָלָיו.
"Sit alone {learning} and be silent, for you will receive {reward} for it."
The alternative is to say that Rav Sheshet argued on this derasha, and maintained that speaking in learning is permitted, because אנן בדידן ואינהו בדידהו.
There is also a dispute on when exactly the gemara in Sotah is saying one may not speak. The gemara says "From the time the sefer torah is opened." Some read sheniftach in שנפתח ספר תורה as meaning when the Torah is physically opened in preparation for reading from it. This would mean that between aliyot is permitted. Others read it to mean "begun" and thus from the time reading the Torah begins until it is finished, one may not speak, even in between aliyot.
Of the two explanations, I think sheniftach more likely means physically opening the sefer Torah.
People also have a custom to stand during kriyat haTorah, and would look to the gemara in Sota as a source text. But the derasha is clear as meaning being silent as opposed to standing. The gemara does not explicitly say that one must also stand. As Pharisees, do we still pay attention to the peshat meaning of a text even after it has been darshened? (Perhaps. This is the same question as: if you physically place a stumbling block in front of a blind man, do you violate the Biblical command? And, do you get a kiyum when looking at tzitzit because of Ureitem Oto?) Also, perhaps once we deduce proper practice during kriyat haTorah from Ezra in one respect via a derasha, we may apply other pashut peshat elements as well. Or perhaps not. Also, all this is according to the first derivation from 'amdu. According to the second, from R Zera and R Chisda, the pasuk of 'amdu is left alone.
I am not giving a psak here, but I think Rav Sheshet would hold that a talmid chacham may learn gemara silently by himself. Further, I think the idea in Sotah is that people may sit throughout kriyat haTorah, and even talk between aliyot even non-Torah matters {though there is perhaps an issue of talking idle talk in a shul, but in terms of the derasha at hand there is no prohibition}. During aliyot, talmidei chachamim may learn by themselves gemara, but no one may talk to his fellow even a matter of halacha.
4 comments:
huh. that's interesting. I always used to struggle with learning the parsha while they were reading it in shul.. the baal koreh would read it at super speed, and iwas not sure for a long time if it was ok to look at anything else the while. that's a very comforting piece you put, thanks for clarity!
Hey Josh!
Excellent write up! I'm just wondering doesn't the Mishna Bruera say that talking is forbidden even "bien gavra l'gavra" - between aliyot?
first, a reiteration that I am not paskening here. i'm just explaining how I would read the sources. I personally think that this is the correct reading of the sources and as a result at times do in fact read yerushalmi during kriyat haTorah.
if you look at the follow up post, you will see that while one opinion cited by the Shulchan Aruch is in consonance with my interpretation, many others are not.
Now in terms of the Mishnah Brurah, that is *approximately* what he says about between aliyot (thus echoing Shulchan Aruch), but then, both are citing some shittot that interpret the sources differently. He also is talking specifically about talking torah between aliyot, as opposed to learning silently, and in fact might allow certain limited talking even so.
Specifically, he says that the reason for between aliyot is lest the learning be drawn out even into the actual aliyah. He cites the Bach as being lenient in limud during this time, and then says that talking with others would still be a problem lest it be drawn out into the actual aliya. And if someone learns by himself {between aliyot} we do not prevent him from doing so. Further, a one time halachic matter discussion in order to paskin something is OK between aliyot because it is not likely that one will extend into the time of the aliyot.
i have more to say on this, but have to run.
Now, that is one possible explanation for the no speaking between aliyot, given by the bet yosef. another possibility is that of the kolbo (which bet yosef cites) that the reason is that back then, the first person made the beginning bracha and the last person made the end bracha, and if you spoke, it would be a hefsek if you were called up, but nowadays, when each person makes his own brachot before and after, it would not be an issue. the bach, meanwhile, seems to treat even the gemara's instruction as referring to the actual aliya, in part based on the second drasha that every person ears are paying heed to the baal koreh.
what is happening is that there are many ways to read each gemara, and each rishon and acharon has a different conception of what the intent is. That the Mishnah Brurah takes a particular reading of the gemara and explanation of the reasoning behind that reading, and lays out rules of conduct on that basis, should not present a problem to someone who has a different reading of the sources.
In my case, I don't think sheniftach means from *beginning* of reading (as the bet yosef says) but rather like others who understand it to mean *open* and read from, such that between aliyot were not being discussed. Within this reading, I would say the idea is respect for the Torah being read.
(Also, where the Biur Halacha is bewildered (see inside) by the idea that one could learn during leining because the individuals have a chiyuv of hearing kriat haTorah, and therefore suggests they have already heard it, I would say that they are fulfilling their obligation of public Torah learning in an anan bididan veinhu bedidhu fashion.)
In general, I would describe this as a muti-tiered system. The tiers are as follows:
1. The pasuk
2. The interpretation granted that pasuk as a drasha by Chazal (Tannaim, Amoraim).
3. The meaning of the words as stated in the gemara, as understood by, say, Rishonim and Acharonim.
4. The intent behind the halacha as stated in tier 3.
5. The application of the meaning (3) and intent (4) to actual practiced halacha.
There is a machloket in tier 3 as to whether sheniftach means physically opened, or begun.
Within those who feel is means "begin" in tier 3, there is an argument in tier 4, as to why it should be forbidden. e.g. A gzeira lest conversation stretch out, or a hefsek, etc.
Then, on tier 5, actual application, the Mishna Berura lists a bunch of rules based on whether it is likely to stretch out or not, even though the entire idea of this being a gzeira is not anywhere mentioned in the gemara itself.
I think in general there are two ways of paskening. One, which I think is fairly modern, is to try to satisfy all possible opinions in one's conduct, even though all those opinions are possibly contradictory. That is, satisfy all possible opinions that one reasonably can, on tier 4 or 5. This approach will lead to chumraism.
The other approach is to read through the gemaras, geonim, rishonim and acharonim, and decide (be machria) what the most likely and correct reading of the relevent gemaras is. Then use that reading and understanding of intent to determine actual practiced halacha.
Post a Comment