The Learner/Burner Question -- part 4

See previous parts of this article:
part 1
part 2
part 3

The Tannaitic Dispute

The brayta on Pesachim 7a states:

היה יושב בבית המדרש ונזכר שיש חמץ בתוך ביתו מבטלו בלבו אחד שבת ואחד יום טוב

thus stakes out a particular claim -- that one should not interrupt learning for the sake of destroying chametz, but rather one should rely on nullification. This seems at odds with some other Tannaitic statements. For example, the Mishna on Pesachim 49a discusses other cases in which he is already involved, or on his way, to perform a commandment and then recalls that he has chametz in his house:

ההולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ולאכול סעודת אירוסין בבית חמיו ונזכר שיש לו חמץ בתוך ביתו
אם יכול לחזור ולבער ולחזור למצותו יחזור ויבער ואם לאו מבטלו בלבו
להציל מן הנכרים ומן הנהר ומן הלסטים ומן הדליקה ומן המפולת יבטל בלבו
ולשבות שביתת הרשות יחזור מיד

Thus, there are three situations listed in the Mishna. The first is a category of mitzvah. {ftnote: two of the cases in this first category carry a karet penalty for omission while the third is a requirement for shalom. Based on the gemara's discussion, it seems that this first category is just one of general mitzvah.} Therefore, if he has time to physically destroy the chametz and will still be able to complete the required task at hand, he should physically destroy the chametz first. However, if he does not have the time to complete both tasks, he can simply nullify it in his heart. The second category is that of an even more important activity, where he is trying to save from gentiles, from the river, from bandits, from a fire, or from a collapsed building. Who knows what the future will bring, and so it is inacceptable to delay even if he is sure that he has enough time to first destroy the chametz. The third category is one of some non-required activity. In such a situation, he should physically destroy his chametz even if he is sure that he will not have enough time to return to his activity.

Into what category does learning Torah fall? One might consider it in the first category, since learning Torah is a mitzvah. Perhaps learning Torah is so important that it fits into the second category? This would be quite surprising, since these are cases of saving someone from danger. Perhaps one might consider it in the third category, since it is not a commandment such that one violates karet for upon its omission.

The brayta states that one should not stop learning but should instead ab initio nullify it in his heart. This seems to grant learning Torah the same status as the second category in the Mishna. Yet a simple reading of the Mishna would cause one to think that learning Torah falls into the first category, that of a regular mitzvah, and so one should stop learning to physically destroy the chametz and then resume learning later. Indeed, we shall see that there is reason to think so based on the Tosefta.

{footnote: One answer suggested to me by Eliyahu Segal is that learning is a full time obligation, and even though he will never complete it, he must constantly learn. As Rabbi Tarfon states in the second perek of pirkei Avot, לא עליך המלאכה לגמור ולא אתה בן חורין להבטל ממנה. He can thus not return to complete his mitzvah of learning Torah -- that time should be spent learning Torah anyway, and so that learning is forever lost.}

Another source also might be read to suggest that one should stop learning in order to physically destroy his chametz. A brayta is cited on Pesachim 49a, leading up to the Mishna:

תניא ר"א בר צדוק אומר פעם אחת שבת אבא ביבנה וחל ארבעה עשר להיות בשבת ובא זונין ממונה של ר"ג ואמר הגיע עת לבער את החמץ והלכתי אחר אבא וביערנו את החמץ

Rabbi Eleazar bar Tzadok relates that one Shabbat erev Pesach, he and his father Tzadok were in Yavneh, the site where Rabban Gamliel led the Sanhedrin. Zonin, Rabban Gamliel's deputy, interrupted them in whatever they were doing and Rabbi Eleazar bar Tzadok and his father went and destroyed the chametz. One might say that they were learning Torah at the time -- for what else would Rabbi Eleazar bar Tzadok and his father be doing on a Shabbat in Yavneh? A similar incident described in the Tosefta may help us decide whether or not this is so. Yet if so, this important fact is missing from the brayta, and it is akin to proofs that our forefather Yaakov wore a yarmulke based on the words ויצא יעקב.

Indeed, this brayta is specifically cited in the gemara a different law in the preceding Mishna on Pesachim 49a -- that one destroys chametz on Shabbat:

ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת מבערין את הכל מלפני השבת דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים בזמנו ר"א בר צדוק אומר תרומה מלפני השבת וחולין בזמנן

Rabbi Eleazar bar Tzadok thus reinforces his opinion that chullin is destroyed on Shabbat with an incident in which he did just that, with the agreement of Rabban Gamliel (though we do not know if this applies to terumah as well).

There is a similar incident brought down in the Tosefta which more definitively states that one should stop his learning in order to physically destroy chametz. In Tosefta Pesachim 3:9 and 3:10:

אמר רבי אלעזר בר' צדוק פעם אחת [היינו יושבין לפני רבן גמליאל בבית המדרש בלוד ובא זונין הממונה ואמר] הגיע עת לבער החמץ [הלכתי] אני ואבא לבית רבן גמליאל וביערנו את החמץ.
ג,י איזה הוא [צופה] הרואה ואינו מפסיק מכאן אתה אומר ההולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ולאכול סעודת ארוסין בבית חמיו ונזכר שיש לו חמץ בתוך הבית אם יש לו שהות כדי שיחזור חוזר ואם לאו אינו חוזר

In this account, Rabbi Eleazar beRabbi Tzadok and his father were sitting in Lud. Lud, or Lydda, was the location of a major Rabbinic college.In this instance, no mention is made of the fact that it is Shabbat, and so it is likely erev Pesach on a weekday. Here, they are sitting in the study hall before Rabban Gamliel when Zonin, Rabban Gamliel's deputy, comes to tell them that the time to physically destroy the chametz has arrived. As a result, they stop their learning and went to Rabban Gamliel's house to destroy the chametz.

This Tosefta seems directly in conflict with the brayta on Pesachim 7a. After all, that brayta stated that if one is sitting in the study hall, he should not stop his learning but should rather simply nullify the chametz in his heart. Meanwhile, this Tosefta states that one should stop his learning in order to physically destroy the chametz.

This Tosefta may shed light onto what is meant by the similar incident at Yavneh described i Pesachim 49a. On the one hand, we see in the Tosefta that Rabbi Eleazar bar Tzadok and his father were learning before Rabban Gamliel in Lydda when Rabban Gamliel's deputy interrupted them. The same situation of learning before Rabban Gamliel may have occurred in Yavneh, except that the brayta in Pesachim 49a declines to mention it because the focus there is that one destroys chametz even on Shabbat. On the other hand, the fact that the brayta in Pesachim 49a omits this information while the Tosefta has it may mean that they were not learning at the time.

The Tosefta also sheds light on the law brought down in the Mishna. The Tosefta states, following the incident with Rabbi Eleazar bar Tzadok, מכאן אתה אומר ההולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ולאכול סעודת ארוסין בבית חמיו ונזכר שיש לו חמץ בתוך הבית אם יש לו שהות כדי שיחזור חוזר ואם לאו אינו חוזר. This is the same law as in the first category of the Mishna. The Tosefta states that we derive from this story of Rabbi Eleazar bar Tzadok that if he was going to slaughter his Pesach sacrifice, circumcise his son or to eat a feast of betrothal at his father-in-law's house and recalls that he has chametz in his house, if he has enough time to return and destroy it (and then return to the task at hand), he should, but otherwise he should not return (and presumably, nullify it in his heart instead).

Thus, the law for the first category in the Mishna appears to be derived directly from the incident with Rabbi Eleazar bar Tzadok at Lydda. This would lead us to naturally place one who is studying in the study hall in the first category, that of the general mitzvah. If so, not only the Tosefta but the Mishna as well would contradict the brayta in Pesachim 7a.