מי ראוי ללמוד תורה? - שיעור קצר לפרשת יתרו תש"פ

בפרשה שלנו מתואר אחד אחד האירועים המשמעותיים ביותר בתולדות עמ״י – מתן תורה. מעמד מרשים, מרגש, כל עם ישראל עומדים, כאיש אחד בלב אחד, ומקבלים את התורה. אך נדמה שהרעיון של מסירת התורה לכלל עמ״י לא פשוט כל כך. כבר במקורות התנאיים יש לנו שתי גישות לגבי צורת מסירת התורה ואם תרצו – לשאלה למי שייכת התורה.

(א) משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה:

Pirkei Avot 1:1

(1) Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.

עירובין נ״ד ב

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, כֵּיצַד סֵדֶר מִשְׁנָה: מֹשֶׁה לָמַד מִפִּי הַגְּבוּרָה. נִכְנַס אַהֲרֹן, וְשָׁנָה לוֹ מֹשֶׁה פִּירְקוֹ, נִסְתַּלֵּק אַהֲרֹן וְיָשַׁב לִשְׂמֹאל מֹשֶׁה. נִכְנְסוּ בָּנָיו, וְשָׁנָה לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה פִּירְקָן. נִסְתַּלְּקוּ בָּנָיו, אֶלְעָזָר יָשַׁב לִימִין מֹשֶׁה, וְאִיתְּמַר לִשְׂמֹאל אַהֲרֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אַהֲרֹן לִימִין מֹשֶׁה חוֹזֵר. נִכְנְסוּ זְקֵנִים וְשָׁנָה לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה פִּירְקָן. נִסְתַּלְּקוּ זְקֵנִים, נִכְנְסוּ כׇּל הָעָם וְשָׁנָה לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה פִּירְקָן. נִמְצְאוּ בְּיַד אַהֲרֹן אַרְבָּעָה, בְּיַד בָּנָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה, וּבְיַד הַזְּקֵנִים שְׁנַיִם, וּבְיַד כׇּל הָעָם אֶחָד. נִסְתַּלֵּק מֹשֶׁה וְשָׁנָה לָהֶן אַהֲרֹן פִּירְקוֹ. נִסְתַּלֵּק אַהֲרֹן שָׁנוּ לָהֶן בָּנָיו פִּירְקָן. נִסְתַּלְּקוּ בָּנָיו, שָׁנוּ לָהֶן זְקֵנִים פִּירְקָן. נִמְצָא בְּיַד הַכֹּל אַרְבָּעָה.

Eruvin 54b

whenever a person searches it for figs to eat, he finds figs in it, as the figs on a tree do not ripen all at once, so that one can always find a recently ripened fig, so too, with matters of Torah. Whenever a person meditates upon them, he finds in them new meaning. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A loving hind and a graceful roe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times, and be you ravished always with her love” (Proverbs 5:19)? Why were matters of Torah compared to a hind? To tell you that just as with a hind, its womb is narrow and it is cherished by its mate each and every hour like the first hour, so too, matters of Torah are cherished by those who study them each and every hour like the first hour. “And a graceful roe” is expounded as follows: That the Torah bestows grace upon those who study it. “Let her breasts satisfy you at all times”; why were matters of Torah compared to a breast? Just as with a breast, whenever a baby searches it for milk to suckle, he finds milk in it, so too, with matters of Torah. Whenever a person meditates upon them, he finds new meaning in them. “And be you ravished always with her love”; your love for Torah should always distract you from worldly matters, as was the case with Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat. They said of him, of Rabbi Elazar, that he would sit and engage in Torah study in the lower marketplace of Tzippori, and his cloak was lying in the upper marketplace of Tzippori. His mind was so focused on Torah study that he would act in this unusual manner. In this regard, the Gemara relates that it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: One time a person came to take this cloak for himself and found a serpent on it guarding it. In further praise of the Torah and those who study it, a Sage of the school of Rav Anan taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You that ride on white donkeys, you that sit on rich cloths, and you that walk by the way, tell of it” (Judges 5:10)? “You that ride on white donkeys”; these are Torah scholars, who travel from city to city and from province to province to study Torah. “White [tzeḥorot]” are those who make it clear as noon [tzahorayim], i.e., who make the Torah comprehensible. “You that sit on couches [midin]” refers to those who judge [danin] an absolutely true judgment. “And you that walk”; these are the masters of Bible, who are the least important of the scholars. “By the way”; these are the more important masters of Mishna. “Tell of it”; these are the masters of Talmud, the most important of all, as all their conversation is about matters of Torah. The Gemara continues with this topic: Rav Sheizvi said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The slothful man [remiyya] will not roast [yaḥarokh] his catch” (Proverbs 12:27)? The deceitful [rammai] hunter will not live [yiḥyeh] a long life [ya’arikh]. A deceitful hunter continues to hunt more and more animals without holding on to the animals he has already caught. Similarly, someone who continues to study new material without reviewing what he has already learned will not be successful. Rav Sheshet said: Will a deceitful hunter have something to roast? One who acts in this way is a fool, but it is hard to describe him as deceitful. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This is comparable to a hunter who is hunting birds; if he breaks the wings of the birds one by one as he captures them so that they will be unable to fly off again, his prey will be secured, and if not, they will not be secured. According to this explanation, the word rammai is interpreted as cunning rather than deceitful. A cunning hunter secures his prey; similarly, a cunning student reviews each lesson and thereby retains that which he learns. Similarly, Rabba said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Wealth gotten through vanity [hevel] shall be diminished; but he that gathers little by little shall increase” (Proverbs 13:11)? If a person turns his Torah into bundles [ḥavilot, derived from the word hevel by replacing the heh with a ḥet], studying large amounts at the same time, his Torah will diminish. And if not, i.e., if he learns little by little and reviews what he has learned, he that gathers little by little shall increase. Rabba said: The Sages know this, but nevertheless transgress it, i.e., they fail to heed this advice. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I did this, learning little by little and regularly reviewing what I had learned, and my learning has indeed endured. The Gemara continues to discuss methods of Torah study. The Sages taught the following baraita: What was the order of teaching the Oral Law? How was the Oral Law first taught? Moses learned directly from the mouth of the Almighty. Aaron entered and sat before him, and Moses taught him his lesson as he had learned it from God. Aaron moved aside and sat to the left of Moses. Aaron’s sons entered, and Moses taught them their lesson while Aaron listened. Aaron’s sons moved aside; Elazar sat to the right of Moses and Itamar sat to the left of Aaron. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with the first tanna with regard to the seating arrangements and said: Actually, Aaron would return to sit to the right of Moses. The elders entered and Moses taught them their lesson. The elders moved aside, and the entire nation entered and Moses taught them their lesson. Therefore, Aaron had heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders heard it twice, and the entire nation heard it once. Moses then departed to his tent, and Aaron taught the others his lesson as he had learned it from Moses. Aaron then departed and his sons taught the others their lesson. His sons then departed and the elders taught the rest of the people their lesson. Hence everyone, Aaron, his sons, the elders and all the people, heard the lesson taught by God four times. From here Rabbi Eliezer said: A person is obligated to teach his student his lesson four times. And it follows by way of an a fortiori inference: If Aaron, who learned from Moses himself, and Moses had received the Torah directly from the mouth of the Almighty, needed this regimen; an ordinary student learning from the mouth of an ordinary teacher, how much more so must he review his studies four times. Rabbi Akiva says: From where do we derive that a person is obligated to teach his student until he learns the material and understands it? As it is stated: “Now therefore write this song for you, and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19). This verse indicates that one must teach Torah to others. And from where do we derive that one must teach his students until the material is organized in their mouths? As it is stated: “Put it in their mouths,” so that they should be capable of teaching it to others. And from where do we derive that a teacher must show his students the reasons for the teachings? As it is stated: “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them” (Exodus 21:1), which indicates that the lesson must be set out in logical fashion for the students. With regard to the manner in which the Oral Law was taught, the Gemara asks: They should all have studied from Moses himself four times. The Gemara answers: The teaching was divided in this manner in order to give honor to Aaron and his sons, and also to give honor to the elders. The Gemara asks why a different method was not adopted, one which would have involved less trouble for Moses: Aaron should have entered and studied from Moses; his sons should then have entered and studied from Aaron; the elders should then have entered and studied from Aaron’s sons; and then they should have gone out and taught all of the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: Since Moses had studied directly from the mouth of the Almighty, it would be more effective for everyone to hear the Torah at least once from Moses himself. The Master said in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Actually, Aaron would return to sit to the right of Moses, i.e., no matter how many people were present Aaron always sat to Moses’ right. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was it taught in a baraita dealing with the rules of etiquette: If three people were walking along the way, the teacher should walk in the middle and the greater of the two students should be to his right and the lesser one should be to his left? Shall we say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not that of the Sages? According to the Sages, the greater of the two students should be positioned to the left of the teacher so that the student’s right side faces his teacher. The Gemara answers: You can even say that this baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, and the reason they said that Aaron remained to Moses’ left even after the others entered is due to the trouble to Aaron if he would have to stand up and sit down again. Having discussed the importance of reviewing one’s Torah study, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Perida had a certain student whom he would have to teach four hundred times, and only then would he learn the material, as he was incapable of understanding it otherwise. One day they requested Rabbi Perida’s presence for a mitzva matter after the lesson. Rabbi Perida taught his student four hundred times as usual, but this time the student did not successfully learn the material. Rabbi Perida said to him: What is different now that you are unable to grasp the lesson? He said to him: From the time that they said to the Master that there is a mitzva matter for which he is needed, my mind was distracted from the lesson and every moment I said: Now the Master will get up, now the Master will get up to go and perform the mitzva and he will not complete the lesson. Rabbi Perida said to him: Pay attention this time and I will teach you, and know that I will not leave until you have fully mastered the lesson. He taught him again an additional four hundred times. Due to the merit of Rabbi Perida’s great devotion to his students, a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Is it preferable to you that four hundred years be added to your life, or that you and the rest of your generation will merit the World-to-Come? He said: I prefer that I and my generation merit the World-to-Come. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angels: Give him both; he shall live a very long life and he and the rest of his generation will merit the World-to-Come. The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to methods of Torah study: Rav Ḥisda said: The Torah can be acquired only with mnemonic signs that aid the memory, as it is stated: “Put it in their mouths.” Do not read the phrase as: Put it [simah], but rather as: Its sign [simanah], thus indicating that mnemonic signs aid in memorizing the material. Rav Taḥalifa of the West, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael, heard this statement and went and said it before Rabbi Abbahu, who said: You learn this idea from there; we learn it from here, as the verse states: “Set up signposts [tziyyunim] for yourself; establish you markers” (Jeremiah 31:20), which is understood to mean: Establish mnemonic signs for the Torah. And from where may it be inferred that this term tziyyun denotes a sign? As it is written in a different verse: “And when they that pass through shall pass through the land, and any sees a human bone, he shall set up a sign [tziyyun] by it” (Ezekiel 39:15), i.e., a sign that there is a source of ritual impurity at that spot. Rabbi Eliezer said that we learn this same idea from here: “Say to wisdom, you are my sister, and call understanding, your kinswoman [moda]” (Proverbs 7:4), which means: Establish signs [moda’im] that convey knowledge of the Torah. Rava said with regard to this verse: Set appointed times [mo’adim] for Torah study.

המשנה מתארת את השתלשלות התורה דרך אנשים יחידים, לעומת זאת, הברייתא מתארת את קבלת התורה בצורה קצת שונה - כולם למדו את התורה באופן שווה בצורה דמוקרטית.

מנחות צ״ט ב

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי אפילו לא קרא אדם אלא קרית שמע שחרית וערבית קיים לא ימוש ודבר זה אסור לאומרו בפני עמי הארץ ורבא אמר מצוה לאומרו בפני עמי הארץ

Menachot 99b

the apparent dereliction of the study of Torah is its foundation, e.g., if one breaks off his studies in order to participate in a funeral or a wedding procession. This is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Moses: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which [asher] you broke” (Exodus 34:1). The word “asher” is an allusion to the fact that that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Your strength is true [yishar koḥakha] in that you broke the tablets, as the breaking of the first tablets led to the foundation of the Torah through the giving of the second tablets. And Reish Lakish says: With regard to a Torah scholar who sinned, he is not disgraced in public, as it is stated: “Therefore, you shall stumble in the day, and the prophet also shall stumble with you in the night” (Hosea 4:5). One can derive from the verse that if a prophet or any other Torah scholar stumbles and sins, one should conceal his offense like the night and not punish him in public. And Reish Lakish says: Anyone who causes himself to forget even one matter from his studies violates a prohibition, as it is stated with regard to the receiving of the Torah on Mount Sinai: “Only observe for yourself, and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the matters that your eyes saw, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life, but you should make them known to your children and to your children’s children” (Deuteronomy 4:9). And this is in accordance with the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated: Observe, or: Lest, or: Do not, it is nothing other than a prohibition. Ravina says: One who forgets his studies violates two prohibitions, as the verse uses both the term “observe” and the term “lest,” and these are two prohibitions. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He violates three prohibitions, as it is stated: “Only observe for yourself, and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the matters that your eyes saw.” The term “Guard your soul” is derived from the same root as “observe” and is considered an additional prohibition. The Gemara qualifies this statement: One might have thought this applies even to one who forgot his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, the verse states: “And lest they depart from your heart.” This indicates that the verse is speaking of one who willingly causes them to depart from his heart. Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, says: One might have thought that this applies even if his studies were too hard for him to remember. Therefore, the verse states: “Only,” which excludes one who is unable to recall his studies. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: The Torah was given in forty days, when Moses ascended to Mount Sinai to receive it, and similarly the soul of man is formed in forty days, as the formation of the fetus in the womb takes forty days from the time of conception. This teaches that anyone who preserves his Torah studies, his soul is likewise preserved, and anyone who does not preserve his Torah studies, his soul is not preserved either. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a person who delivered a sparrow to his slave for safekeeping, and said to him: Are you under the impression that if you lose it I will take from you an issar, a small coin, which is the value of the bird? It is not so; I will take your soul from you as punishment, meaning I will kill you. Similarly, one who fails to preserve the Torah entrusted to him will be severely punished. MISHNA: There were two tables in the Entrance Hall, on the inside of the Entrance Hall, next to the entrance to the Temple, i.e., next to the entrance to the Sanctuary. One was of marble and one was of gold. On the table of marble, the priests place the new shewbread that has been baked, before its entrance into the Sanctuary, so that the loaves may cool a little from the heat of the oven and not spoil. And when the old shewbread is removed from the shewbread Table it is placed on the table of gold upon its exit from the Sanctuary, where it remains until the frankincense is burned on the altar. The reason the shewbread is placed on a gold table when it is removed, rather than on a marble or silver table, is that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since it is set on the gold shewbread Table all week, it cannot be downgraded to a marble or silver table upon its removal. And there was one Table of gold within the Sanctuary, upon which the shewbread is always found. The mishna describes the manner in which it is ensured that the shewbread is constantly on the Table: And four priests enter, two with the two arrangements of the new shewbread in their hands and two with the two bowls of frankincense in their hands. And four priests precede them, entering the Sanctuary before them, two to take the two arrangements of the old shewbread from the Table, and two to take the two bowls of frankincense. Those bringing the new shewbread into the Sanctuary stand in the north and their faces are to the south, and those removing the old shewbread stand in the south and their faces are to the north. These priests draw the old shewbread from the Table and those priests place the new shewbread on the Table, and for each handbreadth of this old shewbread that is removed from the Table a handbreadth of that new shewbread is placed upon the Table, so that the Table is never without loaves upon it, as it is stated: “And you shall set upon the Table shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30). Rabbi Yosei says: Even if these priests were to remove the shewbread from the Table entirely, and only afterward those priests were to place the new shewbread upon the Table, this too would fulfill the requirement that the shewbread always be on the Table. It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the shewbread upon the Table, as long as it does not remain a single night without shewbread upon it. The mishna describes the manner in which the shewbread is distributed: The priests who carried the old shewbread loaves came out of the Sanctuary and placed them on the table of gold that was in the Entrance Hall. The priests then burned on the altar the frankincense that was in the bowls. And the loaves were subsequently distributed to the priests. This occurred on Shabbat, the day that the priestly watch that served in the Temple during the preceding week was replaced by the priestly watch that would serve during the following week. The shewbread was distributed to the priests of both watches. If Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, the loaves are distributed at night, at the conclusion of the fast, since they may not be eaten during the day. If Yom Kippur occurs on Friday, i.e., when the holy day begins on Thursday evening, the goat sin offering of Yom Kippur is eaten by the priests at night, i.e., on Friday night, as it may be eaten only on the day that it is sacrificed or during the following night, until midnight. And since there is no possibility of cooking the meat, as one may not cook on Yom Kippur or Shabbat, the Babylonians, i.e., priests who had emigrated from Babylonia, eat it when it is raw, due to the fact that they are broad-minded with regard to their food, i.e., they are not particular and will eat meat even when it is not cooked. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yosei, even if the priest first removes the old shewbread entirely, and only then places the new shewbread upon the Table, this fulfills the requirement that the shewbread always be on the Table. Moreover, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the priest removed the old shewbread on the morning of Shabbat, and arranged the new shewbread toward evening, there is nothing wrong with that. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall set upon the Table shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30)? This means that the Table should not be left overnight without bread upon it. The baraita teaches that according to Rabbi Yosei, even if the old shewbread remained on the Table for a short while in the morning, and the new shewbread was placed on the Table toward evening, and even though it did not reside constantly on the Table, this fulfills the requirement that the shewbread should always be on the Table. Rabbi Ami says: From Rabbi Yosei’s statement we may learn that even if a person learned only one chapter of the Mishna in the morning and one chapter of the Mishna in the evening, he has thereby fulfilled the mitzva of: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall contemplate in it day and night, that you may take heed to do according to all that is written in it, for then you shall make your ways prosperous, and then you shall have good success” (Joshua 1:8). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Even if a person recited only the recitation of Shema in the morning and in the evening, he has fulfilled the mitzva of: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth.” And it is prohibited to state this matter in the presence of ignoramuses [amei ha’aretz], as they are likely to get the impression that there is no need to study Torah beyond this. And Rava says: On the contrary, it is a mitzva to state this matter in the presence of ignoramuses, as they will realize that if merely reciting the Shema leads to such a great reward, all the more so how great is the reward of those who study Torah all day and night. Ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, asked Rabbi Yishmael: In the case of one such as I, who has learned the entire Torah, what is the halakha with regard to studying Greek wisdom? Rabbi Yishmael recited this verse about him: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall contemplate in it day and night.” Go and search for an hour that is neither part of the day nor part of the night, and learn Greek wisdom in it. The Gemara notes: And this statement of Rabbi Yishmael’s disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: This verse is neither an obligation nor a mitzva, but a blessing. Rabbi Yonatan explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, saw Joshua and observed that the words of Torah were very precious to him, as it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to Moses face-to-face…and his servant Joshua, son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the Tent” (Exodus 33:11). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: Joshua, are the words of Torah so precious to you? I bless you that “this Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth.” The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: The words of Torah should not be considered as an obligation upon you, i.e., one should not treat Torah study as a burden, but at the same time you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them. Ḥizkiyya said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He delivers the afflicted due to His affliction, and opens their ear by tribulation; and also He has allured you out of a narrow opening to a broad place without confines below it, and that which is set on your table is full of fatness” (Job 36:15–16)? Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that a person allures another from the paths of life to the paths of death, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, allures the person from the paths of death to the paths of life, as it is stated: “And also He has allured you out of a narrow opening,” i.e., from Gehenna, the opening of which is narrow so that its smoke is collected

כדי לקיים את מצוות "לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך" - מצוות לימוד תורה, מספיק לקרוא פעמיים ביום את קריאת שמע. רבי יוחנן מסתייג ואומר שאסור לומר דבר זה לעמי הארצות כדי שלא יתבטלו מלימוד תורה ויסתפקו בקריאת שמע. לעומתו, רבא פוסק שמצווה לומר הלכה זו לעם הארץ - רבא מעדיף שעמי הארצות לא ילמדו תורה בצורה מעמיקה אלא יקיימו את המינימום הנדרש.
איזה סיבות יכולות להיות לרבא להסתיר את התורה?

א. סיבה שכלית - לדעת הרמב"ם, יש אנשים שלא חכמים מספיק להבין את התורה כמו שצריך ולכן עדיף שלא ילמדו:

הקדמת הרמב"ם למשנה ט״ז

ועשו דבר זה לענינים נפלאים. [...] ועוד כדי לעוור עיני הכסילים שלא יזהירו לבותם לעולם ואילו היו מראים להם זוהר האמתות יסבו פניהם מהם כפי חסרון טבעיהם שנאמר בהם ובדומיהם אין מגלין להם את הסוד מפני שאין שכלם שלם כדי לקבל האמתות על בוריים. [...] ועל כן אין ראוי לאיש חכם לגלות מה שידע מן הסודות אלא למי שהוא גדול ממנו או כמוהו שאם יגלה אותו לכסיל אע"פ שלא יגנהו לא ייטב בעיניו. [...] (כד) ומפני אלו הסבות סדרו חכמים עליהם השלום דבריהם בדרשות על ענין שירחיקהו שכל הכסיל לפי מחשבתו. [...] שהרי הדעות יש להם יתרון זה על זה כפי יתרונות המזגים. וכמו שנמצא מזג איש אחד שהוא ישר ממזג איש אחר כן יש שכל איש אחד שלם משכל איש אחר. [...] ובשביל זה יש דברים שהם בעיני אנשים בתכלית האמת והביאור ואצל איש אחר הם רחוקים ונמנעים מהיותם על פי המעלה בחכמה.

Rambam Introduction to the Mishnah 16

(1) Afterwards, he saw [fit] to suffice with the names of those that received [the tradition] of those close [in time] to him, [starting] from Shimon the Righteous. And his words in the Mishnah were terse words that included many matters. And it was all lucid to him, due to the sharpness of his intellect – though for someone less than him, the content is complex in his eyes – as the early sages would only write for themselves.

(2) Therefore, one of his students saw [fit] – and that is Rabbi Chiya – to compose a book and to follow after his teacher in it, and to explain what had become garbled in the words of his teacher. And that is the Tosefta, and its purpose is to elucidate the Mishnah. And it is possible to extrapolate the Tosefta's explanation from the Mishnah [itself] after great exertion, but he extrapolated them to teach us how to engender and bring out matters from the Mishnah. And so [too] did Rabbi Oshaya.

(3) And Rav composed the Bereita – and it is Sifra and Sifrei. And [also] many others [did the same]; like they said, "When Rabbi x came, he brought a teaching in his hand."

(4) And nonetheless, these [texts] were not smooth like the words of the Mishnah, and their matter was not as organized or terse in their words. And therefore it – I mean to say the Mishnah – was the main [text] and all of the [other] compositions go up after it and are secondary to it, and it is the most honored by all. And when they compared it to those compositions, 'the maidens saw her and acclaimed her.'

(5) And everyone that came after this honored composition only came to devote his attention and effort to reflecting upon the words of the Mishnah. And one generation after another did not cease from reflecting upon it, and investigating and explaining it – every sage according to his wisdom and his understanding.

(6) And they disagreed about the explanation of some laws in it, due to the many years [that intervened]. And there was no group [of sages] that did not reflect on the Mishnah and reveal novel understandings and make comparisons to other matters, until it came the time of Ravina and Rav Ashi, who were the last of the sages of the Talmud. And Rav Ashi secluded himself to compose the Talmud and saw [fit] for himself to do for all the words of those that came after our Holy Rabbi, what our Holy Rabbi had done for the words of all that came after Moshe.

(7) And he included all of the words of the speakers and the intellect of those that reflect and the explanations of the commentators, and collected them; and he compressed it all with his wisdom and with the straightforward soul and honor for wisdom that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him, and he composed the Talmud.

(8) And his intention with it was four things:

(9) And the [first] was the explanation of the Mishnah and everything that came out of it, which encompasses many matters of disagreement among the commentators and the claim of each commentator against his fellow and the exhibition of the true claim; and that was the first of the intentions that he intended.

(10) And the second was [to establish] the legal decision with one of the two disputants that disagreed about the words of the Mishnah or its explanation or novel understandings that developed from it and became attached to it.

(11) And the third is regarding novel matters that the sages of each generation extrapolated from the Mishnah; and the exhibition of the essence and the proofs that the teachers of the Mishnah taught and relied upon in their words in the Mishnah, such that their words were Ordered as they were Ordered; and the ordinances and decrees made after the Holy Rabbi until this author.

(12) And the fourth is [the inclusion of] homilies (drashot) that are fitting according to the topic of each section that happens to have a homily.

(13) And [about] this fourth matter – I mean to say the homily that is found in the Talmud – it is not fitting to think its value to be little and its purpose to be lacking. Rather there is great understanding in it, as it contains amazing riddles and beautiful wonders.

(14) As when one observes these homilies with intellectual observation, [matters] of the true good – about which there is nothing higher – are understood from them. And from them are revealed theological matters and true things that the men of wisdom would keep away and did not want to reveal, and all that the philosophers attained over the generations. And if you glance at it according to its simple meaning, you will see matters about which nothing is farther from the intellect than them.

(15) And they did this thing for wondrous ends: One of them it to sharpen the ideas of their students and to draw their hearts.

(16) And also to blind the eyes of fools who will never illuminate their hearts. And if they had shown them the illumination of truths, they would have turned their faces [away] from them, according to the shortcomings of their natures. As it is stated about them and those similar to them, "We do not reveal the secret to them" – because their intellect is not complete in order to accept the truths with according clarity.

(17) And likewise, some of the sages did not want to reveal the secrets of wisdom to some [other sages]. And they already mentioned (Chagigah 13a) that an honored man of the sages initiated with men who were experts in the wisdom of the Story of Creation (maaseh bereishit) whereas he was an expert in the Story of the Chariot (maaseh merkavah): He said to them, "Teach me the Story of Creation and I will teach you the Story of the Chariot"; and they said to him, "The matter is good." And when they taught him the Story of Creation, he abstained from teaching them the Story of the Chariot.

(18) And God forbid that he did this because of an evil heart to prevent [them from] wisdom or to have an advantage over them; as these traits are ugly in one of the silly ones – all the more so, with these honored pious ones. Rather, he did this thing because he saw himself to be fitting to receive that which was with them and that they were not fitting to receive that which was with him.

(19) And he brought the words of Shlomo about this matter (Song of Songs 4:11), "honey and milk under your tongue." And they, peace be upon them, explained and said that the sweet wisdoms that a soul finds pleasant – just like the palate finds honey and milk pleasant – must be hidden; and they should not be spoken about and they should not be raised to the lips or tongue in any fashion. And this is [the meaning of] what he said, "under your tongue" – that these matters are not from what is fitting to teach and to analyze in the gatherings of wisdom.

(20) And nonetheless, they should hint hidden hints in writing. And when the Holy One, blessed be He, removes the mask of foolishness from the heart of the one that He wants – after he has exerted himself and accustomed himself to wisdoms – then he will understand [something] of them, according to his wisdom.

(21) And a person has no [access] to wisdom and its pursuit and its efforts, but rather [must] leave its realm to the Creator and pray to Him and supplicate that He make him understand it and teach him and reveal to him the hidden secrets of Scripture; as we found with David, peace be upon him, who did this when he said (Psalms 119:18), "Open my eyes, that I may perceive the wonders of Your Torah." And when the Holy One, blessed be He, opens the eyes of a person and shows him what He shows him, it is fitting for him to conceal it, as we have said.

(22) And if he hints to them, he should hint [only[ slightly to one who has a complete intellect and is known [as a man of] truth, as they elucidated and revealed in many episodes in the Talmud. And hence, it is not fitting for a wise man to reveal that which he has known from the secrets, except to someone who is greater than him or like him. As if he reveals it to a fool, even if [the latter] will not disdain it, it will not find favor in his eyes. And hence the sage said (Proverbs 23:9), "Do not speak to a fool, for he will disdain your sensible words."

(23) And also as teaching to the masses requires that it be by way of a riddle and a parable – so that it includes the women, the youths and the children before their intellects mature; and then they will reflect upon and comprehend the matters of these hints. And about this matter, Shlomo, peace be upon him, hinted when he said (Proverbs 1:6), "To understand a proverb and an expression, the words of the wise and their riddles."

(24) And on account of these causes, the sages, peace be upon them, arranged their words in homilies – in a manner that will push off the intellect of the fool, according to his thinking.

(25) And it is not fitting to attribute the lack to that homily, but rather one should think that the lack comes from his intellect. And when he sees one of their parables that is very hard to comprehend even its simple meaning, it is fitting for him to be very perturbed by his intellect that did not understand the matter – to the point that there would be a lack in matters of faith, that it be completely foreign in his eyes. As behold, minds have meliority – one over the other – according to the meliority of temperaments. And [just] like we find the temperament of one man to be more straight then another man, so [too], the intellect of one man is more complete than the intellect of another man.

(26) And there is no doubt that the intellect of one who knows an illustrious thing is not like the intellect of one is [trying to] comprehend that thing. As the one is called actual intellect and the [other] is called potential intellect. And because of this, there are things that are absolutely true and lucid in the eyes of some men; and for another man, they are foreign and impossible – in accordance with [their] level of wisdom.

(27) And behold, I will give you a lucid parable: For example, if we would ask one of the learned men of medicine and mathematics and music who is swift in natural science and wise and learned, but he is uninitiated and devoid of the wisdom of geometry and astronomy, and we would say to him, "What do you say about a man who claims that the mass of the sun that we see as if it is a small circle, and he says that it is the mass of a sphere and the size of that sphere is one hundred and sixty six and three eighths (166.375) times the size of the sphere of the earth; and that the sphere of the earth according to which we have made these measurements is a sphere the circumference of which is twenty-four thousand (Roman) miles"; and that in this way, he be able to come to know how many miles there are in the measurement of the size of the sphere of the sun,

(28) there is no doubt that this man of clear thought who is learned in all of the wisdoms that we said will not find it in himself to maintain such a belief, and all of this will be far-fetched in his eyes and unfathomable.

(29) And his learned question that will come to him at first thought is that this claim is null; as how is it possible for a man standing on one (small) measure of the earth to know the size of the mass of the sun and its circumference and the measure of its surface, until his mind encompasses it, [just] like it encompasses the measurement of a part of the earth?

(30) And he will also say, "How is this possible? And behold, the mass of the sun is extremely far, and even the correct sight of the mass of the sun is impossible for us; and we only perceive its radiance alone. And how can a man come to the level that he is able to measure it and be exact in its measurement to three eighths [of a Roman mile]? This thing is worthless like nothing else." And there will be no doubt in his heart that this claim is null and that it cannot be.

(31) But when he accustoms himself to the study of the books of measurements and the wisdoms of what is fit – spheres and the rest of values that are evaluated one against the other – and he goes from there to the organized book about this matter and that which is similar to it – I mean to say, the well-known book of the properties of the planets: the book of Almagest – then this claim will become clear to him and it will be considered a true claim that has no doubt and that has proof to it.

(32) And there will be no difference for him between the mass of the sun being this size and the sun existing. And his mind will accustom itself to believe the thing that if first strongly pushed off and he will [now] believe it with complete belief.

(33) Behold this can be. And we did not agree about this man to whom we asked this matter that he should be lacking from the other wisdoms, but [rather] that he be well learned and of a clear nature and wise; and that the question that we asked him be from the questions of scholastics, which is a [only] step through which to get to theology.

(34) All the more so will the matter be with one who has no wisdom at all and has not accustomed himself to any of the ways of scholastic wisdom, but [rather] 'has gone from the intellect of his mother to the intellect of his wife,' when we ask him one of the theological questions that are hidden in the homilies. There is no doubt that they [will be] far-fetched in his eyes, like the distance of the heavens from the earth, and his mind will be too small to understand any part of them.

(35) And therefore it is fitting that we judge these homilies favorably and that we investigate them well. And we should not hasten to distance any of their matters, but [rather] when one of their words is far-fetched in our eyes, we should train ourselves in the wisdoms until we can understand their content in that thing – if our hearts can encompass this great thing. As behold, the sages – even though they had a desire to learn and they were good in thought and effort, the company of pious and honored men and the distancing of everything that there is in the world – would attribute the lack to themselves, when they evaluated themselves according to [those who were] before them.

(36) And that is [the meaning of] what they said (Eruvin 53b), "The hearts of the early ones are like the opening of a hall, and of the later ones are [not] even like a needle for crevices."

(37) And all the more so, us; as wisdom has disappeared from us. And [it is] like the prophet informed us (Isaiah 29:14), "And the wisdom of its wise shall fail, and the understanding of its sage shall vanish" – the verse identified each one of us with four things: weakness of intellect; strengthening of desire; laziness in seeking wisdom and alacrity in benefit from the world – 'the four bad afflictions.' And how can we not attribute the lack to ourselves when we evaluate [ourselves in comparison] to them?

(38) And since they, peace be upon them, knew about this matter that all of their words were clear and immaculate and that there was no dross in them, they commanded about them and warned that a person should not mock them. And they said (Gittin 57b), "Anyone who mocks the words of the sage is judged in burning excrement, etc." – and you do not have any greater burning excrement than the foolishness that brought him to mock [them].

(39) And therefore, you will not ever find one who distances their words except for a man seeking desire and who gives precedence to tangible pleasures, who has not enlightened his heart with any of the bright lights.

(40) And since they knew the truth of their words, they spent all of their days in this occupation, and commanded to pore over it all of the night and part of the day, and considered it to be the end of wisdom. And so it is.

(41) And they said (Berakhot 8a), "The Holy One, blessed be He, only has in His world the four cubits of the law (halakha) alone." And put your heart to this thing – since if you examine it according to its simple meaning, you will find it very far from the truth; as if the four cubits of the law alone are the appropriate focus and the other wisdoms and traits are thrown behind His back. And at the time of Shem and Ever and after it, when there was no halakha, can we say the there is no share in the world to the Holy One, blessed be He, at all?

(42) But if you investigate this matter intellectually, you will see in it a wonderful thing from the wisdoms, and it will add a great principle about the disciplines. And I will elucidate them for you in order that it be an example for the rest of what comes to your hand. And hence, place your heart to it as is fit.

בניגוד לרמב"ם, המהר"ל אומר שהתורה היא לא רק לחכמים ושלא צריך לפחד לטעות בלימוד:

תפארת ישראל, הקדמה

ולא יאמר האדם כי התורה לא נתנה רק אל גדולי החכמים, שהם רחוקים מן הטעות, אבל התורה נתנה לכל. ולא יאמר גם כן אולי אשגה בתורה.

Tiferet Yisrael, Introduction to Tiferet Yisrael

...

ב. סיבה ערכית - רבן גמליאל היה דורש ישרות פנימית בשביל ללמוד תורה - המידות בפנים צריכות להיות מתוקנים כמו המידות בחוץ.

(רעיון כזה מופיע גם בבני יששכר - שפוסקים טועים בפסיקת הלכה בגלל שהם לא שלמים במידותיהם)

לעומת רבן גמליאל רבי אלעזר בן עזריה פותח את בית המדרש לכולם - הגמרא מספרת שבאותו היום שפתחו את בית המדרש לכולם לא היתה הלכה אחת שהיתה תלויה בביהמ"ד ושלא הבינו אותה - כלומר הדמוקרטיזציה של ר"א בן עזריה חידדה את המערכת ההלכתית:

ברכות כ״ח א

תָּנָא אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, סִלְּקוּהוּ לְשׁוֹמֵר הַפֶּתַח וְנִתְּנָה לָהֶם רְשׁוּת לַתַּלְמִידִים לִיכָּנֵס. שֶׁהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַכְרִיז וְאוֹמֵר: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד שֶׁאֵין תּוֹכוֹ כְּבָרוֹ, לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. הַהוּא יוֹמָא אִתּוֹסְפוּ כַּמָּה סַפְסַלֵּי. [...] הֲוָה קָא חָלְשָׁה דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אֲמַר: דִּלְמָא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם מָנַעְתִּי תּוֹרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אַחְזוֹ לֵיהּ בְּחֶלְמֵיהּ חַצְבֵי חִיוָּרֵי דְּמַלְיִין קִטְמָא. וְלָא הִיא, הַהִיא לְיַתּוֹבֵי דַּעְתֵּיהּ, הוּא דְּאַחְזוֹ לֵיהּ.

תָּנָא: עֵדֻיוֹת בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם נִשְׁנֵית. וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּאָמְרִינַן ״בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם״, הַהוּא יוֹמָא הֲוָה. וְלֹא הָיְתָה הֲלָכָה שֶׁהָיְתָה תְּלוּיָה בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ שֶׁלֹּא פֵּירְשׁוּהָ.

Berakhot 28a

There is room for concern. Perhaps they will remove you from office just as they removed Rabban Gamliel. He said to her, based on the folk saying: Let a person use an expensive goblet one day and let it break tomorrow. In other words, one should take advantage of an opportunity that presents itself and he need not concern himself whether or not it will last. She said to him: You have no white hair, and it is inappropriate for one so young to head the Sages. The Gemara relates: That day, he was eighteen years old, a miracle transpired for him and eighteen rows of hair turned white. The Gemara comments: That explains that which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am as one who is seventy years old and he did not say: I am seventy years old, because he looked older than he actually was. It was taught: On that day that they removed Rabban Gamliel from his position and appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, there was also a fundamental change in the general approach of the study hall as they dismissed the guard at the door and permission was granted to the students to enter. Instead of Rabban Gamliel’s selective approach that asserted that the students must be screened before accepting them into the study hall, the new approach asserted that anyone who seeks to study should be given opportunity to do so. As Rabban Gamliel would proclaim and say: Any student whose inside, his thoughts and feelings, are not like his outside, i.e., his conduct and his character traits are lacking, will not enter the study hall. The Gemara relates: On that day several benches were added to the study hall to accommodate the numerous students. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Abba Yosef ben Dostai and the Rabbis disputed this matter. One said: Four hundred benches were added to the study hall. And one said: Seven hundred benches were added to the study hall. When he saw the tremendous growth in the number of students, Rabban Gamliel was disheartened. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I prevented Israel from engaging in Torah study. They showed him in his dream white jugs filled with ashes alluding to the fact that the additional students were worthless idlers. The Gemara comments: That is not the case, but that dream was shown to him to ease his mind so that he would not feel bad. It was taught: There is a tradition that tractate Eduyyot was taught that day. And everywhere in the Mishna or in a baraita that they say: On that day, it is referring to that day. There was no halakha whose ruling was pending in the study hall that they did not explain and arrive at a practical halakhic conclusion. And even Rabban Gamliel did not avoid the study hall for even one moment, as he held no grudge against those who removed him from office and he participated in the halakhic discourse in the study hall as one of the Sages. As we learned in a mishna: On that day, Yehuda, the Ammonite convert, came before the students in the study hall and he said to them: What is my legal status in terms of entering into the congregation of Israel, i.e., to marry a Jewish woman? Rabban Gamliel said to him: You are forbidden to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You are permitted to enter into the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Wasn’t it already stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4)? How can you permit him to enter the congregation? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: Do Ammon and Moab reside in their place? Sennacherib already came and, through his policy of population transfer, scrambled all the nations and settled other nations in place of Ammon. Consequently, the current residents of Ammon and Moab are not ethnic Ammonites and Moabites, as it is stated in reference to Sennacherib: “I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants” (Isaiah 10:13). And although it is conceivable that this particular convert is an ethnic Ammonite, nevertheless, there is no need for concern due to the halakhic principle: Anything that parts from a group parts from the majority, and the assumption is that he is from the majority of nations whose members are permitted to enter the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But wasn’t it already stated: “But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 49:6) and they have already returned to their land? Therefore, he is an ethnic Ammonite and he may not convert. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: That is no proof. Wasn’t it already stated in another prophecy: “And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them” (Amos 9:14), and they have not yet returned? In rendering the ruling, only proven facts may be taken into consideration. They immediately permitted him to enter the congregation. This proves that Rabban Gamliel did not absent himself from the study hall that day and participated in the halakhic discourse. Rabban Gamliel said to himself: Since this is the situation, that the people are following Rabbi Yehoshua, apparently he was right. Therefore, it would be appropriate for me to go and appease Rabbi Yehoshua. When he reached Rabbi Yehoshua’s house, he saw that the walls of his house were black. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua in wonderment: From the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a blacksmith, as until then he had no idea that Rabbi Yehoshua was forced to engage in that arduous trade in order to make a living. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Woe unto a generation that you are its leader as you are unaware of the difficulties of Torah scholars, how they make a living and how they feed themselves. Rabban Gamliel said to him: I insulted you, forgive me. Rabbi Yehoshua paid him no attention and did not forgive him. He asked him again: Do it in deference to my father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was one of the leaders of Israel at the time of the destruction of the Temple. He was appeased. Now that Rabbi Yehoshua was no longer offended, it was only natural that Rabban Gamliel would be restored to his position. They said: Who will go and inform the Sages? Apparently, they were not eager to carry out the mission that would undo the previous actions and remove Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from his position as Nasi. This launderer said to them: I will go. Rabbi Yehoshua sent to the Sages to the study hall: The one who wears the uniform will continue to wear the uniform, the original Nasi will remain in his position so that the one who did not wear the uniform will not say to the one who wears the uniform, remove your uniform and I will wear it. Apparently, the Sages believed that this emissary was dispatched at the initiative of Rabban Gamliel and they ignored him. Rabbi Akiva said to the Sages: Lock the gates so that Rabban Gamliel’s servants will not come and disturb the Sages. When he heard what happened, Rabbi Yehoshua said: It is best if I go to them. He came and knocked on the door. He said to them with a slight variation: One who sprinkles pure water on those who are ritually impure, son of one who sprinkles water shall continue to sprinkle water. And it is inappropriate that he who is neither one who sprinkles nor son of one who sprinkles will say to one who sprinkles son of one who sprinkles: Your water is cave water and not the running water required to purify one exposed to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and your ashes are burnt ashes and not the ashes of a red heifer. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Yehoshua, have you been appeased? Everything we did was to defend your honor. If you have forgiven him, none of us is opposed. Early tomorrow you and I will go to Rabban Gamliel’s doorway and offer to restore him to his position as Nasi. The question arose what to do with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya? They said: What shall we do? Remove him from his position. That is inappropriate as we learned a halakha through tradition: One elevates to a higher level of sanctity and does not downgrade. Therefore, one who was the Nasi of the Sanhedrin cannot be demoted. Let one Sage lecture one week and the other Sage one week, they will come to be jealous one of another, as they will be forced to appoint one as the acting head of the Sanhedrin. Rather, Rabban Gamliel will lecture three weeks and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya will lecture as head of the yeshiva one week. That arrangement was adopted and that is the explanation of the exchange in tractate Ḥagiga: Whose week was it? It was the week of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. One final detail: That student who asked the original question that sparked this entire incident was Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. We learned in the mishna: And the additional prayer may be recited all day. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Nevertheless, one who postpones his prayer excessively is called negligent. The Rabbis taught in a baraita: If the obligation to recite two prayers was before him, one, the afternoon prayer and one, the additional prayer, he recites the afternoon prayer first and the additional prayer thereafter, because this, the afternoon prayer, is recited on a frequent basis, and this one, the additional prayer, is recited on a relatively infrequent basis. Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites the additional prayer first and the afternoon prayer thereafter, because this, the additional prayer, is a mitzva whose time soon elapses, as it may only be recited until the seventh hour and this, the afternoon prayer, is a mitzva whose time does not soon elapse as one may recite it until the midpoint of the afternoon. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is that he recites the afternoon prayer first and the additional prayer thereafter, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara cites additional sources relating to this issue: When Rabbi Zeira would tire of his studies, he would go and sit in the doorway of Rabbi Natan bar Tovi’s study hall. He said to himself: When the entering and exiting Sages pass, I will rise before them and be rewarded for the mitzva of honoring Torah scholars. Rabbi Natan bar Tovi himself emerged and came to where Rabbi Zeira was seated. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Who just stated a halakha in the study hall? Rabbi Natan bar Tovi said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan just said as follows: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said: He recites the additional prayer first and the afternoon prayer thereafter. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say this halakha? Rabbi Natan said to him: Yes. He learned this statement from him forty times, etching it into his memory. Rabbi Natan said to him: Is this halakha so dear to you because it is singular for you, as it is the only halakha that you learned in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, or is it new to you, as you were previously unaware of this ruling? Rabbi Zeira said to him: It is somewhat new to me, as I was uncertain whether this halakha was said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan or in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Now it is clear to me that this halakha is in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: With regard to anyone who recites the additional prayer after seven hours of the day, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are destroyed [nugei] far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you, they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). From where may it be inferred that nugei is an expression of destruction? As Rav Yosef translated the verse into Aramaic: Destruction comes upon the enemies of the house of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself, for they have delayed the times of the Festivals in Jerusalem. This proves both that nugei means destruction and that destruction comes upon those who fail to fulfill a mitzva at its appointed time. Similarly, Rabbi Elazar said: Regarding anyone who recites the morning prayer after four hours of the day, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are in sorrow [nugei] far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you, they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). From where may it be inferred that nugei is an expression of sorrow? As it is written: “My soul drips in sorrow [tuga]” (Psalms 119:28). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The proof that nugei indicates suffering is from here: “Her virgins are sorrowed [nugot] and she is embittered” (Lamentations 1:4).

ג. סיבה משפטתית-מערכתית - כדי לבנות חברה מתוקנת עם חוקים, אי אפשר שכולם ידעו את הכול כי אז כל אחד יעשה כפי שהוא חושב. צריך שיהיו תלמידי חכמים מקצועים שיבנו על פי הבנתם את המערכת החוקית החברתית.

לכן הגמרא בעבודה זרה אומרת שבארץ ישראל לא היו מגלים את הטעם של גזירות חכמים כדי שאנשים לא יבואו לזלזל בהם:

עבודה זרה ל״ה א

כדעולא דאמר עולא כי גזרי גזירתא במערבא לא מגלו טעמא עד תריסר ירחי שתא דלמא איכא איניש דלא ס"ל ואתי לזלזולי בה.

Avodah Zarah 35a

One can learn by inference from here that with regard to animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, their excrement, which is the content of their stomach, is permitted. Although deriving benefit from both a burnt-offering and an unslaughtered animal carcass is prohibited, the excrement of each is permitted. Similarly, although deriving benefit from an ox that is to be stoned is prohibited, its excrement is permitted. And from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael: Cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it with the stomach contents of calves used for idol worship, and that Rabbi Yishmael responded to him: If that is so, why didn’t the Sages prohibit deriving benefit from the cheese, one may learn by inference that with regard to animals of idol worship, their excrement is prohibited. Since the cheese formed with the stomach contents of an animal of idol worship is prohibited, it is evident that the excrement formed in the stomach of such an animal is also prohibited. The mishna related that rather than addressing Rabbi Yishmael’s final difficulty, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter. The Gemara inquires: But let him respond to Rabbi Yishmael’s query by explaining that the Sages did not prohibit deriving benefit from cheese curdled in the stomach contents of an animal used for idolatry because there is no substantive prohibited entity in such cheese. The Gemara reinforces its question: After all, isn’t the halakha with regard to fish stew, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, an application of this rationale, as they did not prohibit deriving benefit from fish stew prepared by a gentile? What is the reason for this leniency? Is it not because there is no substantive prohibited entity in it? Although fish stew may contain the wine of a gentile, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited because the wine is not discernible. Why didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua explain that deriving benefit from cheese of a gentile is similarly permitted because it contains no substantive prohibited entity? The Gemara rejects this possibility: The Sages say in response that here, with regard to cheese, since the rennet curdles it, it is considered like an item that contains a substantive prohibited entity. Although the prohibited rennet is not discernible in the cheese, it is nevertheless considered a substantive prohibited entity because it is essential to the formation of the cheese. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua diverted Rabbi Yishmael’s attention to another matter, and began discussing the verse: “For your love is better than wine” (Song of Songs 1:2). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the verse: “For your love [dodekha] is better than wine”? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the statements of Your beloved ones [dodekha], i.e., the Sages, are more pleasant to me than the wine of the written Torah itself. The Gemara asks: What is different about this verse that led Rabbi Yehoshua to ask Rabbi Yishmael a question specifically with regard to it? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said, and some say Rabbi Shimon bar Ami said: He chose that verse because he sought to tell him a message that can be derived from the beginning of the verse: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth” (Song of Songs 1:2). In essence, Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yishmael, my brother, press your lips one to the other, and do not be so hasty to retort, i.e., do not persist in your questioning. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua instructed Rabbi Yishmael not to question him further? Ulla says, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Abba says: The ordinance prohibiting the cheese of gentiles was a new decree, and therefore one does not scrutinize its origins. The Gemara asks: What was, in fact, the reason for the Sages’ decree prohibiting the cheese of gentiles? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It was due to the concern for puncturing, i.e., the concern that a snake might have deposited its venom in the cheese, as gentiles are not assumed to be careful about this. The Gemara comments: But if so, let Rabbi Yehoshua simply say to Rabbi Yishmael: It is prohibited due to the concern for puncturing. Why did he choose to avoid answering? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehoshua reasoned in accordance with a statement of Ulla, as Ulla said: When the Sages decreed a decree in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would not reveal the reason behind it until twelve months of the year had passed, lest there be a person who does not agree with it and will come to treat it with contempt. Rabbi Yirmeya would ridicule [megaddef ] Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s explanation that the prohibition was due to the concern for puncturing: If that is so, dry cheese should be permitted, and likewise aged cheese should be permitted, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to exposure, a dry substance is permitted even if it was originally in the form of an uncovered liquid, because a snake’s venom does not let it dry, i.e., congeal. And an aged liquid is permitted, as a snake’s venom does not let it age, as it causes it to spoil instead. The Gemara presents two alternative reasons for this decree of the Sages. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The cheese is prohibited because it is not possible for it to have been made without containing particles of non-kosher milk. And Shmuel says: The cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with the skin of the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass. The Gemara comments: Shmuel’s statement indicates that only the skin of the animal’s stomach is prohibited, whereas the contents of the stomach, i.e., the rennet itself, is permitted. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥullin 116a): With regard to the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by a gentile and the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, each of these is prohibited. And we discussed it and asked: Why does the mishna mention both an animal slaughtered by a gentile and an unslaughtered animal carcass? Is that to say that an animal slaughtered by a gentile is not classified as an animal carcass? By mentioning each of these separately, the mishna indicates that generally they are subject to different halakhot. This is difficult, as an animal slaughtered by a gentile has the halakhic status of an unslaughtered animal carcass. And in answer to this difficulty, Shmuel says: The mishna is in fact teaching a single halakha, which is that the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by a gentile are considered to be like the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass and are therefore prohibited. Earlier, Shmuel asserted that only the physical skin of an animal’s stomach is prohibited, which indicates that the stomach contents are permitted. In his explanation of the mishna in Ḥullin, Shmuel posits that the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal are prohibited. The Gemara explains that this is not difficult:

אפשר גם להכניס לפה את הכלל של מוטב יהיו שוגגין ואל יהיו מזידין כסיבה משפטית-מערכתית, אך נדרש עיון מעמיק במקורות של הכלל כדי לקבוע שהוא עונה על שאלתנו.

ד. סיבה מיסטית - ישנם חכמות שאינם נחלתם של בני האדם. תורת הסוד כשמה כן היא - סוד. ולא ראוי שכולם ידעו את סתרי התורה.

לכן כשיונתן בן עזיאל ביקש לפרש את ספרי הכתובים יצאה בת קול ומנעה זאת ממנו - כי בפירוש של ספרי הכתובים טמון סוד הגאולה:

מגילה ג׳ א

תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל נְבִיאִים — יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל אֲמָרוֹ מִפִּי חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי, וְנִזְדַּעְזְעָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת פַּרְסָה עַל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת פַּרְסָה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: מִי הוּא זֶה שֶׁגִּילָּה סְתָרַיי לִבְנֵי אָדָם? עָמַד יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁגִּלִּיתִי סְתָרֶיךָ לִבְנֵי אָדָם, גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁלֹּא לִכְבוֹדִי עָשִׂיתִי, וְלֹא לִכְבוֹד בֵּית אַבָּא, אֶלָּא לִכְבוֹדְךָ עָשִׂיתִי, שֶׁלֹּא יִרְבּוּ מַחֲלוֹקֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְעוֹד בִּיקֵּשׁ לְגַלּוֹת תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל כְּתוּבִים, יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: דַּיֶּיךָּ! מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית בֵּיהּ קֵץ מָשִׁיחַ.

Megillah 3a

stood by way of a miracle? The Gemara answers: Yes, two forms of these letters did exist at that time, but the people did not know which one of them was to be used in the middle of the word and which at the end of the word, and the Seers came and established that the open forms are to used be in the middle of the word and the closed forms at the end of the word. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, however, doesn’t the phrase “these are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) indicate that a prophet is not permitted to initiate any matter of halakha from now on? Rather, it may be suggested that the final letters already existed at the time of the giving of the Torah, but over the course of time the people forgot them, and the prophets then came and reestablished them. § The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Aramaic translation of the Torah used in the synagogues was composed by Onkelos the convert based on the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Aramaic translation of the Prophets was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based on a tradition going back to the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Gemara relates that when Yonatan ben Uzziel wrote his translation, Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs [parsa] by four hundred parasangs, and a Divine Voice emerged and said: Who is this who has revealed My secrets to mankind? Yonatan ben Uzziel stood up on his feet and said: I am the one who has revealed Your secrets to mankind through my translation. However, it is revealed and known to You that I did this not for my own honor, and not for the honor of the house of my father, but rather it was for Your honor that I did this, so that discord not increase among the Jewish people. In the absence of an accepted translation, people will disagree about the meaning of obscure verses, but with a translation, the meaning will be clear. And Yonatan ben Uzziel also sought to reveal a translation of the Writings, but a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: It is enough for you that you translated the Prophets. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that he was denied permission to translate the Writings? Because it has in it a revelation of the end, when the Messiah will arrive. The end is foretold in a cryptic manner in the book of Daniel, and were the book of Daniel translated, the end would become manifestly revealed to all. The Gemara asks: Was the translation of the Torah really composed by Onkelos the convert? Didn’t Rav Ika bar Avin say that Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written with respect to the days of Ezra: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and they caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8)? The verse should be understood as follows: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God,” this is the scriptural text; “distinctly,” this is the translation, indicating that they immediately translated the text into Aramaic, as was customary during public Torah readings. “And they gave the sense,” these are the divisions of the text into separate verses. “And they caused them to understand the reading,” these are the cantillation notes, through which the meaning of the text is further clarified. And some say that these are the Masoretic traditions with regard to the manner in which each word is to be written. This indicates that the Aramaic translation already existed at the beginning of the Second Temple period, well before the time of Onkelos. The Gemara answers: The ancient Aramaic translation was forgotten and then Onkelos came and reestablished it. The Gemara asks: What is different about the translation of Prophets? Why is it that when Onkelos revealed the translation of the Torah, Eretz Yisrael did not quake, and when he revealed the translation of the Prophets, it quaked? The Gemara explains: The meaning of matters discussed in the Torah is clear, and therefore its Aramaic translation did not reveal the meaning of passages that had not been understood previously. Conversely, in the Prophets, there are matters that are clear and there are matters that are obscure, and the Aramaic translation revealed the meaning of obscure passages. The Gemara cites an example of an obscure verse that is clarified by the Aramaic translation: As it is written: “On that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” (Zechariah 12:11). And with regard to that verse, Rav Yosef said: Were it not for the Aramaic translation of this verse, we would not have known what it is saying, as the Bible does not mention any incident involving Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. The Aramaic translation reads as follows: On that day, the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Ahab, son of Omri, who was slain by Hadadrimmon, son of Tavrimon, in Ramoth-Gilead, and like the mourning for Josiah, son of Amon, who was slain by Pharaoh the lame in the valley of Megiddon. The translation clarifies that the verse is referring to two separate incidents of mourning, and thereby clarifies the meaning of this verse. § The Gemara introduces another statement from the same line of tradition. The verse states: “And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision; but a great trembling fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves” (Daniel 10:7). Who were these men? The term “men” in the Bible indicates important people; who were they? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: These are the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Gemara comments: In certain ways they, the prophets, were greater than him, Daniel, and in certain ways he, Daniel, was greater than them. They were greater than him, as they were prophets and he was not a prophet. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were sent to convey the word of God to the Jewish people, while Daniel was not sent to reveal his visions to others. In another way, however, he was greater than them, as he saw this vision, and they did not see this vision, indicating that his ability to perceive obscure and cryptic visions was greater than theirs. The Gemara asks: Since they did not see the vision, what is the reason that they were frightened? The Gemara answers: Even though they did not see the vision, their guardian angels saw it, and therefore they sensed that there was something fearful there and they fled. Ravina said: Learn from this incident that with regard to one who is frightened for no apparent reason, although he does not see anything menacing, his guardian angel sees it, and therefore he should take steps in order to escape the danger. The Gemara asks: What is his remedy? He should recite Shema, which will afford him protection. And if he is standing in a place of filth, where it is prohibited to recite verses from the Torah, he should distance himself four cubits from his current location in order to escape the danger. And if he is not able to do so, let him say the following incantation: The goat of the slaughterhouse is fatter than I am, and if a calamity must fall upon something, it should fall upon it. § After this digression, the Gemara returns to the exposition of a verse cited above. Now that you have said that the phrases “every province” and “every city” appear for the purposes of midrashic exposition, for what exposition do the words “every family” appear in that same verse (Esther 9:28)? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: These words come to include the priestly and Levitical families, and indicate that they cancel their service in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The priests at their Temple service, the Levites on their platform in the Temple, where they sung the daily psalm, and the Israelites at their watches, i.e., the group of Israelites, corresponding to the priestly watches, who would come to Jerusalem and gather in other locations as representatives of the entire nation to observe or pray for the success of the Temple service, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. This is also taught in a baraita: The priests at their service, the Levites on the platform, and the Israelites at their watches, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi relied upon the halakha stated here and determined that one cancels his Torah study and comes to hear the reading of the Megilla. They derived this principle by means of an a fortiori inference from the Temple service: Just as one who is engaged in performing service in the Temple, which is very important, cancels his service in order to hear the Megilla, is it not all the more so obvious that one who is engaged in Torah study cancels his study to hear the Megilla? The Gemara asks: Is the Temple service more important than Torah study? Isn’t it written: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood over against him with his sword drawn in his hand. And Joshua went over to him and said to him: Are you for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, No, but I am captain of the host of the Lord, I have come now. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down” (Joshua 5:13–14). The Gemara first seeks to clarify the incident described in the verse. How did Joshua do this, i.e., how could he bow to a figure he did not recognize? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: It is prohibited for a person to greet his fellow at night if he does not recognize him, as we are concerned that perhaps it is a demon? How did Joshua know that it was not a demon? The Gemara answers: There it was different, as the visitor said to him: But I am captain of the host of the Lord. The Gemara asks: Perhaps this was a demon and he lied? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that demons do not utter the name of Heaven for naught, and therefore since the visitor had mentioned the name of God, Joshua was certain that this was indeed an angel. As for the angel’s mission, the Gemara explains that the angel said to Joshua: Yesterday, i.e., during the afternoon, you neglected the afternoon daily offering due to the impending battle, and now, at night, you have neglected Torah study, and I have come to rebuke you. Joshua said to him: For which of these sins have you come? He said to him: I have come now, indicating that neglecting Torah study is more severe than neglecting to sacrifice the daily offering. Joshua immediately determined to rectify the matter, as the verses states: “And Joshua lodged that night” (Joshua 8:9) “in the midst of the valley [ha’emek]” (Joshua 8:13), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

בניגוד למה שעולה מהגמרא במגילה, באגרת עליית הנשמה של הבעש"ט מתואר חזון אחר - בו הגאולה תבוא כאשר תורת הסוד תהיה נחלת הכלל:

אגרת עליית הנשמה של הבעש״ט [קארעץ תקמ״א]

[...] ועליתי מדרגה אחר מדרגה, עד שנכנסתי להיכל משיח, ששם לומד משיח תורה עם כל התנאים והצדיקים וגם עם שבעה רועים. [...] ושאלתי את פי משיח: אימת אתי מר? והשיב לי: בזאת תדע – בעת שיתפרסם למודך ויתגלה בעולם ויפוצו מעינותיך חוצה מה שלמדתי אותך והשגת, ויוכלו גם המה לעשות יחודים ועליות כמוך, ואז יכלו כל הקליפות, ויהי' עת רצון וישועה. ותמהתי ע"ז, והי' לי צער גדול באריכות הזמן כל כך, מתי זה אפשר להיות.

אך ממה שלמדתי בהיותי שם שלשה דברים סגולות ושלשה שמות הקדושים והם בנקל ללמוד ולפרוש, ונתקרר דעתי, וחשבתי אפשר ע"י זה יוכלו גם כן אנשי גילי לבוא למדרגה ובחינה כמותי, דהיינו בהיותם יכולים לעליות נשמות וילמדו וישיגו כמו אני. ולא נתנה רשות כל ימי חיי לגלות זאת. ובקשתי עבורך ללמוד אותך ולא הורשתי כלל. ומושבע ועומד אני על זה.

מקובל ע"פ המסורת של חב"ד שהצער של הבעש"ט היה על כך שהתקווה שכולם ידעו תורת הסוד היא רחוקה מאוד - ומתי יכול דבר כזה להיות. אולם ע"פ נכדו של הבעש"ט, הרר"ב ממעז'יבוז', הבעש"ט הצטער על כך שהוא יצטרך להפיץ את תורתו והיא תהפול לנחלת הכלל. אם כן יש שתי דרכים לפרש את צערו של הבעש"ט בהתאם לשני הקווים שראינו בעיון במקורות.

תהילים נ״ה:ט״ו

(טו) אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַ֭חְדָּו נַמְתִּ֣יק ס֑וֹד בְּבֵ֥ית אֱ֝לֹהִ֗ים נְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בְּרָֽגֶשׁ׃

Psalms 55:15

(15) sweet was our fellowship;
we walked together in God’s house.

ה. לסיום – סיבה פסיכולוגית\חינוכית – אשר יחדיו נמתיק סוד וכו' – סודות יותר מושכים את הלב. מים גנובים ימתק.

כיצד ניתן לשמור על הרגש בעידן שבו התורה היא כ״כ נגישה?

”ואמר רבא: בתחילה נקראת על שמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ולבסוף נקראת על שמו, שנאמר: "בתורת ה' חפצו ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה" (תהילים א:ב).“ (ע״ז יט.)

שנזכה להגיע ללמוד תורה, להגיע לקניין תורה ושנרגיש שהתורה היא שלנו עם רגש.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור