I recently learned and wrote about (TftD) a Chazal (Brachos 21a) that apparently says straight out that there is no pleasure/enjoyment/הנאה from learning Torah. I was surprised, but I gave it some thought and felt I had a good way to understand that Chazal. While discussing it with a member of the kollel, however, he pointed me to the introduction to the אגלי טל, who discusses the concept of "mitzvos were not given for our enjoyment." Long story short, the אגלי טל discusses in the introduction why the Rambam says that learning Torah for the wrong reasons will bring you to learning Torah for the right reasons, whereas doing miztvos for the wrong reasons won't bring you anywhere.
Basically, the Rambam is of the opinion that in order to actually fulfill a mitzvah, it must be done with that intent. Since mitzvos were not given for our enjoyment, doing the mitzvah for any purpose other than fulfilling the mitzvah -- ie, for some side benefit -- is automatically not a fulfillment of the mitzvah. Why is learning Torah different? Because, says the אגלי טל, pleasure/enjoyment/הנאה is part and parcel of the mitzvah of learning Torah.
Wait... what? Isn't that contradicted by the Chazal from Brachos 21a? In fact, I am not the first one to have that question. Someone asked that question to the אגלי טל, and he answered it in the אבני נזר. Yes, same author. I also just learned that fact :)
First let's review the "a fortiori"/קל וחומר argument:
Food does not require a bracha beforehand, but does require a bracha afterward; is it not a logical consequence that Torah, which does require a bracha beforehand should certainly require a bracha afterwards. (I think you know where this is going...) Torah, which does not require a bracha afterwards, yet does require a bracha beforehand, is it not a logical consequence that food, which does require a bracha afterward should certainly require a bracha before.
This is a very funny קל וחומר -- which I knew, but glossed over. The structure of a is to argue from a general/weak requirement to a specific/strong requirement. By nature they go one way; but this argument went both ways. I glossed over it because it seemed to be a side point. In fact, though, the אבני נזר uses that to explain the apparent contradiction between the אגלי טל and this Chazal. We also need to understand that there is two kinds of הנאה from food -- the taste, which is immediate and the nutritional value, which actually commences after we enjoy the taste and continues for some time; that is, until digestion is complete. The Birkas HaMazon on food is for the nutritional benefit of the food, not its taste. (For example, if one were to eat a whole meal, then somehow the contents of his stomach were removed, he would not say Birkas HaMazon. I asked that question and got that answer almost 30 years ago during chemotherapy. It was, unfortunately, a very practical question at the time.)
Here's the argument augmented by the אבני נזר. You can't learn to have a bracha before food from birkas HaTorah, because food has only הנאה, but doesn't bring you to Olam HaBah. You can't learn to have a bracha after learning Torah from Birkas HaMazon, because after learning Torah there is nothing physical remaining in your body to be digested. Hence, no bracha after learning Torah.
That clears things up! It is not that there is no הנאה from Torah, it is that הנאה alone is not enough to require a bracha beforehand. For that you need both הנאה and Olam HaBah. HaShem is very very good to us!
Comments