English translation — חוקת א

A.

One of the places in Shas where the Gemara compares and equates Torah to a man — which is hinted at in our parshah¹

"This is the Torah, a man"²

— is at the end of tractate Megillah.

The comparison of Torah to a man is in many matters, beginning that just as a man is composed of body and soul — so too is it in Torah³.

In a man there are 248 limbs and 365 sinews — so too does Torah teach 248 positive commandments and 365 negative commandments⁴.

And more.

In our parshah by "This is the Torah, man" is the continuation "A man who dies in a tent etc.",

About this the content of the comparison between Torah and man in tractate Megillah is brought out in connection with death — "Said Rabbi Parnakh ..

Whoever holds a Torah scroll naked is buried naked etc."

Furthermore: just as in our parshah it speaks not only about the matter of death in itself,

but in connection with the law of impurity⁵,

so too regarding the aforementioned teaching,

that because of that which "Whoever holds a Torah scroll naked is buried naked",

they decreed impurity upon hands⁶,

"Even the hands that come from a book disqualify the

The terumah because of the reason of R. Franakh”<sup>7</sup>.

And one can say that in the sugya

(in tractate Megillah)

comes to a novelty both in the matter of a Sefer Torah that is uncovered and the cloth of a Sefer Torah,

both in the matter of Torah and commandments in relation to the person,

as will be explained below.

2.

And thus said the Gemara at the end of tractate Megillah: Said Rabbi Parnakh said Rabbi Yochanan: Anyone who holds a Torah scroll naked is buried naked. Naked, can it enter your mind? Rather, say: is buried naked without mitzvos. Without mitzvos, can it enter your mind? Rather, said Abaye: is buried naked without that mitzvah.

It is understood and simple,

as often spoken⁸,

that even a difficulty in the Gemara has a place in intellect,

also in the intellect of the Torah.

For it speaks here about Tannaim and Amoraim whose entire occupation was in Torah,

so it is simple that even their difficulties are not merely a reasoning that has no place in Torah.

Furthermore: Rav Ashi, the arranger of the Gemara, certainly did not include in the Gemara every discussion and initial assumption that was said in the study hall⁹

(although it is understood that also those rationales had a place in the intellect of the Torah and particularly in the topic where they were said).

So from that which <b>the </b>rationales and initial assumptions Rav Ashi did include

— it is understood,

that not only do they have a place in the intellect and reasoning of Torah,

but this adds understanding and reasoning in the study of the specific topic,

and it can be said — also up to the conclusive law¹⁰.

And according to this, one must understand: what are the rationales in the assumption that "buried naked" or "naked without commandments" because of what one who holds a Sefer Torah naked?

3.

Simply, one can say,

that "whoever holds a Sefer Torah naked is buried naked" is not merely a punishment,

but a &lt;b&gt;cause &lt;/b&gt;of the holding.

In other words — a punishment measure&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

for measure.

A person is compared to a Sefer Torah

(as the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

says "one who stands by the deceased at the moment of the soul's departure is obligated to tear, for to what is this similar? To a &lt;b&gt;Sefer Torah &lt;/b&gt;that was burned")

is &lt;b&gt;automatically &lt;/b&gt;when he holds a Sefer Torah naked&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;,

then also he

(who is compared to a Sefer Torah)

— "is buried naked" literally,

The Gemara however rejects the reasoning — "holding a Sefer Torah naked",

because buried naked

without garments.

(without garments)

is indeed a punishment

(only)

for the body,

but the comparison of a person to a Sefer Torah is indeed

to the <b>soul</b>¹⁴,

and consequently the punishment for

"holding a Sefer Torah naked" must also be

(mainly)

(mainly)

for the soul;

Therefore the Gemara says "Rather, say: He is buried naked without &lt;b&gt;commandments&lt;/b&gt;",

which is a punishment measure for measure: because he holds a Torah scroll naked,

it comes to him that he should be naked of the commandments,

which is a punishment for the &lt;b&gt;soul&lt;/b&gt;.

On this the Gemara asks "Naked without commandments can it enter your mind" — why should one take away from him all the commandments?

Rather, Abaye said: He is buried naked without that one commandment.

The explanation is however not smooth.

If the question on the first reasoning consists in this, that "&lt;b&gt;buried &lt;/b&gt;naked" is connected with the body itself,

and it is not a punishment for the soul, which from its side is comparable to a Sefer Torah — the Gemara should have cited in the question the word "buried"

("&lt;b&gt;buried &lt;/b&gt;naked, you might think"),

in which consists the main difficulty.

From the continuation of the Gemara it is evident that the discussion here is not about whom one punishes,

whether the body or the soul which is comparable to a Sefer Torah,

but about "naked" — the content of the punishment.

4.

Regarding the conclusion of the Gemara "naked without that mitzvah" Tosafot&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt; says

: "Some explain: the mitzvah of holding, and it is difficult: what is the novelty? It is obvious that he has no reward since he did not perform the mitzvah properly. Therefore Riva explained: without that mitzvah which he performed at that time,

that if he held a Sefer Torah naked and read in it, he has no reward from the reading,

and likewise he held it to roll it or to correct it&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

but he held it with a cloth: 'Length of days in its right hand, in its left hand riches and honor.'"

one must understand:

a)

what are the rationales of the two opinions — whether “without that mitzvah” means “the mitzvah of holding”

that also he learns

(<b>according to the plain sense </b>of the language of the Gemara)

that this means “the mitzvah of holding”¹⁷],

or the mitzvah of reading, rolling, and correcting because he performed them at that hour¹⁸

(according to the interpretation of the Riva)?

b)

What is the intention of the Tosafot at the conclusion of their language "But they grasped a cloth, length of days in its right hand, in its left hand wealth and honor"?

Simply, this is in order to conclude with good,

and therefore the conclusion in Tosafot Shabbat¹⁹ is not present

— one cannot say, however, that this is the entire reason,

for from this reason alone one could have concluded with good "But they grasped a cloth, he has reward from the reading" etc. — not to bring in a matter <b>additional and new</b>,

a verse and what apparently has no relevance here.

5.

And one could say the point of the explanation in all this:

The three opinions and explanations in the interpretation of "buried naked" are in the category of a cloth in relation to a Torah scroll,

which can be learned in several ways:

a)

A mantle does not pertain to the Sefer Torah itself,

it is an additional thing in order that a person should be able to grasp the Sefer Torah,

which must be in a manner of honor

(not in a way of disgrace)²⁰.

b)

This is not only that one should be able to grasp the Sefer Torah,

rather this pertains and adds to the honor of the Sefer Torah in itself — the honor of the Sefer Torah demands that it should have a mantle²¹.

In other words: this is not only a law regarding the person

(the grasping of the person),

rather — a law in the object of the Sefer Torah²².

or — a matter positive,

a mantle adds to the honor of the Sefer Torah in general].

ג)

This is not only relevant to &lt;b&gt;the honor &lt;/b&gt;of the Sefer Torah,

but it is connected and comes&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

from the essence of the Sefer Torah and its holiness&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

; and in the manner as there must be the blank margins of a Sefer Torah,

similarly, from the side of the holiness of the book,

it must also have a mantle&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

which is &lt;b&gt;like &lt;/b&gt;the blank margin of the book,

part&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

of it&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;.

6.

And these are the three opinions

(and views)

in the Gemara:

a)

According to the first opinion "buried naked" — simply without garments,

one assumes that the cloth is only a side matter,

a garment for the Sefer Torah; and therefore the punishment for "one who holds a Sefer Torah

"naked",

when one takes from a person his garments,

which are a separate thing from him,

and are

(mainly)

for the sake of another,

or to remove the disgrace of his being naked²⁸.

b)

The second opinion — buried naked without commandments — is his reasoning,

that the cloth is connected to the Torah scroll itself.

And therefore the punishment of one who holds a Torah scroll naked — buried naked without commandments,

because commandments are the "garments" of

(the soul of)

a person²⁹

and of Torah³⁰,

and not as a separate thing,

but rather what is connected to the matter of Torah itself: Torah is its subject — the study of the laws of the commandments,

and commandments are the "garments" through which the laws of the Torah are carried out in practice.

And likewise is it with a person who studies Torah

(and has become comparable to Torah,

"This is the Torah, a person" as mentioned above),

that his garments

(regarding the Torah that is in him)³¹

are his commandments³².

3)

According to the answer of Abaye — "he was buried naked without that mitzvah" — it comes out like the third manner,

that a cloth is not a separate thing that becomes connected to a Sefer Torah,

but it becomes in the manner of a part of the Sefer Torah.

And in his opinion: one cannot say that the punishment is that one takes from him to [other] ordinary mitzvos,

since mitzvos are a separate thing

(garments)

from Torah and from the person;

But "naked without the mitzvah" — from the mitzvah itself,

the cloth that is a part of the Sefer Torah,

as below section 7.

("within the cloth"³³)

— that this is not only because both statements speak about the cloth³⁴,

but this is a continuation in the essence of the matter:

According to the conclusion that the mantle is not a separate garment for the Sefer Torah,

and even not a garment that becomes connected with the Sefer Torah,

but it is a part of the Sefer Torah itself,

one could say that there is no difference whether one rolls the mantle around the Sefer Torah or one rolls the Sefer Torah inside the mantle,

Says Rabbi Yannai that there is indeed no prohibition,

because the mantle is analogous to the margins of a Sefer Torah which are above and below³⁵,

but it is preferable that the mantle be rolled,

because it is after all not the essence of the Torah].

7.

The Gemara³⁶

says: "One who rends ..

for his deceased

(on Shabbat)

even though he desecrates Shabbat fulfills the obligation of rending".

And based on this it must come out in our case,

that although when one is holding a Sefer Torah uncovered one does an undesirable matter — one does not lose through this the mitzvah of holding; the transgression

(in the <b>manner</b> of holding)

does not negate the mitzvah of holding.

And this is the superiority

(according to the opinion of some)

in the third reasoning,

that here he does <b>not</b> fulfill the mitzvah,

because the mantle is not a separate thing from the Sefer Torah,

but it is a part of the Sefer Torah; and therefore,

when one is holding the Sefer Torah uncovered without a mantle,

there is lacking in the Sefer Torah itself

(and consequently — in the mitzvah of holding the Sefer Torah).

Tosafos wants, however, not to accept the explanation,

because according to this it will turn out,

that according to the resolution of Abaye the explanation of "buried naked" changes: according to the first two manners it is a punishment

(they take from him something

(garments)

that he has from himself)

; and according to the conclusion "naked without that mitzvah" it is a deficiency in his fulfillment of the mitzvah

(he is "naked" from the mitzvah itself)

From the plain language of the Gemara, however, it is implied,

that according to all three opinions the definition of "buried naked" is the same — a punishment,

they take from him something³⁷.

Therefore Riva teaches that "buried naked without that mitzvah" means "without that mitzvah that he performed at that time,

that if he held a Sefer Torah naked and read from it <b>he has no reward </b>from the reading etc." — which mitzvah of reading he had fulfilled,

rather they punish him and they take from him that "reward from the reading."

8.

More deeply it can be said,

that the Y”M and Riva disagree also in the very definition of a cloth:

According to some opinions, a mantle is a matter and part only of the <b>existence</b> of the Torah scroll,

for which it is therefore connected only with the mitzvah of holding; this, however, has no relevance to the mitzvos of man which are connected with the <b>content</b> and purpose

(and you shall teach it etc. place it in their mouths³⁸)

of the Torah scroll

(reading in the Torah and the like).

And therefore one cannot learn that "naked without that mitzvah" means the mitzvah of reading which he performs at that time,

because the reading in the Torah has no relevance to the mantle of the scroll,

and therefore the prohibition of holding a Torah scroll without a mantle cannot affect the mitzvah of reading,

(In the distinction of one who tears on Shabbat who has fulfilled the obligation of tearing,

and a stolen matzah with which one does not fulfill his obligation on Pesach)

: there the act itself is a transgression, but here he committed a transgression — that the

“he committed a transgression” at the time of the doing,

does not affect the mitzvah of tearing].

According to the opinion of the Ri”ba however,

the cloth has a connection to the general subject of the Sefer Torah,

all the details of the Sefer Torah are connected one with another.

And consequently,

when “he held a Sefer Torah uncovered” there is lacking in the completeness of the reading in the Torah⁴⁰,

although in the action of man these are two separate actions: holding and reading.

9.

According to the above one will also understand what Tosafos concludes “But he held it in a cloth, length of days in its right, in its left wealth and honor”:

Chazal say⁴¹

that the verse⁴²

"Length of days in its right hand; in its left hand wealth and honor" speaks about two types of Torah learners — "for those who turn to the right in it, length of days" and "for those who turn to the left in it, wealth and honor."

Rashi explains⁴³

: "Those who turn to the right in it" are those who study it for its own sake; "those who turn to the left in it" are those who study it not for its own sake.

From that which the Gemara says "for those who turn to the left in it, wealth and honor" it is understood,

that this does not mean a manner of not for its own sake⁴⁴

concerning which Chazal⁴⁵

say "if he did not merit, it becomes for him a potion of death,"

but rather such a not for its own sake that

(also)

the study brings wealth and honor.

The explanation of this: we have already spoken several times⁴⁶,

that "not for its own sake"

In subtlety does not mean only a study for the sake of a matter that is not connected with the service of G-d,

but even a study for the sake of the commandment — in order to know the deed which one must do is not for its own sake⁴⁷,

the study is not for the sake of the Torah,

the study of the Torah itself,

but for the sake of the fulfillment of the commandments; for its own sake in completeness means — study of the Torah for the sake of

(the attainment of)

the Torah itself,

and according to the language of our sages⁴⁸

"expound and receive reward" but not "expound" for the sake of "receive reward",

"magnify Torah and glorify it"⁴⁹.

And this is also the concept of the &lt;b&gt;mantle &lt;/b&gt;of a Sefer Torah

(in spirituality)

— which is,

a part of the body of the Sefer Torah:

The study in order to know what to do is &lt;b&gt;necessary&lt;/b&gt;,

and moreover — &lt;b&gt;before &lt;/b&gt;all study of Torah&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

But this is still not the study of Torah &lt;b&gt;for its own sake &lt;/b&gt;

(only for the sake of the mitzvah,

as mentioned above,

as mentioned above)

; on the other hand, however,

this is not like the &lt;b&gt;performance &lt;/b&gt;of the mitzvos which are a separate thing from

(the study of)

Torah — it is only that they are “garments” which are connected to Torah

(the laws of Torah are carried out in the performance of the mitzvos)

— but this is from the outset one thing with Torah: it is

One of the ways in the study of the Torah; but regarding the study of Torah for its own sake — for the sake of the Torah itself — the study is analogous to a cloth and garment of the "body" and truth of the study⁵¹.

And this is what Tosafos concludes,

that at the time "they grasped the cloth — and together with it 'and he read in it'"

(as Tosafos says earlier)

is — "length of days in its right hand, in its left hand wealth and honor": when one has both matters — both "those who turn to the left in it"

(not for its own sake),

the study to know the deed which they should do which is hinted at in "they grasped the cloth",

and also "and he read in it" which means the reading and study in the Torah

(for its own sake)

for the sake of the Torah — "those who turn to the right in it",

One receives both aspects of reward,

both "length of days in its right hand" and "in its left hand wealth and honor",

literally below ten handbreadths,

until — the true length of days, wealth and honor,

with the coming of our righteous Messiah,

speedily in our days, literally.

(*From sichos of Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh Yud Shevat and etc. Shevat 5730<b>)</b>