English translation — ואתחנן א

Sicha 1<pg>24</pg>

A.

We learned in Masechet Avot<sup>1</sup>

: "Whoever forgets one thing from his mishnah, Scripture considers him as if he is liable for his life, as it is said<sup>2</sup>

Only beware for yourself and guard your soul very much, lest you forget the things which your eyes saw."

And in the Gemara<sup>3</sup>

they learned from this verse that "whoever causes to forget one thing from his learning<sup>4</sup>

transgresses a negative commandment."

And superficially, one must examine based on this the story in the Gemara⁵

that Rabbi Zeira when he ascended to the Land of Israel sat for a hundred⁶

fasts so that the Babylonian Gemara⁷

should be forgotten from him, so that he would not be distracted",

for superficially,

how was it permitted for him to forget the Babylonian Gemara,

and behold "Anyone who forgets one thing from his study transgresses a negative commandment"?

And all the more so etc. etc. the entire "Babylonian Gemara"!

In the Gemara the reason of Rabbi Zeira is explained "so that he would not be distracted",

that his entire intention was so that he could learn the Jerusalem Talmud as required,

but superficially there is no place to transgress an explicit prohibition

(forgetting the Torah)

for the sake of that afterwards he will learn Torah and perhaps succeed,

and to note the matter of the rejection of a mitzvah that comes through a transgression even if it is certain

(and at the time of the act).

And even though in the Mishnah there it continues with the words "he is not liable for his life until he sits and removes them from his heart"

(And likewise in the Gemara there regarding the prohibition "could it be even under duress? The verse says 'and lest they depart from your heart' — it speaks of one who removes them from his heart")

— behold, R. Z. prayed and fasted etc. that he remove them from his heart.

And further: simply,

all these hundred days that he sat in fasting so that the Babylonian Talmud be forgotten from him,

he did not learn "Babylonian Talmud",

which is a thing and its opposite — and thus it is "he sits and removes them from his heart"⁸.

2.

And behold, in the words of the early authorities we find several approaches regarding the definitions of this prohibition:<pg>25</pg>

a)

The Rambam

(and other early authorities)

did not count the prohibition of "Do not forget them" in the count of the commandments.

b)

the Ramban⁹

who counts it in the count of the commandments,

holds that this prohibition does not apply to forgetting words of Torah,

but rather to forgetting the event of Mount Sinai

(and as he writes also in his commentary on the Torah on the verse).

And apparently he holds¹⁰

that the derivation mentioned above in the Mishnah and Gemara is merely an asmachta,

and it is only words¹¹

of piety¹².

3)

Also according to some of the enumerators of the commandments and the poskim¹³

who counted the prohibition of "lest you forget" in the enumeration of the commandments and hold that it refers to forgetting words of Torah,

the prohibition is that he "separates from the Torah"

(as per the language of the Semag¹⁴),

or that "he is not liable until he sits and removes them from his heart, meaning that he empties¹⁵

his heart for idleness"

(as per the language of the Yereim¹⁶).

And according to this, it can be said

(seemingly)

that R. Z. did not transgress any prohibition,

for it is obvious that even when he sat a hundred fasts so that the Babylonian Talmud would be forgotten from him,

he did not separate, heaven forbid, from words of Torah and empty his heart for idleness,

but rather he studied the Written Torah,

Mishnah, etc.,

and he did not stop learning except for "the Babylonian Talmud."

However, we find another approach regarding the definition of this prohibition,

as brought in the Laws of Talmud Torah by our master the Alter Rebbe¹⁷

that "whoever forgets a single thing from his learning because he did not review his study properly, Scripture accounts it to him as if he is liable for his life, and he also transgresses a negative commandment of the Torah, as it is said, 'Only beware for yourself'"¹⁸

(and its source is in the commentary of Rabbeinu Yonah and Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura on the Mishnah Avot there¹⁹)

— that is, there is a prohibition and an explicit negative commandment from the Torah²⁰

regarding forgetting a matter from words of Torah in itself,

not because of<pg>26</pg>

withdrawal from words of Torah or idleness,

therefore one must review his study properly so as not to forget.

And it can be said that it is explicit thus in the Laws of Torah Study of the Rambam,

who wrote²¹

"Until when is one obligated to study Torah? Until the day of his death, as it is said, 'and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life,' and any time that he is not occupied with study, he forgets."

"When he grows²²

in wisdom and will not need to learn the Written Torah nor to be constantly occupied with the Oral Torah, he should read at fixed times the Written Torah and the words of tradition, so that he not forget any matter of the laws of the Torah."

[And the reason that the Rambam did not count it as a separate negative commandment in the count of the commandments is that in his opinion it is part of the general positive commandment of Torah study according to its law,

as explained in the Kuntres Acharon²³

of the Alter Rebbe].

And according to this — the difficulty returns to its place.

3.

At first glance, one can say,

that "the Babylonian Talmud should be forgotten" is not a forgetting of "a matter from the words of the laws of the Torah",

but only

(in the language of Rashi²⁴)

the "questions and resolutions" that are in the Babylonian Talmud²⁵.

And in this there is no prohibition,

in the manner explained in Hilchos Talmud Torah of the Alter Rebbe²⁶

regarding "pilpul" in the reasons of the laws etc. — "that they would not review it so much..

And therefore all the pilpul of the Tannaim was forgotten<pg>27</pg>

and the early Amoraim, and nothing was brought from it in the Talmud except a very little..

And the rest was forgotten because there is no obligation to review them, since the pilpul was not given²⁷

except to Moshe.

Behold, there is no prohibition to forget pilpul of Torah

(And it is sufficient to remember only "the halachos with their reasons"²⁸).

And according to this, it is permitted ab initio to forget the pilpul and the questions and the resolutions.

That is: even though it is explicit in Hilchos Talmud Torah there²⁹,

that in the obligation to know and remember all of the Oral Torah in its entirety is also included "the Talmud that explains the reasons of the halachos that are in the Mishnayos"

(because "if he does not know the reasons of the halachos he does not understand the bodies of the halachos in their proper form, in their clarity")

— behold, it is explained in Hilchos Talmud Torah there³⁰,

that according to Rashi "the Talmud is divided into two parts": the reasons of the halachos without pilpul

(which they received person from person³¹),

and pilpul of Torah "to understand one thing from another thing" etc.,

according to this one could say,

that also in the Babylonian Talmud these two parts

(a)

the part of the reasons of the halachos in brief,

(b)

the questions and resolutions that are in the category of "pilpul" — and R' Z"R wanted to forget only the part of pilpul that is in the Babylonian Gemara

(which is permitted to forget),

and not³²

the reasons.

But it is doubtful if it is possible to reconcile thus,

for in addition to this that in the laws of Talmud Torah there³³

it implies that the prohibition to forget a matter of Torah words applies to all of the Babylonian Talmud

[and the questions and resolutions in the Babylonian Talmud are not in the category of "pilpul" merely

(which is permitted to forget),

because they are necessary for knowledge of the reasons of the laws in brief]³⁴

— behold yet this,

from the simple language of the Gemara "that the Babylonian Gemara be forgotten from me" it implies that he forgot all of "Babylonian Gemara"

(in his days)³⁵,

and not only the part of the questions and resolutions in it³⁶.

D.

And one may add:

At first glance, this difficulty regarding the R"Z has no place according to the Rambam's system, that there is no obligation in knowing the reasons for the halachos

(even not in a brief way)

for the sake of knowing the halachos themselves&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

and according to his system,

the obligation to know the entire Oral Torah

(and the prohibition to forget "any matter of the words of Torah law")

includes only "Mishnah",

i.e., decided halachos,

and not "Talmud"

("Gemara")&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

—&lt;pg&gt;28&lt;/pg&gt;

And thus the R"Z did not transgress any prohibition in forgetting all of "the Babylonian Gemara".

But behold, according to everyone there is a clear obligation "to divide his study time into three parts"³⁹,

and one third of the time one must study "Gemara"³⁹.

And although the obligation to divide his study time into three parts is only "at the beginning of a person's study" and not "when he grows in wisdom"⁴⁰

— behold, on the contrary: "when he grows in wisdom"

(that he "does not need to study the Written Torah nor to constantly engage in the Oral Torah")

he must devote "all his days to Gemara alone"⁴⁰

(except for set times that he must read the Written Torah and the words of tradition "so that he not forget any matter of the laws of the Torah"⁴⁰)

;

And thus it is difficult: during the days that R. Z. fasted so that the Babylonian Gemara would be forgotten from him,

surely he did not engage in the study of Babylonian Gemara

(and to the study of the Gemara of Eretz Yisrael he had not yet arrived)

— and how did he fulfill his obligation in those days in the study of "Gemara"?

5.

And this will be understood with the introduction that in the Gemara³

there is a special study for this law, that one who forgets words of Torah due to circumstances beyond his control does not transgress the prohibition

(and as brought in the Laws of Torah Study⁴¹

"only⁴²,

to exclude due to circumstances beyond his control").

And it is not understood: a great principle is it in the entire Torah that "one who is compelled, the Merciful One exempts him"⁴³,

and why is a special study and exclusion needed that one who forgets his Torah due to circumstances beyond his control does not transgress the prohibition?

And one should say the explanation in this:

Regarding the reason for the obligation to review one's learning properly so as not to forget words of Torah, the Ra'av wrote

(and similarly by Rabbeinu Yonah)⁴⁴

"that from his forgetting he comes to permit the forbidden, and a mishap comes about through him, and his inadvertence is considered intentional",

but the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan did not copy this reason

[even though the Alter Rebbe ruled regarding the definition of the prohibition of forgetting Torah — its source is in the words of the Ra'av and Rabbeinu Yonah

(as above sec. 2)].

And it is understood from this that according to the Alter Rebbe there is no prohibition of forgetting words of Torah

(only)

because of the mishap that can come as a result of this,

but rather the essence of forgetting^*44.

And as is proven even more from what the Alter Rebbe said⁴⁵

that also "now that the Oral Torah is written and he can look in books at what he forgot, this does not help at all, because as soon as he forgets he transgresses a prohibition before he looks,"

behold, the very forgetting of Torah

(immediately,

and even when no mishap will come afterwards because "he can look in books")

is a prohibition.

And the foundation of the Alter Rebbe can be said to be from the very warning of the Torah "Beware for yourself etc. lest you forget the things" — for seemingly: forgetting is not an action but a state that comes of itself and automatically⁴⁶,

and a person can guard himself from forgetting by reviewing his study properly.

And if so, if the intention of the Torah in "lest you forget etc." is the obligation,

that a person know and remember the laws of the Torah so that no mishap will come through him,

it would have been fitting for the verse to warn in the style of an action,

to command

(the action of a person,

namely)

reviewing words of Torah

(so that a person will always remember all the laws of the Torah),

and not

(only)

to warn about forgetting

("lest you forget etc.").

<pg>29</pg>

And from this we learn,

that forgetting the Torah itself

(even without the mishap that can come through this)

is a matter about which the Torah warned.

6.

And with this will be understood the reason that there is a need for a special study that one who forgets due to circumstances beyond his control does not transgress a prohibition

(and is not liable for his life)

— even though in the entire Torah, circumstances beyond one's control, the Merciful One exempts:

Two aspects

(details)

Regarding the definition of exemption due to ones⁴⁷

: a)

Even though the act of transgression is considered an act of the person, nevertheless one cannot obligate him

(punishment and the like)

for something done against his will.

b)

Since it was done against his will, it is not considered a transgression

(whose meaning — that the transgressor acts against the will and command of God).

And behold, that an act done under duress is not considered a transgression applies only when the transgression is in an action of prohibition that is done against his will.

But forgetting words of Torah and its prohibition — this is not a prohibition regarding an action,

but rather regarding a state of forgetfulness that comes on its own and automatically

(and the person's action is to negate this state through review),

and therefore^*47

it could be said that even when the forgetfulness is due to duress, behold even though he is exempt

(like the first manner above)

nevertheless it is in the category of "transgressing a prohibition",

obligation and punishment are not here,

but a state of forgetfulness is here.

And this is the innovation in study and the specific diminishment to diminish the circumstance of forgetfulness due to duress,

that there is no forgetting of the Torah here,

that is: the warning to a person about forgetting words of Torah does not apply from the outset except when he does so willingly,

but when this is due to duress, a command and a prohibition do not apply to it,

in general,

also not the prohibition of forgetting words of Torah⁴⁸.

And it will be sweetened according to what is written

(below in the Laws of Torah Study there⁴⁹,

regarding one "who is very well-versed in all his study that leads to action" that "he can set aside for himself each day a small hour for other study..

it is proper..

to set his study..)

to study once in order the entire Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud etc.

(and he continues)

And even if he will forget everything, behold in the future to come they will remind him of all his study that he forgot due to his duress, for it is impossible for him to review so much that he will not forget this study..

And also now..

there is no forgetting before the throne of Your glory⁵⁰

which is above the throne etc." — behold it is explicit that one who forgets due to his duress,

behold not only is there no punishment here,

but furthermore,

that there is also no prohibition of forgetting the Torah,

for it is like a change that certainly returns to its original state that does not acquire⁵¹

and is acquired in the person,

for the words of Torah that he learned and were forgotten from him,

"<pg>30</pg>

In the future to come they will mention him"⁵²

("And also now" his Torah that he learned is mentioned above "before the throne of Your glory"⁵³).

7.

And the explanation of the matter one can say:

Based on the above that the prohibition is the very state of forgetting words of Torah,

it can be said,

that also according to the view of the Alter Rebbe,

the reason and definition of the prohibition of forgetting words of Torah is like what is stated in the Semag that it is because he "separates from the Torah",

except that it is not a separation from the Torah on account of his action,

but rather that this very thing that he forgets words of Torah

(even if he is engaged in other words of Torah)

is a separation from the Torah,

that these words of Torah are separated from him.

And this is also the reason that when he forgets "due to circumstances beyond his control" words of Torah are not forgotten from him

(as above from the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe)

— because forgetting Torah due to circumstances beyond his control is not his separation from the Torah,

for he forgets due to circumstances beyond his control; from the human side there is here no separation from words of Torah at all,

therefore also from the side of the Torah it is so,

that the words of Torah that he learned have in them no change of acquisition and being acquired,

as above.

8.

And based on all the above, it is necessary to explain the incident of R' Zeira mentioned above,

that "he sat one hundred fasts so that the Babylonian Gemara would be forgotten from him, so that it would not disturb him":

Since all the intention of R' Zeira was only in order that he could learn the Jerusalem Talmud properly

(without the disturbances of the Babylonian Talmud),

it is simple that this is not in the category of "one who separates from the Torah" — on the contrary,

this is a preparation and qualification for a higher level in the study of Torah.

And beyond this — the benefit in learning and comprehending the Talmud Yerushalmi is not only in the manner of learning in general,

but this relates to the matter of remembering the words of Torah itself.

For behold, among the differences between the manner of learning in the Babylonian Talmud and the manner of learning in the Jerusalem Talmud is⁵⁴

: The Babylonian Talmud is called⁵⁵

"In darknesses⁵⁶

He has made me sit",

that relative to the Yerushalmi it is "darkness",

and the Yerushalmi is "light",

and "there is no Torah like the Torah of the Land of Israel"⁵⁷.

And like the difference between them in simple terms,

that in the Bavli there is much back-and-forth until they reach a conclusion,

but not so in the Yerushalmi, where there is no back-and-forth or there is only a little back-and-forth,

and this is like a person who is in a lit place where everything is revealed before him and he immediately finds what he seeks.

And it is understood simply,

that the multiplicity of give-and-take makes memory difficult,

but not so when everything is revealed and clear,

it is easier to remember all the details of the matter.

And it follows,

that this itself that R. Zeira fasted one hundred fasts so that the Babylonian Gemara be forgotten from him, so that it not distract him

(and he could study the Jerusalem Talmud)

caused⁵⁸

that the Torah be preserved in his memory with greater strength and greater power.

<pg>31</pg>

[And according to the statement of the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

(which was brought before the law of "whoever forgets one thing from his study transgresses a negative commandment")

— "Sometimes the nullification of Torah is its foundation,"

and as explained elsewhere&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

that sometimes specifically "the nullification of Torah" is the way to reach "its foundation,"

that the Torah will be established and grounded in the person].

And thus it is simple that there is in this no prohibition of forgetting the Torah.

9.

And it needs to be explained in greater depth:

The reason that the very forgetting of words of Torah is a matter of prohibition

(And as soon as one forgets words of Torah, he transgresses a negative commandment)

It is because words of Torah are our life and the length of our days⁶¹,

And the very thing that he forgets and removes one matter from his study, this removes his "life" from himself,

Therefore he transgresses a negative commandment^*44.

And this is also the explanation that one who forgets a single thing from his study, Scripture accounts it to him as if he is liable for his life — for at first glance it is puzzling&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;,

Is forgetting a single thing from the words of Torah so severe that he should be liable for his life?

! Rather, this is not in the category of punishment but rather — a result of the forgetfulness.

For the words of Torah are the life of his soul, and when a single thing from the words of Torah is forgotten and removed from him, these lives of his soul are removed from him,

And like the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory: What difference is it to me whether I kill the whole or I kill half&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;

— "liable for his life".

And from this it is understood also regarding the R"Z,

that since all his intention in these fasts was so that he could understand the Jerusalem Talmud as is proper,

behold there is here no separation, G-d forbid, from

(the ways of)

the Torah,

but rather on the contrary,

this was the way that he could study and unite with the Torah in a more elevated manner,

in a manner of "light".

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Terumah and Shabbos Parshas Vayikra 5740)