Pe'ah 014

6:
The next item in the list of physical phenomena that serve to delineate a 'field' – whether the farmer likes it or not – is one that I have translated 'pond'. In all probability the intent of our mishnah is to indicate some kind of reservoir, natural or man-made, which holds water which can then be fed into water-channels that will irrigate one's field or fields. Rabbi YomTov Lippmann Heller ['Tosfot YomTov', 1579-1654] argues that we should understand our mishnah as indicating a kind of 'not only but also' relationship: not only a wadi but even a pond. It would be readily accepted that a water-course (whether it has water in it or not) can be seen as a kind of boundary; but even a pond (whether it contains water or is dry at the moment) must also be accepted as a boundary mark which separates land into two fields.

To be continued.

A while back I mentioned that I do my best to present the comments and queries that arrive onto my desktop in the order that they reach me. That means that often it takes some time before I can present a query and it then seems to be disconnected from the original material that prompted it. This, I suppose, is inevitable. Here is an example: Shel Schiffman asks about something that appears in the first mishnah of the previous chapter!

Although we are now on Mishnah Two, I hope you will forgive me if I ask a question about Mishnah One. I am still wondering about how to understand the phrase that we take for granted, Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam. This has been translated here, and in most places, as "the study of Torah is equal to them all." Some Orthodox sites translate it as "the study of Torah is greater than all of them." (I assume the logic of that translation is that if the one mitzvah, Talmud Torah, is equal to all the others listed, it is greater than any single one of the others.) Some years ago, I heard our colleague Ed Feld translate it as "the study of Torah is fundamental to them all." I regret I never asked him about the basis for that translation, but I now surmise that it might be the following. In Tanakh, K'neged appears only in Genesis 2 – ezer k'negdo, generally understood as "a help fitting or appropriate for him." Is it possible that Ed Feld's translation is indeed the p'shat of the Mishnah, making the point that study of Torah is appropriate, indeed essential, for fulfilling all the other listed mitzvot? If not, what is the practical point of saying that it is "equal to them all?

While I'm at it, I'd like to ask also about another phrase used in this shiur, that we take for granted, namely "Torah lishmah," apparently universally translated as "Torah for its own sake." On reflection, I find that I really don't know what that could possibly mean. ( I don't understand "art for art's sake" either.) In all humility, I'd like to ask if another translation is possible: "Torah for its (proper) purpose." And what is that purpose? It is indicated in Rav's dictum,"Lo nitnu hamitzvot ella l'tzaref et habriyot." ['The purpose of the mitzvot is to refine people' – SR] If this understanding of Torah lishmah is untenable, as I suppose it must be, since I find it nowhere, I would appreciate being pointed to an explanation, not just a statement, of the usual understanding, and why that should be a Jewish value.

I respond:

In the narrow confines of this study group I cannot really do justice to Shel's questions, but neither may I ignore them. So I shall do my best.

The phrase keneged kulam appears several times in the Gemara in several different contexts. In all of them its intended meaning seems to be something like 'equal to them all'. The best illustrative example comes from Berakhot 47b, where Rabbi Yehoshu'a ben-Levi is quoted as saying that "one should always come early to the synagogue so as to merit being counted among the first ten [who make up the initial quorum needed for public prayer]; for even if one hundred come after him he receives the reward of them all." The Gemara finds this statement astounding, since it suggests that all those who come after the first ten have no reward for their presence at public worship because it has already been allocated to those ten; and this is a statement, of course, which is unacceptable (even on a purely motivational basis). Therefore the Gemara seeks to amend the original statement:

I suppose that on this basis one could argue that the phrase could be understood as having the practical meaning of "greater than all of them" – that if one person receives a reward equal to that of them all his reward is, in fact, greater. However, I am by no means convinced that this is the intended 'peshat' [plain meaning of the text] and I have more than just a sneaking suspicion that such a translation has the ulterior motive of justifying the 'supreme value' of Torah study. (We mentioned this in Peah 004.) The other interpretation quoted by Shel is just that: an interpretation and not a translation. (Also, I really do not believe that in the context of the question here raised that reference to Eve being to Adam 'ezer kenegdo' is relevant. See Yevamot 63a for how the sages understood this phrase.)

I suspect that with regards to Talmud Torah [the study of Torah] all these translations and interpretations have been heavily influenced (wittingly or unwittingly) by another famous discussion in the Gemara [Kiddushin 40b]:

I hope that these comparatively few words can serve as my response to Shel's first question. There is not enough space in this already overly long shiur to do even minimal justice to his second question, so I shall continue my response in our next shiur.