לקוטי שיחות חלק לד - ואתחנן א

In Pirkei Avos, we learn: "Anyone who forgets even one thing from his learning, the verse considers it as if he is liable for his life, as it says, 'Only beware for yourself and greatly guard your soul, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen.'" The Gemara derives from this verse that "anyone who forgets even one thing from his learning transgresses a prohibition."

At first glance, this raises a question regarding the story in the Gemara about Rabbi Zeira. When he ascended to the Land of Israel, he fasted one hundred fasts to forget the Babylonian Talmud so that he would not be confused. Seemingly, how was he permitted to forget the Babylonian Talmud, given that "anyone who forgets even one thing from his learning transgresses a prohibition"? And how much more so with the entire "Babylonian Talmud"!

The Gemara explicitly states Rabbi Zeira's reasoning: "so that he would not be confused," meaning his entire intention was to properly learn the Jerusalem Talmud. However, it seems inappropriate to transgress an explicit prohibition (forgetting Torah) for the sake of subsequently learning Torah and possibly succeeding. This is reminiscent of the principle that a mitzvah should not come through a transgression, even if it is certain (and at the time of the act).

Even though the Mishnah there continues, "he is not liable for his life until he sits and removes it from his heart" — Rabbi Zeira prayed and fasted, etc., to remove them from his heart.

Furthermore, it seems that during all those hundred days he fasted to forget the Babylonian Talmud, he did not study "Babylonian Talmud," which is a contradiction — and thus he was "sitting and removing them from his heart."

In the words of the early authorities, we find several approaches regarding the parameters of this prohibition:

a) The Rambam (and other early authorities) did not include the prohibition of "do not forget, etc." in the count of the mitzvos.

b) The Ramban, who did include it in the count of the mitzvos, holds that this prohibition does not refer to forgetting words of Torah but rather to forgetting the event of Mount Sinai (as he also writes in his commentary on the Torah regarding this verse).

Seemingly, he holds that the derivation in the Mishnah and Gemara is merely an asmachta, and it is only a matter of piety.

c) According to several enumerators of the mitzvos and halachic authorities who included the prohibition of "lest you forget" in the count of the mitzvos and hold that it refers to forgetting words of Torah, the prohibition is when one "separates from the Torah", or "he is not liable until he sits and removes them from his heart, meaning he turns his heart to idleness".

According to this, it could be said (seemingly) that Rabbi Zeira did not transgress any prohibition, for it is obvious that even when he fasted one hundred fasts to forget the Babylonian Talmud, he did not, G‑d forbid, separate from words of Torah or turn his heart to idleness. Rather, he studied Written Torah, Mishnah, etc., and only ceased learning "Babylonian Talmud."

However, we find another approach regarding this prohibition, as brought in the laws of Torah study by the Alter Rebbe, that "anyone who forgets even one thing from his learning because he did not review his learning properly, the verse considers it as if he is liable for his life and also transgresses a Torah prohibition, as it says, 'only beware for yourself'" — meaning there is an explicit prohibition and Torah prohibition on forgetting words of Torah in and of themselves, not because of separating from words of Torah or idleness, and therefore one must review his learning properly so as not to forget.

It can be said that this is explicitly stated in the laws of Torah study by the Rambam, who writes, "Until when is one obligated to study Torah? Until the day of his death, as it says, 'lest they be removed from your heart all the days of your life,' and as long as he is not engaged in study, he forgets." "When he grows in wisdom and does not need to study Written Torah or engage constantly in Oral Torah, he should read at designated times Written Torah and words of tradition so that he does not forget any of the laws of Torah." [The reason the Rambam did not count it as a separate prohibition in the count of the mitzvos is because, in his view, it is part of the general positive commandment of "Torah study according to the law," as explained in the glosses of the Alter Rebbe.]

According to this — the question returns to its place.

It could be suggested that "to forget the Babylonian Talmud" does not refer to forgetting "a matter of the laws of Torah," but rather, as Rashi puts it, the "questions and answers" of the Babylonian Talmud. In this, there is no prohibition, similar to what is explained in the laws of Torah study by the Alter Rebbe regarding "pilpul" (analytical discussion) on the reasons for the laws, etc. — "they would not review it so much... and therefore all the pilpul of the early Tannaim and Amoraim was forgotten and only a small portion was brought into the Talmud... and the rest was forgotten because there is no obligation to review them since the pilpul was only given to Moshe."

Thus, there is no prohibition against forgetting the pilpul of the Torah (and it suffices to remember only "the laws with their reasons"). According to this, it is permissible from the outset to forget the pilpul and the questions and answers.

In other words, even though it is explicitly stated in the laws of Torah study there that the obligation to know and remember the entire Oral Torah includes also "the Talmud that explains the reasons for the laws in the Mishnah" (because "if one does not know the reasons for the laws, he does not understand the essence of the laws accurately and thoroughly") — it is explained in the laws of Torah study there, according to Rashi, that "the Talmud is divided into two parts": the reasons for the laws without pilpul (which were received person to person), and the pilpul of the Torah "to understand one thing from another," etc. According to this, it could be said that even in the Babylonian Talmud, these two parts exist: (a) the part of the reasons for the laws in brief, (b) the questions and answers which are considered "pilpul" — and R. Zeira wanted to forget only the pilpul part of the Babylonian Talmud (which is permissible to forget), and not the reasons.

However, it is questionable if this can be resolved, because in addition to the fact that in the laws of Torah study there it implies that the prohibition against forgetting a matter of Torah applies to the entire Babylonian Talmud [and the questions and answers in the Babylonian Talmud are not merely "pilpul" (which is permissible to forget), because they are necessary for knowing the reasons for the laws in brief] — furthermore, from the straightforward language of the Gemara "to forget the Babylonian Talmud from him," it implies that he forgot the entire "Babylonian Talmud" (of his time), not just the part of the questions and answers.

Additionally:

At first glance, this question on R. Zeira does not have a place according to the Rambam's view that there is no obligation to know the reasons for the laws (not even in brief) for the knowledge of the laws themselves, and according to his view, the obligation to know the entire Oral Torah (and the prohibition against forgetting "a matter of the laws of Torah") includes only "Mishnah," meaning decided laws, and not "Talmud".

And if so, R. Zeira did not transgress any prohibition by forgetting the entire "Babylonian Talmud."

However, according to all opinions, there is a clear obligation to "divide one's study time," and a third of the time must be spent studying "Gemara."

And even though the obligation to divide one's study time is only "at the beginning of a person's study" and not "when he grows in wisdom" — on the contrary: "when he grows in wisdom" (and does not need to study Written Torah or constantly engage in Oral Torah), he must devote "all his days to Gemara alone" (except for designated times when he must read Written Torah and words of tradition "so that he does not forget any of the laws of Torah");

And if so, it is difficult: during the days that R. Zeira fasted to forget the Babylonian Talmud, he certainly did not engage in the study of Babylonian Gemara — so how did he fulfill his obligation during those days in the study of "Gemara"?

This will be understood by first explaining that in the Gemara, there is a special teaching for this law that one who forgets words of Torah due to compulsion does not transgress a prohibition (as mentioned in the laws of Torah study "only to exclude due to compulsion"). It is not understood: it is a general rule in the entire Torah that compulsion exempts a person, so why is a special teaching needed to indicate that one who forgets his Torah due to compulsion does not transgress a prohibition?

It can be explained as follows:

The reason for the obligation to review one's studies properly so as not to forget words of Torah is explained by the Ra'avad (and similarly by Rabbeinu Yonah) as follows: "From his forgetfulness, he may come to permit what is forbidden, resulting in a mishap caused by him, and his inadvertent error becomes intentional." However, the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch does not cite this reason [even though the Alter Rebbe's ruling regarding the prohibition of forgetting Torah is based on the words of the Ra'avad and Rabbeinu Yonah].

This implies that, according to the Alter Rebbe, the prohibition against forgetting words of Torah is not (only) due to the potential mishap that could result from it, but rather the forgetfulness itself is the issue. This is further evidenced by the Alter Rebbe's statement that even "now that the Oral Torah is written and one can review in books what he has forgotten, it does not help at all because as soon as he forgets, he transgresses a prohibition before he reviews." Thus, the very act of forgetting Torah (immediately, and even when no mishap follows because "he can review in books") constitutes a prohibition.

The foundation of the Alter Rebbe's view can be said to stem from the Torah's warning "beware... lest you forget the things" — seemingly, forgetfulness is not an action but a state that occurs naturally and automatically, and a person can guard against forgetfulness by properly reviewing his studies. Therefore, if the Torah's intention in "lest you forget..." is the obligation for a person to know and remember the laws of the Torah so that no mishap occurs through him, the verse should have warned in the language of action, commanding the (human action of) reviewing words of Torah (so that a person always remembers all the laws of the Torah), and not (only) to warn against forgetfulness ("lest you forget...").

From this, we learn that the forgetfulness of Torah itself (even without the mishap that could result from it) is a matter that the Torah warned against.

This explains the need for a special teaching that one who forgets due to compulsion does not transgress a prohibition (and is not liable for his soul) — even though in the entire Torah, compulsion exempts a person:

There are two aspects (details) in the exemption of compulsion: a) Even though the act of transgression is considered the person's action, nevertheless, it is impossible to hold him accountable (punishment, etc.) for something done against his will. b) Since it was done against his will, it is not considered a transgression (whose essence is that the doer transgresses the will and command of G‑d).

Now, the fact that an act done under compulsion is not considered a transgression applies only when the transgression involves an action of prohibition done against one's will. However, the forgetfulness of Torah and its prohibition is not a prohibition regarding an action, but regarding a state of forgetfulness that occurs naturally and automatically (and the person's action is to negate this state through review). Therefore, one might think that even when forgetfulness is due to compulsion, although he is exempt (as in the first aspect mentioned above), it still falls under the category of "transgressing a prohibition"; there is no obligation and punishment, but there is a state of forgetfulness.

This is the novelty in the teaching and specific exclusion regarding compulsion in forgetfulness, that there is no forgetfulness of Torah here, meaning: the warning to a person about forgetting words of Torah does not apply initially unless it is done willingly, but when it is due to compulsion, there is no command or prohibition at all, not even the prohibition of forgetting words of Torah.

This is clarified by what is written (later in the laws of Torah study there, regarding one "who is well-versed in all his studies that lead to action" that "he can set aside a small time each day for another study... it is proper... to set his study...") to learn once in order the entire Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, etc. (and it continues) even though he will forget everything, in the future they will remind him of all his studies that he forgot due to compulsion, as it is impossible for him to review so much that he will not forget this study... and even now... there is no forgetfulness before Your Throne of Glory, which is above the throne, etc." — it is explicitly stated that one who forgets due to compulsion, not only is there no punishment, but furthermore, there is no prohibition of forgetting Torah, because it is like a change that will certainly revert to its original state, which is not acquired or acquired by a person, because the words of Torah that he learned and forgot, "in the future they will remind him" ("and even now" his Torah that he learned is remembered above "before Your Throne of Glory").

And the explanation of the matter can be said as follows:

Based on the above, where the prohibition is the very state of forgetting words of Torah, it can be said that according to the Alter Rebbe, the reason and nature of the prohibition of forgetting words of Torah is similar to what is written in the Sefer Mitzvos Gadol, that it is because one "separates from the Torah." However, it is not a separation from the Torah due to one's actions, but rather the very fact that one forgets words of Torah (even if he is engaged in other words of Torah) is a separation from the Torah, as these words of Torah become separated from him.

This is also the reason that when one forgets "due to compulsion," the words of Torah are not forgotten from him — because forgetting Torah due to compulsion is not his separation from the Torah, as he forgets due to compulsion; from the perspective of the person, there is no separation from words of Torah at all, therefore, from the perspective of the Torah as well, the words of Torah he learned do not undergo a change that is acquired or acquired, as mentioned above.

Based on all the above, we can explain the story of Rabbi Zeira mentioned earlier, who "sat for a hundred fasts to forget the Babylonian Talmud so that he would not be disturbed":

Since Rabbi Zeira's entire intention was only so that he could study the Jerusalem Talmud properly, it is clear that this is not considered "separating from the Torah" — on the contrary, this is a preparation and qualification for a higher manner of Torah study.

Moreover, the benefit of studying and comprehending the Jerusalem Talmud is not only in the manner of study in general, but it also pertains to the matter of remembering the words of Torah themselves.

For one of the differences between the manner of study in the Babylonian Talmud and the manner of study in the Jerusalem Talmud is: the Babylonian Talmud is called "He has placed me in dark places," which in comparison to the Jerusalem Talmud is "darkness," while the Jerusalem Talmud is "light," and "there is no Torah like the Torah of the Land of Israel." And like the simple difference between them, that in the Babylonian Talmud there is much debate until reaching a conclusion, whereas in the Jerusalem Talmud there is no debate or only a little debate, and it is like a person in a well-lit place where everything is revealed before him and he immediately finds what he seeks.

It is understood simply that the abundance of debate makes memory difficult, whereas when everything is revealed and clear, it is easier to remember all the details of the matter.

Thus, the very fact that Rabbi Zeira fasted a hundred fasts to forget the Babylonian Talmud so that he would not be disturbed caused the Torah to be preserved in his memory with greater strength and vigor.

[Similar to the saying of the Gemara (which is brought before the law that "anyone who forgets one thing from his study transgresses a prohibition") — "sometimes the nullification of Torah is its foundation," and as explained elsewhere that sometimes specifically "the nullification of Torah" is the way to reach its "foundation," that the Torah becomes established and rooted within the person.]

Therefore, it is clear that there is no prohibition of forgetting the Torah in this case.

And it can be explained in a deeper sense:

The reason that the very forgetting of words of Torah is a matter of prohibition (and immediately upon forgetting words of Torah one transgresses a prohibition) is because words of Torah are our life and the length of our days, and the very fact that one forgets and removes something from his study is removing "his life" from himself, and therefore he transgresses a prohibition.

This is also the explanation that one who forgets something from his study is considered by the scripture as if he is liable for his life — this is seemingly puzzling, is forgetting one thing from words of Torah so severe that he should be liable for his life?! Rather, it is not in the category of punishment but — a consequence of the forgetting. Because words of Torah are the life of his soul, and when something from the words of Torah is forgotten and removed from him, these life forces of his soul are removed from him, similar to the saying of our Sages, what difference does it make if he is killed entirely or partially — "liable for his life."

From this, it is also understood regarding Rabbi Zeira, that since his entire intention in these fasts was so that he could properly understand the Jerusalem Talmud, there is no separation, G‑d forbid, from (the ways of) the Torah, but on the contrary, this was the way he could learn and unite with the Torah in a more elevated manner, in a manner of "light."

"(From the talks of Parshas Terumah and Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei, 5740)"