The Gemara discusses the priority between studying Torah and getting married. The initial ruling states that one should first study Torah and then marry. However, if a person finds it impossible to concentrate on Torah study due to the inclination for evil, he should marry first and then continue his studies. The preferred path, nonetheless, is to learn Torah before marriage.
Rabbi Yehudah, in the name of Shmuel, presents a differing view: the halakha is that one should marry first. The Gemara questions this, asking how one can study Torah with the "yoke" of supporting a wife and children on his head, implying the financial responsibilities would hinder study. This suggests that Rabbi Yehudah and Shmuel's opinion might be that one should study Torah first and then marry.
The Gemara then resolves this apparent contradiction, stating that there is no real dispute between these opinions. One applies to the "Children of Babylon" (Bnei Babel) and the other to the "Children of Israel" (Bnei Eretz Yisrael). Rashi explains that the Bnei Babel would travel to Eretz Yisrael to study Mishnayot from the Tanaim. Since they were studying away from home, they were not obligated to support their wives. Therefore, for them, it was better to marry first to avoid the inclination for evil, as the financial burden of supporting a family was temporarily lifted while they were away studying. For the Bnei Eretz Yisrael, however, who studied locally, marrying first would immediately impose the responsibility of supporting a family, which would interfere with their Torah study. Thus, for them, it was better to study Torah first and then marry.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rashi's explanation: If the Bnei Babel married first and then left their wives to study out of town, how does that solve the issue of the inclination for evil? A man separated from his wife still faces this challenge. Furthermore, how could they leave their wives to starve? Rabbi Evyatar sent a message stating that rabbis who came from Babylon to Israel and left their families without support were not good, as their children would effectively become collateral for their sustenance. This implies that abandoning one's family is unacceptable.
Tosafot offers an alternative explanation: The Bnei Babel were poor and studied away from home. Because of their poverty, they could not afford to marry first. Therefore, for them, the directive was to study first. The Bnei Eretz Yisrael, on the other hand, were wealthy and studied locally. For them, it was preferable to marry first, support their wives, and then study Torah in purity, without the distraction of the inclination for evil or the burden of financial worry, as they had the means. This creates a clear distinction between Rashi and Tosafot's interpretations of this Gemara.
Rav Chisda explains a famous story about Yaakov Avinu based on Tosafot's approach. The verse states, "And Yaakov left Beersheba and went to Haran." Rashi comments that he intended to go to Haran. However, we know Yaakov made a stop for 14 years at Yeshivat Shem Ve'Ever. Rav Chisda suggests that when Yaakov left Yitzchak Avinu, he was a wealthy man. According to Tosafot, a wealthy man should marry first. Thus, Yaakov's initial intention was to go to Haran to marry. However, on his journey, Eliphaz took all his money, leaving him with only his staff. With his economic status changed and no means to support a wife, Yaakov's plan shifted. He then checked himself into Yeshivat Shem Ve'Ever for 14 years, fulfilling the Gemara's directive for one without money: learn first, then marry. This demonstrates how Yaakov's actions aligned with the halachic principle based on his financial situation.
The Gemara recounts that Rav Chisda praised Rave Menuna before Rav Huna, describing him as a great man. Rav Huna asked to see him. When Rave Menuna arrived, Rav Huna noticed he was not wearing a "sudra," a special head covering worn by great rabbis. When asked why, Rave Menuna replied that he was not married. Rav Huna turned his head away, refusing to look at him until he married. This indicates that in those days, scholars did not wear the sudra until they were married. This exchange highlights the importance of early marriage, as Rav Huna declared that a person who does not marry by age 20 lives in sin, implying that the inclination for evil becomes ingrained if not addressed early. The Gemara states that until age 20, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, anticipates a person's marriage, and if it doesn't happen, his "bones swell," which is a negative outcome.
Rav Chisda further stated that he was superior to his colleagues because he married at 16. He claimed that had he married at 14, he would have "knocked out the Satan," meaning he would have completely overcome the inclination for evil. This emphasizes the spiritual benefit of early marriage. The Gemara then cites a verse: "When your hand is on the neck of your son." This is interpreted as a directive to guide and marry off one's children while they are still young and receptive to parental guidance, typically between the ages of 16 and 22, or some say 18 and 24. Younger than 16 is considered too young, and older than 22 (or 24) is seen as too late, as children at that age may already be rebellious and less inclined to listen. Another interpretation of "when your hand is on the neck of your son" is to teach him moral instruction (Musar) when he is receptive, not too young to understand, and not too old to rebel.
The Gemara then addresses the extent of a father's obligation to teach his son Torah. Rabbi Yehudah, in the name of Shmuel, states it is "like Zevulun ben Dan." The story of Zevulun ben Dan is that his grandfather taught him Mikra, Mishnah, Talmud, Halachot, and Aggadot—everything. This implies a very extensive obligation. However, the Gemara clarifies that once a father has taught his son Mikra, he has fulfilled his obligation. This seems to contradict the example of Zevulun ben Dan. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that the reference to Zevulun ben Dan is not about the scope of knowledge but about the generational extent of the obligation. It suggests that a grandfather is also obligated to teach his grandchildren Torah. The verse "and you shall teach them to your sons" is then brought, which seems to limit the obligation to sons, not grandsons. However, another verse states, "and you have taught them to your children and to your children's children."
The Gemara reconciles these verses: One who teaches his son Torah is credited as if he taught all future generations. This interpretation views the verse "and to your children's children" not as an obligation to teach grandchildren, but as a promise of reward for teaching one's children. However, there is another opinion (a Tana) who derives from the verse "and you shall teach them to your sons" that "sons" excludes daughters (who are not obligated in Torah study) but does not exclude grandchildren. Therefore, according to this Tana, there is indeed an obligation to teach grandchildren.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that anyone who teaches his grandchild Torah is considered as if he received it from Mount Sinai. This is derived from the juxtaposition of the verse "and you have taught them to your children and to your children's children" with the verse "the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb (Sinai)." This proximity implies that learning from a grandfather is akin to receiving Torah directly from Sinai, highlighting the profound value of intergenerational Torah transmission. In every generation, Torah scholarship diminishes as we move further from Sinai. Therefore, a grandfather teaching his grandchild brings that generation closer to the original light of Sinai.
The Gemara then describes an incident involving Rabbi Yochanan. He was seen rushing with his son to the Yeshiva, wearing a "sadin" (a simple sheet) on his head instead of a formal head covering (sudra). When asked why, he explained that teaching his son Torah was so important and urgent that he did not even have time to don his proper attire. He compared it to receiving Torah from Sinai, emphasizing the immense value of educating children. Similarly, Rav Huna would not eat his "umsa" (a morning meal, typically raw meat) until he taught his child Torah, reviewed the previous day's lesson, and taught a new verse. Rabbah bar Rav Huna likewise would not eat his umsa until he walked his child three "parsaot" (a measure of distance) to his teacher. These anecdotes underscore the dedication of these Sages to their children's Torah education.
The Gemara states that one should "divide his years into thirds": one-third for Mikra (Bible), one-third for Mishnah, and one-third for Talmud. The Gemara questions how one can divide his life when he does not know its length. It clarifies that this refers to "his days," meaning the days of the week. Rashi explains this as two days for Mikra, two for Mishnah, two for Talmud, and Shabbat for review. Tosafot, however, finds this difficult, asking again how one knows the length of his week. Tosafot suggests that it means one should divide each day into thirds for these three areas of study. This is why a "tikkun" (arrangement) was made in the morning prayer (Shacharit), which includes sections from Pesukim, Mishnayot (like those in Zevachim), and the Braitah of Rabbi Yishmael, ensuring that one learns a little from each category daily. The Gemara also notes that studying Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) covers all three, as it is "balul" (mixed) with Mikra, Mishnah, and Gemara.
The Gemara then discusses why the early Sages were called "Sofrim" (counters). It is because they would literally count every letter of the Torah. For example, they knew that the letter "vav" in the word "gachon" (belly) in the verse "whatever goes on its belly" marks the halfway point of the Torah in terms of letters. Similarly, they identified the halfway points for words and verses. The Gemara asks if "halfway point" refers to the end of the first half or the beginning of the second. It suggests a simple solution: "Bring a Sefer Torah and we will count it." This indicates the Sages' dedication to precision, even if it meant counting every letter. However, the Gemara acknowledges that we today lack the same "beki'ut" (expertise) regarding "chaserot" (missing letters) and "yeterot" (extra letters), which could affect the count. This raises a significant halachic discussion about the validity of our current Sifrei Torah. Some, like the Shaagat Aryeh, argue that we cannot fulfill the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah today due to this lack of precision. Others, like the Minchat Chinuch, distinguish between missing/extra letters that change the meaning (which would invalidate a Sefer Torah) and those that do not. Our current Sifrei Torah rely on the majority tradition. The Einat Veladim and Meiri further discuss the transmission of these traditions.
The Gemara states that the word "vet galah" marks the halfway point of the Torah in terms of verses. The same question arises: is it the last verse of the first half or the first verse of the second? Even counting verses is complicated, as there are different traditions on how to divide verses. For instance, one verse might be counted as one in Babylon but three in Eretz Yisrael. A Braitah states that there are 5,888 verses in the Torah, 8 more in Tehillim, and 8 fewer in Divrei Hayamim. Tosafot questions these numbers, noting that they don't seem to align with the actual counts in our texts. Rav Hai Gaon's numbers for Tehillim and Divrei Hayamim are significantly different from the Gemara's figures, indicating a discrepancy likely due to different textual traditions or counting methods.
The Gemara then cites a Braitah: "Let your Torah be sharp." This means that if someone asks a question, one should not stutter or fumble but answer immediately with clarity and depth. Rashi explains this as reviewing and delving into Torah deeply, so one can answer without hesitation. Another verse states, "Let the wisdom of Torah be as explicit to you as your sister," meaning one should know Torah's prohibitions as clearly as the prohibition against marrying one's sister. The verse "Bind them on your fingers, write them on the tablet of your heart" means Torah should be remembered and etched in one's heart. The verse "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth" is interpreted to mean that a person's students are like his children. "Sharp arrows of a warrior" refers to sharp students. "Fortunate is the man who has filled his quiver with them" means fortunate is the rabbi with many sharp students. "They will not be ashamed when they speak with enemies in the gate" refers to scholars debating Torah. Even if they become "enemies" in their intense intellectual struggle, they reconcile afterwards, their love for each other prevailing once the "war of Torah" is over.
A Braitah states, "And you shall place them (Vesamtam)": The Torah is compared to a "sam tam" (a complete remedy or balm). Just as a person applies a bandage to a wound and can then eat and drink without worry, so too, if one engages in Torah study, one is protected from the inclination for evil. The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said, "I created the inclination for evil, and I created its remedy, the Torah." If you engage in Torah, you will not be subject to its power. But if you do not, "sin is lurking at the door," waiting to ensnare you. The Torah is a remedy against the inclination for evil.
Rav Pam explains why Torah is called a "spice" (tevalin). The Gemara states that the inclination for evil is "very good." This is because physical drives are necessary for life (eating, marrying, commerce). The purpose is not to destroy the inclination for evil but to harness and control it, directing it towards good. Just as a spice enhances the flavor of food rather than destroying it, Torah enhances the inclination for evil, bringing out its positive potential. For instance, envy (kin'ah) can be negative, but it can also inspire spiritual growth. Honor (kavod) can be negative, but dispensing honor is positive. The Mishnah states, "Who is mighty? He who conquers his inclination." A conqueror does not kill his captive but uses him as a servant. Similarly, Torah helps one conquer the inclination for evil and use it for sacred purposes. This explains why the Gemara says, "eat what you want, drink what you want" when one has Torah, because then even physical acts are channeled for the sake of Heaven.
The Gemara in Berachot compares the inclination for evil to "chita" (wheat), a necessary staple food, not a poison. This means we need the drives of the inclination for evil, but they must be controlled by the good inclination. The good inclination enters a person at age 13 (Bar Mitzvah), while the evil inclination is present from birth. The verse about Yaakov Avinu, where Yitzchak blessed him that "the older one shall serve the younger one," is interpreted to mean that the older inclination for evil should serve the younger good inclination, under its direction. This is the essence of "I created Torah as a spice," to enhance, not destroy, the inclination for evil. The verse "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart" is interpreted as serving God with both the good and evil inclinations. This means channeling the physical cravings of the evil inclination towards serving God.
The Gemara then states that the inclination for evil is "mithaddesh" (refreshed) every day, and "mitkabber" (grows stronger) every day, seeking to spiritually and physically kill a person. The difference between "mithaddesh" and "mitkabber" is explained: "Mithaddesh" means that even if one conquers the inclination for evil in one area (e.g., refraining from forbidden foods), it will "refresh" itself and attack in a different area or a more subtle aspect of the same area. "Mitkabber" refers to the inclination for evil growing stronger in a specific area when a person repeatedly commits the same sin, making it increasingly difficult to desist, turning it into an addiction. However, the Gemara reassures us that one is not left helpless; the Holy One, Blessed Be He, will not abandon a person to the inclination for evil, providing divine assistance to overcome it. One must make an effort, and God will help.
A Braitah in the name of Rabbi Yishmael gives advice: "My son, if this despicable one (the inclination for evil) attacks you, bring him to the Beit HaMidrash (study hall)." If it is stone, it will melt; if it is metal, it will explode. This is derived from the verse "Water wears away stones," with water representing Torah. The explanation is that if one feels the pull of the inclination for evil, one should not confront it directly but rather delay it by saying, "First, I'll go to the Yeshiva." By bringing the inclination for evil into the Beit HaMidrash, the Torah study will destroy its power.
The Gemara returns to the obligations of a father to his son, including marrying him off. This is derived from the verse "Take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to men." The Gemara questions how a father can "give his daughters to men," as a daughter must agree to marry. It answers that a father can make his daughter appealing by dressing her nicely and providing a good dowry. Another obligation is to teach his son a trade. This is derived from the verse "See life with the wife you love." "Life" (Chaim) is connected to sustenance, meaning one must teach a son a means of livelihood. Alternatively, "wife" (isha) can refer to Torah, one's spiritual wife, and just as one is obligated to teach Torah, one is obligated to teach a trade. Some also say a father must teach his son how to swim, as it is a matter of life preservation.
Rabbi Yehudah states that whoever does not teach his son a trade is teaching him thievery. The Gemara asks what this adds, as it is already established that one must teach a trade. It clarifies that Rabbi Yehudah is distinguishing between teaching a trade and teaching business (buying and selling). While business provides sustenance, it relies on merchandise, which may not always be available. A trade, however, is a skill inherent to the person, like a doctor or builder, whose hands and knowledge are always his "merchandise." Therefore, a trade provides a more stable and reliable means of livelihood, ensuring the child is not dependent on external factors and less likely to resort to illicit means for sustenance.