July 10, 2026 Categories: Halacha & Hashkafa
Daf Yomi
A Discussion in the Privy
“Rav Quotes Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon”
(Zevachim 102b)
Raba on our daf cites a long halachic discussion that was said by Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon, regarding various laws pertaining to a Kohen that is tevul yom (has immersed in the mikvah but is awaiting sunset to regain his ritual purity). He states that this discussion occurred while he was in a beis hakisei (bathroom). The Gemara wonders how he was allowed to learn in such a place where one is forbidden to learn Torah, and answers that “unwillingly is different.” Rashi comments (s.v. le’onso): “His learning was constantly flowing on his lips and his thinking in these matters was beyond his control.”
Why Verbalize?
Assuming that Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon was so involved in matters of Torah that he thought of Torah unwillingly, why did he have to verbalize those thoughts? He should have limited himself to only thinking Torah. The Perishah (Orach Chayyim 85, cited by Pri Megadim, ibid.) proves from our Gemara that there is no difference in the severity of the prohibition against thinking words of Torah in unclean places and the severity of verbalizing them. Thus, as Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon was thinking words of Torah unwillingly, he was permitted to verbalize them.Compare Thought to Speech
This chiddush is strongly rejected by the Chida in his Birkei Yosef, and by other Acharonim, as it is a clear halacha that in the “middle room” (a room before a bathhouse), it is forbidden to speak words of Torah but permitted to think them. It is evident that the criteria of the two prohibitions are not identical. It is also evident from other halachos, such as for Birkas haTorah, that we cannot compare thought to speech. Therefore, the question remains: Why did Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon verbalize Torah in the bathroom if he could have limited himself to only thinking? The author of Tzon Kodoshim explains that Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon did not verbalize words of Torah in a place where it is forbidden, but merely thought there and later spoke them in the beis midrash (Mishnah Berurah, 85, s.k. 8, and see Sefas Emes on our sugya). We have thus descended from the severe level of verbalization to the more lenient level of thought. Still, this “unwillingly” explanation that the Gemara offers for Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon’s behavior demands understanding. How could he even think such thoughts? After all, it is also forbidden to think words of Torah in an unclean place.An Analysis
To understand this issue, HaGaon Rav Efrayim Burdianski, zt”l, examines the essential nature of thought. What is thought? In what language does a person think? It seems that a Russian person thinks in Russian and a Chinese person in Chinese. Certainly, one can make that assumption. However, when we think about our thoughts, we discover that many of them are like a dream in which we imagine an event without putting words to it. Thus, when a person thinks about a house or another object, he contemplates all sides of it but does not necessarily “talk to himself” about it.Two Types of Thought
We thus have two types of thought: thought in words and thought in images. It could be that the prohibition to think in an unclean place only applies to thought that resembles speech – i.e., thought in words – but there is no Torah prohibition to think matters of Torah without words, and Chazal instituted this prohibition because of the honor of the Torah. Therefore, it could well be that Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon did not think in words but in concepts, which is only rabbinically forbidden. This is what the Gemara means by “unwillingly is different”: Chazal did not prohibit a person so deeply involved that he cannot detach himself from Torah thoughts – their decree does not apply to such a holy person (Mishkenos Efrayim 18, and see Mishnah Berurah, ibid., and Chazon Ish, Orach Chayyim, s.k. 18; regarding if thought in unclean places is forbidden mi’d’Oraysa, see Nishmas Adam, kelal 3, os 2, that the Rishonim disagreed and see Pri Megadim in the general preface, end of cheilek 5).
