Let me try this Pshat and see how you like it. The Gemara is not saying that the same standard of self-sacrifice that Hillel made is expected from every Jew. Rather the Gemara is saying a general principle that poverty is not a blanket excuse for not learning Torah. I will try and illustrate this by mentioning a popular misconception which is widespread in certain circles. For instance, the question often comes up whether a Yeshiva boy will continue his studies in Kollel after he gets married. Unfortunately some people are wont to say something like: "Well, if he marries a girl from a wealthy family who will buy them a nice apartment and support them, then I can understand how he could learn after the wedding". In other words, this person believes that learning in Kollel is only something which is possible for rich people. However the reality is that many Kollel students are by no means wealthy, but still manmage to do this.

Let me stress that the above example is only an illustration. I am not trying to say that everyone has to learn full-time in Kollel. In fact we see in the Gemara that Hillel worked part-time [see also the Maharsha], although it will be noted that he only seemed to earn the minimum that was necessary day-by-day. However the Gemara is stressing that being poor is not a sufficient excuse. The poor person in the Gemara argues in the Din in Heaven that I was poor and busy making a living, but this seems to imply that he believes he is totally exempt from learning as a result. Note that they did not ask him in the Beis Din why he was not as wise as Hillel or did not learn as much as Hillel. Rather they asked "Why did you mot occupy yourself with Torah?". This means why did you not do the maximum that you were capable of in your particular circumstances to learn Torah? Not everyone is capable of climbing on the roof in the snowstorm to hear the Shiur so consequently this is not of expected of them. "Hakodosh Boruch Hu does not come with complaints against his creatures about things they are not capable of fulfilling" (see the Gemara Avoda Zara end 3a). Instead what the Gemara means is that every individual should make the maximum effort he can and not say that learning Torah is only for the wealthy.

Even if a person is only able to learn for a short time every day, if this really is the maximum he can do, he will receive the same reward in Heaven as someone who spent a lot more time learning, because he did his maximum to "occupy himself with Torah".

KOL TUV

D. Bloom

Let me try this Pshat and see how you like it. The Gemara is not saying that the same standard of self-sacrifice that Hillel made is expected from every Jew. Rather the Gemara is saying a general principle that poverty is not a blanket excuse for not learning Torah. I will try and illustrate this by mentioning a popular misconception which is widespread in certain circles. For instance, the question often comes up whether a Yeshiva boy will continue his studies in Kollel after he gets married. Unfortunately some people are wont to say something like: "Well, if he marries a girl from a wealthy family who will buy them a nice apartment and support them, then I can understand how he could learn after the wedding". In other words, this person believes that learning in Kollel is only something which is possible for rich people. However the reality is that many Kollel students are by no means wealthy, but still manmage to do this.

Let me stress that the above example is only an illustration. I am not trying to say that everyone has to learn full-time in Kollel. In fact we see in the Gemara that Hillel worked part-time [see also the Maharsha], although it will be noted that he only seemed to earn the minimum that was necessary day-by-day. However the Gemara is stressing that being poor is not a sufficient excuse. The poor person in the Gemara argues in the Din in Heaven that I was poor and busy making a living, but this seems to imply that he believes he is totally exempt from learning as a result. Note that they did not ask him in the Beis Din why he was not as wise as Hillel or did not learn as much as Hillel. Rather they asked "Why did you mot occupy yourself with Torah?". This means why did you not do the maximum that you were capable of in your particular circumstances to learn Torah? Not everyone is capable of climbing on the roof in the snowstorm to hear the Shiur so consequently this is not of expected of them. "Hakodosh Boruch Hu does not come with complaints against his creatures about things they are not capable of fulfilling" (see the Gemara Avoda Zara end 3a). Instead what the Gemara means is that every individual should make the maximum effort he can and not say that learning Torah is only for the wealthy.

Even if a person is only able to learn for a short time every day, if this really is the maximum he can do, he will receive the same reward in Heaven as someone who spent a lot more time learning, because he did his maximum to "occupy himself with Torah".

KOL TUV

D. Bloom

Follow-up reply:-

1. I have found that your question was asked by Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz, Zatsal, in his Mussar Conversations, Year 5732, speech 3. He points out that even though normally there is a principle that everyone is only expected to do what he is capable of according to his own spiritual level and according to what spiritual recognition he is able to reach, nevertheless one sees from our Gemara that the smallest and least person has the same demands made upon him as the world's greatest.

Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the reason for this is that learning Torah is totally essential for a person's everlasting life. He cites the Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 7:1) who writes that "the life of wise people and those who seek wisdom is like death without Torah". If learning Torah would be simply some kind of advantage in life or some additional benefit, then ordinary people would not be held to such an extreme standard, as you asked. However since life without Torah is really equivalent to not living at all, we can now understand what a person is being asked in Heaven: "Why did you lose your life and the entire world?"

Rav Shmuelevitz points out that the pauper's argument in the Supreme Beis Din that "I was a pauper and was busy earning my living" does certainly seem to be a valid argument. In addition he had to support his wife and family. However the answer to this contention can be understood better in the light of an observation that Rabbi Yisroel Salanter, zatsal, makes in his book, Kochvei Or, p.182. He points out how small a coin the "Trapik" that Hillel earned every day must have been, because everyone had to give a Trapik to the guard, and it is reasonable to assume that the guard did not become wealthy through this work, so one sees how poor Hillel and his family must have been to subsist on just one half of this sum. Even so Hillel learnt Torah with all his soul, so one learns from this that the argument of the pauper that he had to earn his living is actually refuted by Hillel's position which was much worse than anyone else's.

R. Salanter also cites the Rema in Shulchan Arukh YD 246:21 who writes "A person should work every day as much as is necessary for his livelihood, if he does not have what to eat, and the remainder of the day and night he should occupy himself with Torah". One sees from this that Hillel's way of life was not something special to him but is in fact something expected of every Jew, if necessary, since the Shulchan Arukh mentions obligatory Halachos, not things which are only applicable to people who want to do more than they are obliged

to.

2. It should be added though that there was one thing that Hillel did which was unnecessary, namely he put his life in danger in the snowstorm. He only did this because he was not aware of the danger he was going to get himself into. If he would known of the danger, he would not have done this, because the Gemara in Bava Kama 61a states that if someone puts his life in danger for the words of Torah, one does not report words of Halachah in his name.

3. I found that the Chofetz Chayim, in his commentary to Yoma - Likutei Halachos - also understood that Hillel's financial sacrifice for Torah was actually something obligatory for every Jew. The Chofetz Chayim writes as follows:-

"It is clear from this account that even someone who is extremely poor, is also obliged to fix times to study Torah. It is also clear from the Gemara that someone who is unable to learn on his own and is forced to hire a teacher, even though he is poor and has to earn his living by being employed by others, nevertheless is obliged to use his salary to pay for a tutor who will teach him Hash-m's Torah even though this means he will have to live in great hardship. This is not similar to what the Gemara Kesubos 50a says that one should not give away more than a fifth of one's property, because the Gemara there is discussing giving money to charity, but this does not apply to spending money on Torah studies, since a person is obliged to know the Torah and it is a person's eternal life. One certainly is not permitted to waste one's money on luxuries, when as a result of this one will be lacking the knowledge of the Torah. "

What the Chofetz Chayim writes is a source for R. Shmuelevitz' argument - that since Torah is eternal life, it is worth more than all the money in the world.

(See also Notes to Yoma by Rav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv, Shlita.)

I hope I have managed to explain a little, why everyone is expected to have the same self-sacrifice for Torah as Hillel possessed (with the exception of actually putting one's life in danger, which one should not do even for Torah)

KOL TUV

D. Bloom