Between the margins - 6-The Student who knows Coffee
BS’D
Shalom!
In something new and old, I’ll share the different meanderings my mind goes through while learning and meeting the Daf.
Torah Tavlin and I am one of those that find themselves sick sometimes.
Starting Point
So there I was, starting something new that I had learned before, smiling to myself as I wondered what am I going to vaguely remember as I return again. (Quite appropriate for this time of year no?)
That’s something interesting about Torah: there is always a meeting point — between my mind and the text, and also between my self and the self who learns the text. Chazal teach that we learned the entire Torah before birth.
Every time I go deeper, it feels like reclaiming some part of myself I once knew, even if I don’t remember.
The Mishnah
The opening Mishnah in Horayot says:
הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, אוֹ תַּלְמִיד וְהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן… הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּלָה בְּבֵית דִּין. זֶה הַכְּלָל: הַתּוֹלֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ חַיָּיב, וְהַתּוֹלֶה בְּבֵית דִּין – פָּטוּר.
If a judge knew they had erred, or a student who was ra’ui lehorah (fit to rule), and he went and acted on their ruling — he is liable, because he relied on himself and not the beit din.
The Gemara’s Question
The Gemara (Horayot 2b) asks:
וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ אוֹ תַּלְמִיד וְרָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה. תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?
Why does the Mishnah need to mention both “a judge who knew” and “a student who is ra’ui lehorah”? Isn’t one enough?
Rava answers:
אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי גְּמִיר וּסְבִיר, אֲבָל גְּמִיר וְלָא סְבִיר – לָא.
It was necessary. Because you might think liability only applies to someone who is both גמיר (learned) and סביר (analytical, able to apply). But someone who is only gmir without savir — maybe not. Therefore the Mishnah adds “talmid ra’ui lehorah” to teach: even one who is partial in this way is still responsible.
Abaye pushes back:
וְהָא לְהוֹרָאָה גְּמִיר וּסְבִיר מַשְׁמַע!
But doesn’t “ra’ui lehorah” itself imply someone who is both gmir and savir? Why then the double language?
Rava refines: the very redundancy teaches that even someone who is learned but not analytical, or analytical but not fully learned, is still held liable. The Mishnah teaches [in an additional statement] about a student fit to issue rulings, from which we understand that even if he is learned but not discerning, or discerning but not learned, nevertheless, since he relies on his own judgment, he is liable.
Drawing It Out
This is radical.
Rava says: the repetition is intentional. It tells us that responsibility (at least being chayav a korban chatat) doesn’t wait for wholeness. Even if you only know the text but not its application, or only know how to reason but not the full text — if you relied on yourself, you’re still held accountable.
That’s huge. Because it means I can know that something is wrong without knowing why. Or I can know how to reason through something without fully knowing the text. But either way, if I act as if I don’t know, the Mishnah says: you can’t hide. (or hide behind a system that admits that it was wrong)
And it’s specifically the talmid — the student — who forces this point. Because a student lives in between: not fully judge, not fully ignorant. Always half in learning, half in applying. That’s the space where it’s tempting to feign innocence: “I didn’t know enough to be responsible.” But Torah says no. If you knew better in any way — you carry it.
You can know there is a mistake without knowing how.
Or you can know how to reason without knowing why.
Torah says: even if you have only half of the picture, if you are ra’ui lehorah — if you are in the position to know better — you cannot pretend ignorance.
And it’s specifically the talmid who teaches this. Because a student embodies both sides of knowledge-in-progress: the fragments of gmir (I learned it) and the flashes of savir (I see how it applies).
But the Mishnah won’t let a talmid feign innocence. If you knew better — whether by text or by reason — you are not covered by the beit din.
Personal Angle
That cuts deep for me. Because how often do I lean into one side? Sometimes I’m gmir, quoting what I’ve learned; other times I’m savir, spinning insights from a single idea.But do I bring them together? Or do I pretend that half is enough?
Even my morning coffee reminded me today, I asked myself: is this coffee megale (revealing) or mosif (adding)? And then I smiled — kaveh, coffee, is also hope. A little sevara born from a cup. Gmir without savir? Savir without gmir? Or maybe the two meeting? Can I know hope without understanding it, understand it without knowing it and hopefully bring it together to add or reveal ;)
Smarter minds have wrestled with this: does Torah add something new? Or does it reveal what we’ve always known?
Some flavor would be that this Turkish coffee-thought came to me in the middle of slichot. And that made the question sharper: is this apology, this plea, something that adds or something that reveals? Or is it both?
So the questions turn back on me:
Do I know?
Do I understand?
And maybe most of all — am I courageous enough to stay a talmid, a student, even when I think I know?
Have a beautiful day!
Best,
Moshe Haim
P.S. Trust is a journey, not a destination. Be patient, dear ones.
P.P.S. Healing and self-discovery continues. If you feel the call to deepen this work, to truly step into the light of your own being, I invite you to join us at the next Hineini Retreat. It’s a sacred space where these shadows can be fully explored, embraced, and transformed. Come, be a part of a community that supports you in this dance of reclamation and renewal. You deserve it.
