'Tis better to have learned and lost...?

As Lord Tennyson wrote in In Memoriam A. H. H.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Is the same true for Torah study? People ask this question based on the sugya in yesterday’s daf, Zevachim 101a. But stay tuned, because I disagree with the premise of the question. After being challenged by Aharon about what the actual parameters (or perimeters) of the halacha leMoshe miSinai was, we hear (twice):

מִיָּד ״וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו״ – הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ מֹשֶׁה לוֹמַר ״לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי״, אֶלָּא אָמַר: ״שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי״.

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: “And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes” (Leviticus 10:20). And Moses was not embarrassed and did not attempt to justify himself by saying: I did not hear of this halakha until now. Rather, he said: I heard it, and I forgot it, as the verse indicates by stating: “Moses heard.”

The problem is: that according to this, it seems that it would have been better, more excusable, somehow, to plead forgetfulness instead of total original ignorance. Yet, elsewhere, there is severe condemnation of those who forget their Torah which they have learned. For instance, Mishnah Avot 3:10:

רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ דָּבָר אֶחָד מִמִּשְׁנָתוֹ, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד) רַק הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ מְאֹד פֶּן תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ. יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ תָקְפָה עָלָיו מִשְׁנָתוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם) וּפֶן יָסוּרוּ מִלְּבָבְךָ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ, הָא אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּשֵׁב וִיסִירֵם מִלִּבּוֹ:

Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: whoever forgets one word of his study, scripture accounts it to him as if he were mortally guilty, as it is said, “But take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes” (Deuteronomy 4:9). One could [have inferred that this is the case] even when his study proved [too] hard for him, therefore scripture says, “that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live” (ibid.). Thus, he is not mortally guilty unless he deliberately removes them from his heart.

And then, those who ask the question can give all sorts of answers.

But, unless I misunderstand them, I think they may have misunderstood our sugya. We have to realize that Moshe Rabbeinu was not making a bare statement with no context. Rather, he had claimed that he heard something from Hashem. To this, his brother Aharon had suggested, just above:

אָמַר לוֹ: ״וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי כָּאֵלֶּה וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה׳״ – שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי שָׁעָה?

Aaron said to him: “Behold, today have they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, and there have befallen me such things as these; and if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?” (Leviticus 10:19). Perhaps you heard the command to consume the offering only with regard to offerings of a particular time, i.e., the meal offering, which was unique to that day.

So Aharon, besides providing a limud and argument, had just proposed that when Moshe heard it, he had heard it with a particular distinction. Therefore, it is NOT the case that Moshe’s alternatives were:

1. Admit that he heard it but forgot

2. Admit that he had never learned it

Rather, Moshe’s options were:

1. Admit that he heard it but forgot

2. Declare that he had never heard this particular distinction from Hashem when Hashem taught it to him. And therefore, it was an invalid distinction.

The praise of Moshe is that, despite the temptation to avoid embarrassment, and despite the hit to his ego, he did not falsify the Torah and reject Aharon’s suggestion. There was no possibility of admission that he was neglectful and therefore ignorant of the law.

By the way, there is an interesting potentially unrecognized derasha in play. Though maybe it was obvious. Once again, the segment was:

מִיָּד ״וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו״ – הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ מֹשֶׁה לוֹמַר ״לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי״, אֶלָּא אָמַר: ״שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי״.

Moses immediately conceded to Aaron, as the verse states: “And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes” (Leviticus 10:20). And Moses was not embarrassed and did not attempt to justify himself by saying: I did not hear of this halakha until now. Rather, he said: I heard it, and I forgot it, as the verse indicates by stating: “Moses heard.”

The word shama appears in the pasuk text and in the derasha text. On a peshat level, it means that Moshe heard Aharon’s words, or accepted Aharon’s words, and they were good in his eyes. In the derasha, it is a pluperfect. And he affirmed that he had heard in the past.