FYI: it's a little confusing, because I thought it was a mitzvah to talk Torah during a meal.
"It is proper for one to learn some Torah during a meal. At a minimum, one should say at least one chapter of Psalms, preferably chapter 23 (and better yet, if he says this chapter after saying the Hamotzi blessing and eating some bread)."
This apparent contradiction, and all the oddities found in the dialogue in Taanit 5b, justify a "we're not worthy" sort of attitude toward the Chazal when we work out how they're working out some strange contradictions and oddities found in the scripture. For instance, the very dialogue currently being discussed in the crosshairs of Taanit 5b begins with just such an oddity, or problem in the text:
The Gemara asks: And is one man set aside before another man? In other words, is Samuel’s life set aside simply because the time for David’s reign has arrived? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Therefore I have hewn by the prophets, I have slain them by the words of My mouth” (
Hosea 6:5)? It is not stated: By their deeds, but rather: “By the words of My mouth,” i.e., God sometimes ends the life of an individual simply by virtue of His decree. Apparently, one man is indeed set aside before another man.
Taanit 5b:7.
The concept of a decree toward a man coming out of God's mouth before, or without, God digesting their deeds, is the background for all that follows in the dialogue. The sages are wondering out loud how a decree of death can come out of God's mouth that isn't the result of him digesting the deeds of the one for whom the decree is designed?
How can God speak a decree from his trachea that preseeds the digesting of something (i.e., the deeds of the target of the decree) previously swallowed (i.e., metabolized, considered, digested)? The very statement that the trachea mustn't precede the esophagus is a theologumenon of the Chazal simply meaning: Doesn't a statement of decree have to be based on a previously digested understanding?
The scriptures noted earlier in the thread ---that deal with this question ----point out that mere men must never make a decree that isn't preceded by observation, and consideration, of the facts, since, as stated in the scriptures noted, the heart of man is wicked, such that nothing good can come out of the heart of man that wasn't first received and digested apart from the nature, the natural processes, of his heart.
A man can learn, digest, practice, what he takes in as external decrees concerning the good, but only God, or one born of God, produces good by means of the very disposition and nature of their heart.
John
