Ygthkb

Is it considered Talmud Torah if one just reads mishnayos without understanding what he's saying?

Even Shleima 8:1 from Aggadic commentary by Vilna Gaon

One must first learn of the tanach. And all of Mishnah, even if he doesn’t understand the Mishnah.

In the commentary, the Mishnah is likened to chopping down trees and Talmud to chopping the trees into wood pieces. Also, that one cannot really understand the Mishna, for that is why we have the Talmud, to explain the Mishnah. Nonetheless, the Mishnah is an integral spiritual endeavor and must be studied entirely from the onset regardless of comprehension ability.

He seems to relate this verse in Ecclesiastes 6, with but God does not permit him to enjoy it referring to study of Mishnah, while the latter section of the verse referring to Talmud study.

אִ֣ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִתֶּן־ל֣וֹ הָאֱלֹהִ֡ים עֹשֶׁר֩ וּנְכָסִ֨ים וְכָב֜וֹד וְֽאֵינֶ֨נּוּ חָסֵ֥ר לְנַפְשׁ֣וֹ ׀ מִכֹּ֣ל אֲשֶׁר־יִתְאַוֶּ֗ה וְלֹֽא־יַשְׁלִיטֶ֤נּוּ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לֶאֱכֹ֣ל מִמֶּ֔נּוּ כִּ֛י אִ֥ישׁ נָכְרִ֖י יֹֽאכֲלֶ֑נּוּ זֶ֥ה הֶ֛בֶל וָחֳלִ֥י רָ֖ע הֽוּא׃

That God sometimes grants a man riches, property, and wealth, so that he does not want for anything his appetite may crave, but God does not permit him to enjoy it; instead, a stranger will enjoy it. That is futility and a grievous ill.

It appears from the words of the Shulkhan Aruch HaRav that one does not although the Chida suggests one does fulfill the mitzva if one exerted himself to comprehend the words even if he did not succeed in understand the meaning.

R Tzvi Sinensky writes

Earlier in his Laws of Torah Study, R. Shneur Zalman rules (2:12-13)
that whereas one who studies the Oral Torah without understanding the
words has fulfilled no mitzva, one who studies the Written Torah
without understanding still fulfills the obligation of talmud Torah.
We might explain the logic for this view as follows: the primary value
of the Oral Torah is to understand the halakhot [...] Thus, one who does not understand the words
fails to fulfill one’s obligation. However, study of the written Torah
is qualitatively different; the very encounter is significant [...]

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchek builds on this (see here) and

for that reason, the Brisker Rav suggested there is no concept of
Oisiyos Machkimos (reading the text makes one wiser) regarding Torah
SheBaal Peh.

However the Chida (Maris HaAyin, Avodah Zara 19) qualifies this ruling.

This [...] only applies if one did not make a sincere effort to
understand what he is saying. However, if one exerted himself to
comprehend the words, he fulfills his mitzvah of learning Torah, even
if he did not succeed in understand the meaning.

In his introduction to his commentary to the Torah, R. Yaakov Kamenetzky explains that only the Torah consists of God's direct words. Even Nevi'im and Ketuvim are only the prophet's own expression of God's words. Therefore the only subject that is a fulfillment of Talmud Torah without understanding is the Torah itself, since even when reading without understanding it is God's words that are being read. Anything else only qualifies as Talmud Torah when the person understands what he is reading, since the words themselves are not directly God's:

ויוצא לנו נפקותא גדולה בין תורה לנביאים וכתובים דבתורה התיבות כמות שהן תורה הן שהרי אומר ממש דברי ד' ושפיר מקיים המצוה על ידי המקרא בלבד אפילו אם אינו יודע מאי קאמר משא"כ בנביאים שהלשון הוא הבעת מחשבת הנביא א"כ ע"כ כשהלה מבין מה שהוא אומר אזי הוא מקיים מצות תלמוד תורה ודו"ק והיינו ביאור דברי רש"י הנ"ל דלפיכך קרי ליה לחומש מקרא משום דבקריאתה בלבד הוא מקיים מצות ת"ת משא"כ בנו"כ דבהו רק על ידי הלמוד הוא מקיים מצות תלמוד תורה לבאר