Sunday, March 9, 2014

Gratitude for being a talmid chachom and not yoshvei karnos

The recent video from the Atzeres which used the song of the text from Berachos (28b) to contrast the Torah scholar and the yoshvei karnos (as protrayed by the secular politicians and soldiers) has raised a great deal of protest. The real issue is whether it accurately portrayed the meaning of the gemora. I have gathered together a number of sources that clairfy the meaning of the yoshvei karnos that are being denigrated and described as going to Hell.

אנו משכימים הקליפ הרשמי של עצרת המיליון by Daas-Torah

A review of the material seems to indicate that there are two meanings of the word yoshvei karnos (literally those who sit in the corners). 1) They are pleasure seeking idlers who focus on having a good time and speaking lashon harah. Thus they are not only not productively involved but are constantly involved in sin. 2) They are all those people who are not full time Torah scholars sitting in the beis medrash. 

Thus Berachos (28b) can be understood either to contrast the extremes of Torah scholars versus idlers or to contrast Torah Scholars and all others including those who are constructively involved in the well-being of society. I don't think there is any objection to the former understanding but there clearly is to the latter. [In fact Rav Kook said that the text was mistaken and said it originally said those who go to theaters and circuses. Rav Ephraim Blitzer convincingly refuted Rav Kook's arguments.] 

The problem then is how to meaningfully explain it as a contrast between Talmidei Chachom and all others. My understanding is that this is a prayer of thanks for the opportunity to be a Talmid Chachom. Thus the focus is on the uniqueness of the talmid chachom and that relatively speaking any other option is a waste. The Rambam has a similar comment in his Commentary to the Mishna where he says that purpose for the creation of the world is the Talmid Chachom and anyone else has no significance except to the degree that he supports the Talmid Chachom. Thus relatively speaking the gap between a talmid chachom and everyone else is so great that they are worthless and wasted relative to him. Such a view is difficult for a secular person to accept. 

Rav Moshe Feinstein notes in the Igros Moshe [Y.D. III #82; Y.D. IV 36.15;E.H. IV 116] that a doctor is not a ben Torah. Someone objected to this comment which denigrates a doctor whose every spare moment is spent studying Torah. Rav Moshe replied that a ben Torah is someone whose entire focus is on Torah. Someone who is working at a job which requires complete devotion to something other than Torah – cannot be a ben Torah.
========================================
Berachos (28b): Our Rabbis taught: On entering what does a man say? May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that no offence may occur through me, and that I may not err in a matter of halachah and that my colleagues may rejoice in me and that I may not call unclean clean or clean unclean, and that my colleagues may not err in a matter of halachah and that I may rejoice in them. On his leaving what does he say? I give thanks to Thee, O Lord my God, that Thou hast set my portion with those who sit in the Beth ha-Midrash and Thou hast not set my portion with those who sit in [street] corners, for I rise early and they rise early, but I rise early for words of Torah and they rise early for frivolous talk; I labour and they labour, but I labour and receive a reward and they labour and do not receive a reward; I run and they run, but I run to the life of the future world and they run to the pit of destruction 
Rashi (Berachos 28b): those who sit in street corners (yoshvei karnos): - shopkeepers or ignorant people
Rambam(Hilchos Berachos 10:24):וביציאתו מבית המדרש אומר מודה אני לפניך יי' אלהי ששמת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ולא שמת חלקי מיושבי קרנות שאני משכים והם משכימים אני משכים לדברי תורה והם משכימים לדברים בטלים אני עמל והם עמלין אני עמל לדברי תורה ומקבל שכר והם עמלין ואין מקבלין שכר אני רץ והם רצים אני רץ לחיי העולם הבא והם רצים לבאר שחת.
Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 100:8): One who enters into a beis medrash should pray, "May it be Thy will O L-rd and the G-d of our fathers that I should not error in matters of halacha..." And when he leaves he should say, "I give thanks before you O L-rd my G-d, that You have place my portion with those who sit in the Beis Medrash.."
בבא קמא (פב. ): שיהו קוראין במנחה בשבת - משום יושבי קרנות
רש"י (בבא קמא פב.): משום יושבי קרנות - יושבי חניות כל ימות החול עוסקין בסחורה ואין קורין בשני ובחמישי תקון בגינייהו קריאה יתירה.
סנהדרין )ג.): רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר: מדאורייתא חד נמי כשר, שנאמר בצדק תשפט עמיתך, אלא משום יושבי קרנות. אטו בתלתא מי לא הוו יושבי קרנות? - אי אפשר דלית בהו חד דגמיר. - אלא מעתה טעו לא ישלמו! - כל שכן דנפישי יושבי קרנות.
רש"י (סנהדרין ג.): גזירה משום יושבי קרנות - תגרין, שאין בקיאין בטיב דינין, ויזכה את החייב ויחייב את הזכאי.
מלבי"ם )תהלים א:א): ומוסיף ובמושב לצים לא ישב, הלצים הם יושבי קרנות אינם פועלים רע אבל גם לא יעשו טוב רק רודפים רוח והבל ולצנות ואינם עוסקים בתורה
יד רמ"ה (סנהדרין ג.): יושבי קרנות לשון קרן זוית והן בטלנין שאין עוסקין במלאכה אלא יושבין בקרנות העיר ופעמים שבני אדם באין מאיליהן ונידונין בפניהם בזמן שבתי דינין טרודין בדין אחר ובאין לפני אלו שהן יושבין בטלין אחמירו רבנן לאצרוכי שלשה
מאירי (נדרים כ.): וכן יזהר אדם שלא להתחבר עם הנבלים והטפשים ויושבי קרנות שלא ימשכוהו בחבלי שוא ובעבותות של פריצות וכן בכל חברה מקולקלת כל אחד לפי ענינו
מאירי (בבא קמא פב.): עשר תקנות תקן עזרא לישראל הראשונה שיהו קורין בשבת במנחה בספר תורה מפני יושבי קרנות שהשבת אחר אכילה ושינה זמן ישיבת קרנות הוא לפחותים ולהמון מצד שאין מלאכה בשבת ותקן שבאותה שעה יתקבצו כלם וישמעו דבר תורה:
הערוך (בערך קרן ג':) יושבי קרנות פירוש אנשי דלא מעלי לבי מדרשא אלא רגילין שיושבין בקרנות העיר ועוסקין בדברי שיחה,
מנורת המאור (פרק טז - החנופה והליצנות עמוד 290 ): החלק הד'. הקובע עצמו תמיד לשיחה בטלה כדרך יושבי קרנות. ושתי רעות יש בדבר הרע הזה. האחד, שכל המרבה דברים מביא חטא, ר"ל דברים בטלים, כ"ש מי שהוא קובע את עצמו תמיד לדברים בטלים. והשני, שהוא בטל מדברי תורה. ויש בדבר הזה דרכי מות, הואיל והוא בטל מדברי תורה, שהיא עץ חיים. ודרשו רז"ל מי שאפשר לו לעסוק בתורה ועוסק, עליו הכתוב אומר ובמושב לצים לא ישב, וכתי' בתריה כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו. הא למדת, שמושב לצים מביא לידי ביטול תורה.
אורחות צדיקים (שער הגאוה): הגאוה במעלת החכמה היא משובחת, שנאמר (ירמיה ט כג): "כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל השכל וידוע אותי", ויוסיף הודאה לבורא, ברוך הוא, וגם דעה והשכל ומידות טובות בתפילת החכמה: "מודה אני לפניך שנתת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ולא מיושבי קרנות", וכמו: "אשרנו מה טוב חלקנו ומה נעים גורלנו". ועל זה נאמר (דברי הימים ב יז ו): "ויגבה לבו בדרכי ה'", כי יהיה אדם יקר רוח וגבה לב בעניני העולם הבא, שלא יספיק לו במה שיזדמן לו, ולא יאמר די במה שתמצא ידו מהם, אלא ימעט בעיניו כל מעשהו, ותגבה נפשו למעלה תמיד, ויתרעם בנפשו כמו שמקצר מעבודת הבורא, ברוך הוא. וזאת הגאוה אינה מזקת לענוה, אך מסייעתו וגורמת לו לשמוח במעלות הטובות, ולשמוח בכבוד חביריו, ולחוס על כבודם. 

54 comments :

  1. Someone who is working at a job which requires complete devotion to something other than Torah – cannot be a ben Torah.
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    like communal leadership for example, or fund raising? is it being mesayeah not to tell supporters that they should be learning instead if they are capable?
    KT
    Joel Rich

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben Torah is not identical with being frum. However if the communal leader is focusing on how to get people to live Torah lives or is raising money for the purposes of a Torah institution and his concern is always on what can he do to support and advance Torah - I assume that he would still be called a ben Torah.

      Delete
    2. And if doctor is focusing on how to make people be healthy so they can live Torah lives and his concern is always on what can he do to help these people learn Torah and be Mekayem Mitzvos mi'toch Briyus HaSleymus, would you also assume that he would still be called a ben Torah?

      In other words, aren't you just saying a version of "Echad HaMarbeh V'Echad HaMa'amit . . ."?

      After all, I assume you agree that one who learns Torah is only called a Ben Torah if he means it LiShmah (or at least Chazal's lesser "Mitoch Lo Lishma"), but if he is a Mechallel Shabbos who just gets a "geshmak" out of learning a Rashba while he smokes on Shabbos, he couldn't be called a "Ben Torah"!

      So it seems to boil down to:
      One who is osek in . . .
      Torah for Torah's sake = Ben Torah
      Torah for the wrong reasons = not a Ben Torah
      Medicine for Torah's sake = Ben Torah
      Medicine for the wrong reasons = not a Ben Torah

      This is indeed the view of Chasidus. (Malah HaAretz Kinyanecha - Anything in the word can be used to reach Madreigos - Avraham Avinu accomplished the with shoelace tying what we accomplich with Tefillin. It all depends on Bilvad Sheyichaven Libo). But it is NOT what R' Moshe is saying. R' Moshe, in the proud Misnagdic tradition, holds that someone who spends years going to fundraising school, takes out student loans to study the craft, and then has to spend all day meeting donors, and is left with only a couple of hours for Shnayim Mikrah and Daf Yomi, even though he means it all for the sake of Torah, is NOT a Ben Torah. If you are uncomfortable with this, feel free to disagree, but don't whitewash his position.

      Despite current trends ("Can't we all just get along") to cover up, there WERE differences between Chasidim and Misnagdim. According to Chasidim, The Besh't was sent down to this world to counteract the damage of attitudes such as R' Moshe's in this T'shuva. Hence the popular stories about Tekiyos of Tzadikim being held up by a shepard's whistle blowing L'shem Shamayim, or the recitation of Alef Bais by an AmHaretz succesfully being Mevatel a Gezeirah where Tefilas Talmidei Chachamim had failed, etc.

      I will respectfully stay on the side of our Rebbes, the great Torah sages the Rebbe R' Ber of Mezritch, the Yismach Moshe, The Divrei Chaim of Sanz, the Chidushe HaRim, R' Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin, etc, etc. all of whom abandoned the world that called Balei Melacha second class citizens, and instead joined the world that taught that the shepard (not always - but sometimes) can be more connected to Torah than someone who is sitting in front of a Gemara all day; that the Am HaAretz can sometimes be called a "Ben Torah" and the full time learner can sometimes have it said about him "Ulerasha Omar . . . Mah Lecha Lesaper Chuki".

      But I respect your right to stay on R' Moshe's side . . . (You can never go too wrong when you stick with the Raban Shel Kol B'nei HaGolah - the embodiment of Torah in our generation...)

      Delete
    3. מהרש"א חידושי אגדות מסכת ברכות דף יז עמוד א

      ושמא תאמר אני מרבה כו'. פירש"י ושמא כו' מפירושו נראה דאיירי דאפילו ממעיט אינו בתורה וכמ"ש דאיירי בעם הארץ אבל קשה למה קרא ליה חברי ועו"ק מאי רבותייהו דהני רבנן דיבנה דמרגלא הכי בפומייהו דין הוא נוסח ההודאה כל ת"ח בבית המדרש כדאמרי' בפ' ת"ה (כח:) לגבי יושבי קרנות שאני משכים והם משכימים כו' ונראה לפרש דהכא לא איירי בע"ה אלא בעוסק מעט בתורה כפי פתוח לבו שאינו יכול להרבות וז"ש אני בריה והוא בריה שדבר זה מי שראוי להיות חכם או לא הוא נגזר מצד הבריאה כדאמרי' פ' כל היד (טז:) דמלאך המעמיד הטפה אומר חכם או טפש ולזה לא קאמר הכא הוא משכים לדברים בטלים כדאמרינן פ' תפלת השחר גבי יושבי קרנות דהכא איירי בלומד בכל יום מעט כפי יכלתו ואח"כ הולך למלאכתו בשדה ולזה אמר שמא תאמר אני מרבה והוא ממעיט ולא יהיה לו שכר כמותי הא שנינו אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיתכוין כו' וזה נמי היה מתכוין באותו מועט וק"ל:

      Delete
    4. This may be slightly off-topic, but Zechariah haNavi was not Hareidi. He was perhaps Modern Orthodox (eg Sridei haEish) or more left:

      Zech 8;
      ה וּרְחֹבוֹת הָעִיר יִמָּלְאוּ, יְלָדִים וִילָדוֹת, מְשַׂחֲקִים, בִּרְחֹבֹתֶיהָ. {ס} 5 And the broad places of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the broad places thereof.

      Delete
    5. @Eddie I agree with you this is off-topic. Sridei Eish was not Modern Orthodox nor was Zechariah. He is not referring to them playing together

      Delete
    6. I am talking about R YY Weinberg ztl, who poskened many things that hareidim do not accept, amongst them mixed youth groups, and mixed singing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yechiel_Yaakov_Weinberg

      Hew as head of Hildsheimer academy - not Modern Orthodox? Perhaps you mean not Modern for 2014, but he was modern for 1913.

      regarding Zechariah he is not referring to mechitza. Mechitza and separation of the genders was a takanah of the Sages, about 500 years after Zechariah. So in hsi time, there was no issur for children to play together. presumably you are seeing the Neviim through the rose tinted lens of Artscroll type books, where they wear east European shtreimels. Some neviim did not even wear head covering, eg Elisha - unless he wore a small kipa sruga,which allowed the kids to see his bald spot.

      BTW - this is by R' Weinberg, the last paragraph is most enlightening

      http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/deot/vaynberg.htm

      Delete
    7. I would suggest you read his writings. He is clearly not Modern Orthodox. You might want to compare Rav Moshe's teshuva on co-ed education with what he wrote - you will find it is very similar. Of course it is possible you considere Rav Moshe Modern Orthodox too?!

      Eddie your agenda is showing. Everything is bent and moulded to arrive at a particular point.

      Delete
    8. Well, are you claiming Hirsch was also not Modern orthodox? Perhaps R Soloveichik and R Berkovits were also not MO.

      It is true that R' Weinberg was raised in the Litvish world, but he became head of the MO Hilsdheimer yeshiva. he also gained a secular education.

      The argument by RMF is not really a useful argument - did RMF preside in an MO yeshiva, where Torah Umadda were taught? Did RMF go to university to get a PhD?

      http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/rabbi-weinbergs-agony

      I know you often cite marc shapiro, but perhaps on this occasion you will deny his opinion, as it does not suit your agenda?


      Delete
    9. Rav Hirsch a modern orthodox? HAHAHAHA that reminds me of the shvartzas who say that yoshke was black

      Delete
    10. Shalom Nat, how are you?

      I recall that Rav Hirsch and his followers all studied in German Universities, and got PhDs in philosophy etc. R' Hirsch ztl - if he were alive 30 years ago, would be called an apikores by rav Shach, for studying Hegel, the secular goyish philosopher. You might claim the yekkes are not the same as MO today, but they are also not the same as Torah im Derech Eretz of Hirsch, Hildsheimer and R Hoffman.
      The joke is that Hareidim call to ostracise those those who learn secular subjects for their careers. This is precisely what r Hirsch was doing. So perhaps you can follow the Ponovetzh people and ostracise r Hirsch.

      BTW, hassidim say that yashke was a Talmid hacham, and it is assur to learn Torah on nittel. What a joke.

      Delete
    11. Eddie please get off your hobby horse. Rav Hirsch did not have a college degree. He would not be called an apikorus by Rav Schach. The Yekkes in Washington Heights do not get along with YU in Washington Heights.

      Rav Hirsch was and is widely respected in Chareidi circles - though he was definitely not chareidi.

      Your blanket statements simply are not true. Please stick to the facts

      Delete
    12. Hi Eddie. Nice to speak with you again.
      While I do understand that mainstream "Hareidism" has crystallized almost to the point of ostracizing secular studies, that is not really how I define the differences between MO and non-MO. That difference is basically hashkafa based, and I obviously do not want to get into another discussion regarding these hashkafas. Most thinking people would not discount someone just on the basis of having gained secular knowledge, even if it was gained in a university, as long as their hashkafas are correct. My point was that Rav Hirsch, Zt"l would not be considered MO by any stretch of the imagination, and I am close with a number of his descendants, who would definitely concur with this. So I would definitely not ostracize Rav Hirsch. For that matter, I also have a secular education and I am sure that you would consider me to be the farthest thing from MO.
      Regarding the Chasidim, in continuation of my earlier mashal--lehavdil--I have met Chasidim who believe that the Hafla'ah and the Shelah and the Chasam Sofer were Chassidish.

      Delete
    13. Reb Daniel, I must protest on this one , as you are obviously unaware of the facts.
      You claim, mistakenly, that Rav Hirsch did not have a college degree. However, it says "He then entered the University of Bonn, where he studied at the same time as his future antagonist, Abraham Geiger" on wikipedia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Raphael_Hirsch
      You might claim he never completed his studies but that is besides the point. he did go to University, and he did study Philosophy.
      It further states "During this five-year post, he was taken up almost completely by communal work, and had little time for writing. He did, however, found a secondary school with a curriculum featuring both Jewish studies and a secular programme, for the first time employing his motto Torah im Derech Eretz ("The Torah is maximalised in partnership with worldly involvement")."

      These are not hidden mysteries that have only been revealed by wikileaks, they are well known. Rav shach called Soloveitchik an apikores, for doing the same thing. the only reason he wouldn't say that about Hirsch was that he was over a century older. BTW, whatever rav Shach said abotu Soloveitchik cannot be taken too seriously, as he had negios badavar. His son Ephraim, whom rav Shach wanted to be a great rosh yeshiva, instead went OTD, and went to the army, and YU. Thsi is the real underlying motive for his attacks on the Rav, who was decribed by many as the gereates rosh Yeshiva in the world. My point was that a gadol with hirsch's ideology in our time would be called an apikores.
      Now being Modern O and being a YUnik are not the same. Hirsch is called neo-orthodox, since he was a modernist for his time. The Yekkes and the Yu guys might not get on well, but that is the case with many others. There are descendants of freud who are frum, and descendants of the Baal shemTov whoa re not frum, or not even jewish. The issue is whether R' Hirsch, R' Hildsheimer and R Weinberg ztl were modern or not. Their views towards secular education, engagement with secular society and modernity , as well as scholarly approach to learning (ie more academic) , greater leniencies in halacha, at least for Hildshemier and sridei haEish, put them firmly outside of the Litivsh and Hareidi worlds, and in the Modern or neo Orthodox worlds.

      Delete
    14. Shalom Nat -
      The descendants of R Hirsch may not be as revolutionary as he was. One of the terms that Hirsch used was Synthesis, and that was also used by Soloveichick.

      Delete
    15. " About 1860, Akiva Joseph, a Hasidic leader, placed Hildesheimer under a ban as "not truly a sincere Jew" ("emessdiger Jüd"). Hildesheimer, however, seems to have cared little for the ban."

      History repeats itself.

      Delete
    16. Eddie why are you protesting when I am simply pointing out the errors in your statements. You said he got a Ph.D. He did not and in fact did not obtain any degree. I think he went for less than a year. That does not make him MO. He did have a school with secular subjects. Most chareidi schools have secular subjects - that doesn't make them MO. You fail to understand Rav Schach's relationship with Rav Soloveitchik - it is not focused on the issue of secular studies. your flippant summrary of the disputes of great people does not add anything and in fact severely detracts from properly understanding what happened. Rav Hutner was modern, Rav Yaakov was modern - and so was Rav Kook etc etc - that doesn't make them modern orthodox. Again Eddie you show no understanding of these issues but simply a desire to put people into boxes - that don't really fit. I don't know why you repeatedly come back to these points. Again your understanding of them is wrong and severely distorted.

      Delete
    17. Eddie wrote " About 1860, Akiva Joseph, a Hasidic leader, placed Hildesheimer under a ban as "not truly a sincere Jew" ("emessdiger Jüd"). Hildesheimer, however, seems to have cared little for the ban."

      History repeats itself.

      Eddie you really don't know the topic. Do some research who this Akiva Yosef was. He was not representative of the Chareidi world. He was such a fanatic that he said that he carried a gun to protect himself from the Chareidim who hated him.

      Rav Hildesheimer was widely respected by Chareidim - including the Chasam Sofer. See this haskama from Rav Schach
      http://onthemainline.blogspot.co.il/2005/05/r-shach-on-r-azriel-and-what-it-means.html

      I am not of sufficient stature to provide a letter of approbation for the great Gaon, disseminator of Torah and fearer of the Lord in Germany, our master, Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer, of blessed memory. He lived in the generation that preceded the previous generation; great was his fame due to his good deeds. The Gaon R. Yitzhak Elhanan of Kovno referred to him as "the great Gaon;" many others praised him for his greatness in Torah and for his fear of God. Who am I to follow in the footsteps of kings? (Who are "the kings"? The rabbis.) Moreover, it is stated in Scripture: Do not stand in the place of nobles (Proverbs 25:6). Now that his grandson has undertaken to publish his (i.e., R. Hildesheimer's) novellae on various tractates of the Talmud, we wish him every success.... May the merit of his grandfather, the Gaon, assure him every success in every matter.

      R. Eleazar Menahem Shach
      (Haskama to 'Hiddushei Rabbi Azriel: Yevamos, Kesubos', Jerusalem 1984)

      Delete
    18. Thank you for that important citation. The commentary by the blogger - which of course you do nto have to accept , says "Yet from reading other writings of R. Shach one would think that some of the things R. Azriel was "guilty of" would be yeharog ve-al ya'avor."
      That is precisely what i was saying (which of course is only my 5cents).
      It seems that arguing with a previous dor is much more difficult than doing it in the present tense. Add to that the point I made and reb Ephraim Shach, and we can see why there was so much hatred towards RYBS.

      Delete
    19. @Eddie you keep having your assertions demolished but you keep repeating them with data which you give "creative" spin to. You don't understand what the concern was with Rav Soloveitchik just like you don't understand Rav Hirsch or Rav Hildesheimer or Rav Akiva Yosef etc etc etc etc

      Delete
    20. They are not demolished, they are your perspective - with the admitted exception of Akiva Joseph.

      when you say I "don't understand Rav Hirsch or Rav Hildesheimer" , woudl that include that I don't understand that RSRH was at one point clean shaven;
      that he spoke of synthesis with German culture; that he abolished Kol Nidrei in his shul? or perhaps i don't udnerstand that RAH had a PhD in philosophy, had joint secular studies in his school; was highly Modern and orthodox?
      When I suggest that Rav Shach may have had negios regarding YU and RYBS, because his only son disappointed him by joining the MO, do i not understand that the Torah says Tzaddikim can be "bribed"? Or do you claim that Hareidi gedolim are immune from negios? Obviously you don't, since you spend a great deal of time pointing them out.
      What you are trying to claim is that Torah Umadda is radically different from Torah im derech Eretz, or even the view of rambam. The times and cultures are also radically different, but bottom lien is they both combine and synthesize torah and secular studies, and even culture. So if you put a scale of Haredism eg ponovezh model) and YU, then Hirsch's philosophy is much closer to MO than it is to Haredi model. they are jsut different versions of the same thing.

      Regarding my creative spin, yes, it is creative spin, but that doesn't invalidate it. If you claimed that our shechita in London was not Kosher, and i found evidence that you once got ill when eating at a simcha here, then that is evidence of negios. It is not creative spin. there were grounds for objecting to RYBS, but not everyone claimed he was non-orthodox.

      If today, or yesterday, it was reported that a shul had abolsihed kol Nidrei, then there is little chance that they would have escaped the wrath of Hareidi leaders. this is proof - unless you can show me examples of where it is done today - that things done 150 years ago, would be seen as heretical today.
      So that is precisely the case with the haskama of r' Shach. He would not give his Haskam to someone doing the same stuff today. a good example was leo Levi!

      Delete
  2. That is fine to have pride in study of torah, but when they are dependent financially on the yoshvei karnos that they denigrate it is rather the case of biting the hand that feeds them. Why not be pure talmidei Hochomim, and not rely on secular zionist tax money. Please be consistent, and support an end to Government financing of hareidi yeshivot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eddie your point has nothing to do with this article.

      Delete
    2. It has quite a lot to do with this article. the Article is inspired by the protest; the protest was inspired by a) enlistment and b) a threat to financial support.

      does the Gemara in question give advice on how to finance an entire population that want to be benei Torah?

      Delete
    3. furthermore, the Mishna Avot contradicts this gemara, and presumably is more authoritative :
      2:2
      Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Judah the Prince said: Great is study of the Torah when combined with a worldly occupation, for toil in them both puts sin out of mind. All study of the Torah which is not supplemented by work is destined to prove futile and causes sin

      Delete
    4. Eddie when do we say that Pirkei Avos contradicts a gemora and is more authoriative?! You might want to look at Berachos (35b):

       Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan, reporting R. Judah b. Ila'i: See what a difference there is between the earlier and the later generations. The earlier generations made the study of the Torah their main concern and their ordinary work subsidiary to it, and both prospered in their hands. The later generations made their ordinary work their main concern and their study of the Torah subsidiary, and neither prospered in their hands.

      Delete
    5. DT - is your question how I justify that authority of Avos? or why in this particular case it contradicts the gemara?

      The quote from Berachos 35b does not support any position, other than saying both failed.

      We have already discussed - in the past - that Amoraim cannto contradict Tannaim . Avos is a Mishna.

      Delete
    6. Avos is not halacha but advice or moral statement. It is not contradicting a gemora. Your reading of Berachos 35b is not correct.

      Amoraim can disagree with Tannaim especially if they have a braissa or tosefta to rely on. See Rav Elchonon Wasserman Divrei Sofrim.

      In short you are trying relying on a mechanical reading as if everything is an absolute statement and then you proclaim that a Mishna trumps the Gemora. Not relevant in this case for a number of reasons e.g., the gemora in Berachos 28 is citing tanaim also.

      Delete
    7. The Gemara is halachic regarding what to read when entering the Beis Midrash. Is it halachic regarding combining work and talmud torah?

      The Mishna in Avos is warning that all study with no work will be futile and lead to sin - this is very serious hashkafah.

      Delete
    8. Eddie please see Berachos 35b which I cited.

      Delete
  3. "Rav Moshe Feinstein notes in the Igros Moshe that a doctor is not a ben Torah. Someone objected to this comment which denigrates a doctor whose every spare moment is spent studying Torah. "

    i.e. both the RambaM and the rambaN were "not" Bnei Torah!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eddie I can't believe that you missed Rav Moshe's point. Being a doctor in the Rambam's time did not require total immersion as it does today.The flood of information that is required to be mastered and constantly updated is vastly different than in previous times.

      Delete
    2. Considering that Rambam wrote a letter saying he is so totally immersed in his work for the Sultan that the only time he can learn and answer questions to the community is on Shabbat, I would say that it is an imaginary point that you attribute to RMF.

      Delete
    3. Eddie the Rambam did not spend his whole life being the Sultan's doctor.

      Delete
    4. That's right, he left the yeshiva and went to work. When his brother tragically died, he had no support so he had to earn a living.
      In any case, he wrote many secular books and treatises, which might even outnumber his Halachic works. So he did have a secular career. BTW, Rashi also was a winemaker.

      Delete
    5. So Eddie we are in agreement that the Rambam was a ben Torah in spite of being a doctor which is not something that can be said today. Same applies for the Ramban. You can quote all the sources of rabbis working - that is not relevant for the issue of Ben Torah.

      Delete
    6. Wikipeida on Rambam notes that even when working as a doctor he still was working on Halachic works. Apparently his job required him to be on call for the Sultan but his brain was still available to think about Torah.

      In a famous letter, Maimonides describes his daily routine: After visiting the Sultan's palace, he would arrive home exhausted and hungry, where "I would find the antechambers filled with gentiles and Jews ... I would go to heal them, and write prescriptions for their illnesses ... until the evening ... and I would be extremely weak."[29] As he goes on to say in this letter, even on the Sabbath he would receive members of the community. It is remarkable that he managed to write extended treatises, including not only medical and other scientific studies but some of the most systematically thought-through and influential treatises on halachah (Rabbinic law) and Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages.[

      Delete
    7. Of course the Rambam was a Ben Torah, par excellence. The issue is whether he saw a problem halachically in combining Torah with Avodah - clearly he didn't.
      he says everyone should earn a living. Also, he did not mock his brother for being a merchant and not a Kollel student. So this is somewhat problematic for the argument you are bringing.

      Delete
    8. Eddie please read what Rav Moshe has to say before trying to refute his view

      Delete
  4. Yes yes, it is all true. But you missed a very important point. What does a person need to do in order not to be considered to be a member of the Yoshvei Kronos? Is every person who sits in Yeshiva or Kollel automatically released from this category? The Gemara Brachos 4b-5a says that a Talmid Chochom doesn't need to recite Krias Shema Al Hamitoh, and Rashi explains that this is because he has the Torah on his lips the entire time, even while lying in bed waiting to fall asleep. This is what every Talmid Chacham is, as the Gemara doesn't say that the bigger talmiday Chachimim don't need to recite, but hat any Talmid Chacham doesn't, because by definition that is a Talmid Chochiom - someone who is completely immersed. V'hogisa Bo Yomam Valaylo - YOMAM VALAYLO.

    That is a Talmid Chochom. But someone who isn't so devoted could be in the category of the rest of the frum world including workers and professionals who are Kovea Itim. But someone who is not even as devoted as that, is neither here nor there. He's not Osek Beyeshuvo Shel Olam so he is less than the Yoshvei Kronos of this type.

    So before someone proudly chants this Gemara, he should honetsly consider in which category he belongs.

    Also The Rambam you quoted is referring to a very special Talmid Chacham - such that might not even occur at all in an entire generation, and the rest of us are just keeping the world going for the purpose of this individual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your point and it is included in Rav Moshe's comment about a ben Torah

      Delete
  5. שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ד סימן לו

    טו. אם כדאי להחשיב אלה שעזבו את הישיבה לבני תורה, משום החשש שמא יתקלקלו יותר

    ומש"כ מע"כ ידידי על מה שכתבתי בתשובה שם שאף מי שלא יתקלקל בבתי ספר של המדינה אבל איך שיהיה לא שייך שיהיה אף בן תורה, שח"ו יצא מזה קלקול לאלו שסוף סוף יכנסו לעסק פרנסה. וכוונת מע"כ הוא שיכנסו ע"י שתחילה יעזבו לימודם בהישיבה ללימודי חול בבתי ספר דהמדינה, ואם לא יתחשבו כבני תורה יתייאשו מלעלות יותר בתורה ויראה ולא יקבעו אף זמנים קטנים לתורה. אבל הא יותר תמוה מה שלא ראה מע"כ קלקול היותר גדול ע"י שיתחשבו לבני תורה, שכו"ע יאמרו שכיוון שגם אלו שעזבו לימודם בתורה ועסקו בלימודי חול הם מתחשבים בני תורה ותלמידי חכמים למה לן להתעמל בתורה ויראה. וחשש זה מצינו בגמ' מנחות דף צ"ט ע"ב, דעל מה שאמר ר' יוחנן משום רשב"י אפילו לא קרא אדם אלא ק"ש שחרית וערבית קיים לא ימוש, מסיק הגמ' ודבר זה אסור לאומרו בפני עם הארץ. ופירש"י שלא יאמר בק"ש סגי ולא ירגיל בניו לתלמוד תורה, ועוד גרע דהא אינשי שלמדו תורה ג"כ יאמרו כן. והכא לא שייך טעמא דרבא דפליג שם ואומר מצווה לאומרו בפני ע"ה, שטעמו הוא כדפרש"י דאדרבה ידעו מזה דאם משום קריית שמע נוטל שכר גדול כזה כי אז תצליח את דרכיך, אם היה עוסק כל היום כ"ש ששכרו גדול ומרגיל את בניו לתלמוד תורה, ל"א סברי דממה דעמלי רבנן וגרסי כולי יומא אף דמצי פטרי נפשייהו בקרית שמע, ששכר לימוד התורה גדול מאד. דהא כאן רואים שגם אלו שעזבו לימודם בתורה ולמדו לימודי חול ג"כ הא הם בני תורה ות"ח כמותם דהרי אלו שעוסקים כל היום בתורה נמי מחזיקין אותן לבני תורה ות"ח.

    אבל חשש זה דהם עצמן שבאמת ובעצם אינם בני תורה יגרעו כשלא יחשיבו אותן לבני תורה ות"ח, לא מובן. דכי מגרעין אותם מכפי שהם, שהם עצמן אין להם להחשיב עצמן במדרגה זו דבני תורה ות"ח, מאחר שאין לומדין התורה בקביעות כבני תורה. ואף כבוד הם רוצין יותר מאלו שישבחום יותר בהחכמה שמתפרנסין ממנה דהוא חכם וגדול ברפואה וכדומה, וחשוב גדול אצל רופאים וכדומה, משישבחוהו שהוא חכם בתורה, שלא יהיה לו כלום משבח זה ואפשר שיגרעו לו בשבח זה - שיאמרו שמסתמא אין במה לשבחו בחכמת הרפואה שלכן משבחין אותו בחכמת התורה, שאין זה עניינו וצורכו. ואם מצד יצה"ר דגאוה רוצה גם שישבחוהו בחכמת התורה, לא שייך שיתחייב זה לעשות רצונו ואין לחוש לזה. אלא אם נזדמן שכבר הוא גדול בתורה ממש, אז ודאי יש לכבדו מצד הדין, ואין לסלק זכותו - אף אם יש טעמים בזמננו שלא לכבדו בכיבודי התורה לתלמידי חכמים, שלא יגררו אחריו שיטעו לומר שגם הם יכולין להיות גדולים בתורה וגם לילך לבתי ספר של המדינה, להיות חכמים גם ברפואה וחכמות אחרות כדומה. דאין לגרוע זכותו בשביל חששות.

    ומש"כ מע"כ ידידי מה שהרבה יראים ושלמים עוסקים באומניות חשובות ועכ"ז עיקר מגמתם בחיים הוא עסק התורה והמצוות - האם נימא שאינם בני תורה. למותר הוא להשיב כי כבר כתבתי שודאי הם אנשים כשרים, אבל לא שייך להחשיבם לבני תורה. אלא דהתורה נתנה קולא שליכא חיוב ממש על כל יחיד שיעשה תלמיד חכם. אבל בני תורה ותלמידי חכמים אין נחשבים אלא מי שמקיימין מצווה זו דלימוד התורה כראוי, שהוא להיות מוכתר בכתר תורה. דהוא דווקא כשלא יסיח דעתו לדברים אחרים, ולא יעסוק במלאכה וסחורה אלא כדי חייו. וכשלא אפשר לו בזה יצטרך לזון מן הצדקה. אבל בזמננו זה מאות בשנים שנוהגים היתר אף לכתחילה לקבל משרת רבנות בשכר, וכן משרות מגידי שיעור בישיבות גדולות וקטנות, יצטרך ליקח אחד ממשרות האלו. אבל אם ירצה דווקא להתפרנס שלא ממשרות אלו, אלא מאומניות שטרוד בהו כל היום, כי רוצה לחיות חיי עשירות, וכ"ש כשרוצה להתפרנס דווקא ממלאכת רפואה וההנדסה וכיוצא דווקא, שצריך לבטל לגמרי הרבה שנים אפילו עוד קודם שיהיה שייך להרוויח מזה כלום, ועוד צריך להשיג במתנה ובהלוואה על הוצאת הלימוד דחכמות אלו, לא שייך כלל לחשוב מזה למי שרוצה להיות בן תורה שיעשה בן תורה מזה. ודורות שכל בני ישראל היו בני תורה ותלמידי חכמים היו רק דור המדבר שלא עשו מלאכה כלל, והדור שנכנסו לארץ עם יהושע שכל ימיהם ראו הנסים, ודורו של חזקיהו המלך. אבל לא היו כולם בני תורה אף לא בדורות הכשרים כדורות של דוד ושלמה. ודורו של חזקיהו לא היו כל ישראל, אלא ב' השבטים שהיו תחתיו.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How does being a Ben Torah comport with being in a crowd making a hekdesh of the public square while expressing contempt for those who stand between those in the crowd and war's desolation?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to cite Rambam considering his definition of "talmid chacham" differs greatly from the common use of that term today especially those who just used the song? Is there a single person at this gathering whom the Rambam would consider a chacham?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not? According to you did the Rambam consider the Tanaim and Amoriam to be talmidei chachomim?

      Delete
    2. Seems katche-lab might have beaten me to it when he said "Also The Rambam you quoted is referring to a very special Talmid Chacham - such that might not even occur at all in an entire generation, and the rest of us are just keeping the world going for the purpose of this individual."

      Now, Daas Torah, do you consider all these "talmidei chachomim" running around at this event to be on equal footing with CHAZAL!??

      Delete
  8. Rabbi E.

    I posted a lengthy comment re: Chasidish vs. Litvish attitudes earlier. Was it offensive to you, or just too long?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I approved it and it is on the blog - don't know what your problem is. No it wasn't offensive or too long.

      Delete
  9. Just a thought for everybody. What category was the Abarvanel in?

    ReplyDelete
  10. we will not agree on the issue of MO, but here is Prof Marc Shapiro's article on R Hildsheimer, where he argues along the lines that i have

    http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU9_Shapiro.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  11. A simple kushia we could pose to the 2nd perush is how is anyone who is not learning full-time called "anshe damim umirma" and will go to be'er shachat. Simply put, even if you're not learning full time, it is still very difficult you're for sure not getting olam haba.
    Even by the teshuva of Rav Moshe (not full-time learner, not a Ben Torah) he calls not full-time learners as "ksherim"- hence the obvious difficulty of the 2nd perush- there's a difference between ksherim and anshe damim umirma.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. good point and I assume that was the reason that Rav Kook wanted to alter the text. However it doesn't make sense that the contrast is between the best and the worst. "thank you for being a talmid chachom and not a bum" Most people are not bums so what is the gratitude?

      Delete
  12. Respectfully disagreeing, we are no thanking for being Talmide Hachamim in this tefila- rather, we are thanking for being Ioshve Bet Hamidrash, for being ordinary students of the Torah. If it not the case, anyone but only real Talmide Hachamim could say it, and as a matter of fact S"A posek thatt everyone who's studying says the tefila.

    Concerning thanking for not be a bum- from the mekorot you cite we could see that they are indeed working people etc., but don't care at basic things of Torah-e.g., the mininum least of hearing the Torah twice a week, so as not to be 3 days without Divre Torah, people who speak lots of idle speech in a constant manner (hakovea atzmo lidvarim betelim). We are all guilty in any degree of Bitul Torah and Devarim Betelim, so IMHO I believe we should indeed thank for not being (primarily, bikviut) Mevatle Torah (who are many, if not most), but rather Yoshve Bet Midrash who know the importance of Torah study and toil for it(even though we also mevatel Torah, sometimes)

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. your points are good. Don't see a clear explanation for Berachos 28b

      Delete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.