Torah Study & Working: Shulchan Aruch (156) vs Mishneh Berura

Shulchan Aruch  (O.H.#156): After a session of Torah study go to work. This is because all Torah which is not combined with a job will eventually come to nothing and will lead to sin… Nevertheless one should not make his work the chief focus of his life but rather secondary to his Torah and in this manner both with flourish…

Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:10)Whoever decides that he will study Torah and not have a job and therefore will be financed from tzedaka – disgraces G‑d (chilulul HaShem), degrades the Torah and extinguishes the light of religion and causes evil to himself and removes his life from the World to Come. That is because it is prohibited to benefit from the words of Torah in this world. Our Sages said that whoever benefits from words of Torah takes his life from the world. Furthermore they commanded not to make Torah into a crown to be elevated in the eyes of others nor should Torah be used as a shovel to dig with. Furthermore they said to love work and to hate the rabbinate. They also said that all Torah which is not accompanied by a job will in the end be lost and will bring about sin and that in the end such a person will end up stealing from others.

Avos(2:2): It is wonderful to combine Torah study with a worldly occupation because the efforts invested in both cause sin to be forgotten. And all Torah study which is not combined with worldly occupation eventually comes to nothing and brings sin in its trail…

Biur Halacha(156:1):The seforim write that this is rule is addressed to the masses since not everyone is able to have the merit to exist on the high level to be involved exclusively with Torah study. However there are always individuals who are in fact able to devote themselves totally to Torah study. [This is what is mentioned in Berachos 35b, “Many did like R’ Shimon Bar Yochai and they were not successful in Torah. That means that the masses were not successful in exclusive Torah study – but there were individuals who were]. And G‑d will surely provide them with a livelihood as the Rambam (Hilchos Shmita chapter 13) wrote, “And not just the tribe of Levi alone…”And it is obvious that if there already exist men who wish to support them in order that they devote themselves to Torah study that this directive to combine work and Torah study is not relevant. The proof for this is provided by the Yissachor-Zevulun relationship.

Berachos(35b): R’ Yishmael said that Torah study should be combined with a job. R’ Shimon Bar Yochai said that is impossible. If one ploughs, sows, reaps, threshes and winnows in the appropriate season there is no time to master Torah. In fact if one is totally devoted to serving G‑d then all his work is done for him by others… Abaye said that many have followed the advice of R’ Yishmael and  have been successful while many who have followed the advice of R’ Shimon Bar Yochai have not been successful. Raba requested his students not to come to yeshiva during the months of Nissan (in order to plant) and Tishri (in order to harvest) so that they not need to worry about sustenance during the rest of the year

Torah Study & Working: Payment for Torah - Rav Moshe Feinstein

Igros Moshe(Y.D. 2:116): Concerning the matter of Torah scholars who want to engage in Torah study and advance in their knowledge of Torah – both quantitatively and qualitatively – and they therefore receive payment from kollel for their livelihood. This also applies to rabbis and teachers who take pay as well as roshei yeshivos. Question: Is their taking money correct or not. Is it an act of piety not to take the money and they should rather support themselves with other jobs? Answer: There is no question that they are acting correctly. This is the ruling of the Rema (Y.D. 246:21) that even a healthy person is allowed. It is permitted for a scholar and his students to receive payments from that which is given in order to strengthen the learning of Torah – because this enables them to study Torah properly. Furthermore the Shach (Y.D. 246:20) also cites the Kesef Mishna who rules similarly - even if you wish to say that this is not the view of the Rambam – because all the scholars prior to the Rambam and afterwards turn payment from the community. And even if the halacha is like the Rambam [that payment is prohibited] it has been agreed by the gedolim in all generations that it is a necessary emergency (ais l’asos) which allows temporarily abrogating the Torah law. That is because if they are not paid they would not be able to engage in Torah study properly and then Torah would be forgotten. But now that they receive payments they are able to study and grow in Torah. This is the language of the Kesef Mishna (Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:10) at the end. This is also the view of the Maharshal….Therefore it is a clear and obvious ruling that has been accepted in all generations – whether because it is the din or because of emergency decree of ais l’asos – that it is permitted to engage in Torah study or to teach Torah to others or to be a rabbi or posek and to receive payment for it. Furthermore a person should not avoid payment even as an act of piety. I say that all those people who claim they are acting out of piety to comply with the view of the Rambam – it is the advice of the yetzer harah in order to stop learning Torah and go to work and business until at the end they will forget even the little that they already learned and they won’t even be able to have even brief fixed times for study. Therefore if the early generations with like angels and they said it is impossible to study and grow wise in Torah when engage in business and work then surely in our generation of orphans of orphans. In addition we don’t have righteous women who are willing to suffer the poverty and deprivation as in earlier generations. There is no question that there is not a single person who can brag that he can work and yet become a grow properly in Torah knowledge. Therefore do not take seriously the thought offered by the advice of the yetzer harah that it is sinful and a lack of piety to take money to learn in kollel or to be paid for being a rabbi, teacher or rosh yeshiva. This is all a strategy to depart from Torah. If there are generous men who donate for the livelihood of many Torah scholars then there will be an increase in bnei Torah and gedolim as well as poskim according to the will of G‑d. For there is nothing for G‑d in the world except the 4 amos of halacha.

Falsely claiming to have ruach hakodesh is capital offence of being a false prophet

Yad Rama (Sanhedrin 93b): “The Messiah-as it is written (Yeshaya 11:2), And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge of the fear of the Lord. And shall make him of quick understanding [wa-hariho] in the fear of the Lord. … Rava said that means that Moshiach will have the ability to smell a man and determine whether he is guilty or innocent.” That means that Moshiach will understand through ruach hakodesh the truth of the matter. He will not judge based on the claims of the litigants nor will he judge based on witnesses but will simply know through ruach hakodesh who is innocent and who is guilty… The gemora states, “Bar Kosiba (Bar Kochva) ruled for two years and then told the Rabbis that he was Moshiach.   The Rabbis replied to him that it is foretold that Moshiach will judge guilt or innocence by means of smell – therefore they asked him to judge a case purely on the basis of smell to demonstrate that he was truly Moshiach. When the Rabbis saw that he was not able to judge by smell alone they killed him.” This can be explained by saying that Bar Kochva was liable to capital punishment because he was a false prophet since he claimed to be Moshiach who has ruach hakodesh which enables him to judge by smell.  Thus falsely claiming to have ruach hakodesh makes a person a false prophet.

Ruach hakodesh is reason Biblical verses are omnisignificant - Netziv

Netziv(Kadmos HaEmek – She’iltos 2:2 -3): When there is some irregularity in the way a Torah verse was written, we find that our Sages often inferred information (derash) both for the subject of the verse and unrelated matters…. And surely this is true for Agada, mussar and ethical lessons – even when there is no obvious connection to the verses. Not only is this true for Torah but also for Biblical verses in Prophets and Writings which were put in writing through prophecy or ruach hakodesh. They are interpreted (drash) both according to the context and not according to the context. According to the context that means when the verse can be understood in a variety of ways. To say that all ways are true is an inherent property of something written with ruach hakodesh. An example of saying that interpretations which are not according to the context are also included in the verse is that of Rabbi Akiva who asks how do we know that a ship is spiritually pure? He answers from Mishlei(30:19),  “The manner of a ship in the midst of the ocean.” He says just as the sea is spiritually pure so is the ship. ...  And similarly we find with the words of Agada concerning the Shunamite woman and Elisha (Berachos 10b) that one who provides hospitality to a talmid chachom in his home is as if he brought a Tamid sacrifice. It  is clear that the Shunamite woman had no thoughts about a Tamid sacrifice when she provided hospitality to Elisha. What was asserted in the gemora is based on the idea that the words of a prophet can be broadly interpreted. This understanding of the Biblical verses is like a hammer striking a rock which sends out sparks both in its place and out of its place – to places where the one striking the rock never imagined they would fall. In a similar manner the verse alludes to many issued and principles even regarding matters which are not related to the verse at all. .

==================================================

To get a greater context of omnisignificance see the following article [fixed link]

Dr. Elman - Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis

Rav S. R. Hirsch & his contemporary incarnation - Rabbi Slifkin

Rabbi Slifkin recently published an article on the Making of Post-Haredim  which I read and said "so what?" However Thursday night I got a call from a friend who was calling 4 a.m. from Jerusaelm who had just finished reading it and he couldn't believe that any frum person could say such things. In contrast over Shabbos, a relative who is a solidly chareidi thinker and educator told me that the article very accurately described what is happening in the Chareidi world. Coincidentally I noticed the following comment Rav S. R. Hirsh regarding Avraham - which reminded me very much of Rabbi Slifkin's article. Rav Hirsch was not Chareidi and his views were viewed by Chareidi gedolim - such as the Brisker Rav - as merely expedient or useful for a particular time and place. I heard this from Rabbi Bulman who lamented Rabbi Elias' attempt to make Hirsch into a Chareidi thinker in his edition of the 19 Letters.

Rav Hirsch (Bereishis 12:1) [Regarding Avraham being ordered to leave his homeland,  birthplace  and father's house]...It is certainly not meant to be belittleing of this factor if the planting of the first Jewish germ demanded forsaking fatherland, birth-place and the paternal home. It is rather just the appreciation of these factors wherin lies the greatness of the isolation demanded here. This demand itself placed Abraham in the completest contrast to the ruling tendency of his age. Not individualism, not recognition of the worth and importance of the individual, but centralization which makes men lose their personal value, and lower them to mere subordinate workers, mere bricks for the building of the fame of a supposed representation of the community, that was the tendency of the age, which under the slogan of "let us make a name for ourselves" began building the tower of the glory of Man. This tendency begot the erroneous conception of  a majority which has sway in every direction and in every case. So that finally everything is considered the highest by the majority, ipso facto becomes considered and honored as the highest by everybody. It is true of course that the majority of every community should be the representative of all that which is truly the highest and holiest; and it is in the presumption that such is the case, that Judaism, too, values attachment to the community as being supremely important. Nevertheless at the head of Judaism the words לך לך "go for yourself" stand as being higher still; nobody may say: I am as good, as honest, as everybody else is, as is the fashion here today. Everybody is responsible to G-d for himself. If necessary, alone - with G-d - when the principle worshipped by the majority is not the true godly one. this what was demanded from Abraham as the starting point of his and his future people's mission. Our very language teaches, as we have seen, in the word ארץ and בית how strong are the bonds that attach a person both; yet stronger than the bond that attaches us to fatherland and family should the bond be that attaches us to G-d. How could we have existed, how continue to exist, if we had not, from the very beginning received from Abraham the courage to be a minority!

Rav S. R.Hirsch - we can't emulate great men who are portrayed as flawless

Rav S. R. Hirsch(Bereishis 12: 10 – 13):.  The Torah does not seek to portray our great men  as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: “Here you  have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!” It does  not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which  we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we  must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a  model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust.  Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: “Look upon Me!  Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!” We are never to say: “This must be  good and right, because so-and-so did it.” The Torah is not an “anthology  of good deeds.” It relates events not because they are necessarily  worthy of emulation, but because they took place.    The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses  of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.  The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract  from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their  stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they  been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and  unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed  with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed  free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed  to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired  by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to  emulate.

Rav Moshe Feinstein - untrue story being circulated

Yesterday on Tzom Gedaliya (Oct 2) I was at a well known shul where a well known Rav spoke between mincha & maariv. Amongst other things he was talked about the greatness and uniqueness of Rav Moshe Feinstein.  He said the following. There is a story in the Artscroll biography describing an incident in which Rav Moshe cited a Pri Megadin during a shiur. One of those present argued that the citation was off by one simon. Rav Moshe insisted on the spot that a sefer be brought and it be determined whether he was right. When he was asked why it was so important, he replied that since he poskened from memory - if his memory wasn't perfect he could no longer posken from memory.

The Rav who was speaking added that he had heard in the name of Rav Elimelech Bluth- who was Rav Moshe's shamash for 20 years - that he had not seen Rav Moshe learn from a sefer in the last 20 years of his life. He was so busy - he had to rely on his memory in order to posken.

Tonight I was a family simcha which was attended by Rav Bluth and I asked him whether he in fact had said that he hadn't seen Rav Moshe learn from a sefer in the last 20 years of his life. He responded, "I can't say it so because it isn't true."

UPDATE:

I called the rav this morning ( Oct 4). He is truly an ish emes. He said he had heard directly from Rav Bluth that Reb Moshe hadn't looked in sefer for 20 years, I told him Rav Bluth denied it. He immediately called Rav Bluth and was told he had misunderstood him. Rav Bluth told him that Reb Moshe was not constantly looking in a sefer but was constantly writing but he did use seforim to look up issues. The rav called me back to explain his error and said he would publicly announce his error today in shul after mincha. I was astounded that the rav was so focused on emes and the effort to correct what seemed a relatively minor issue (though important to understand the derech of psak of Rav Moshe Feinstein) , he said the Chazon Ish and others said to be careful to tell the precise truth about gedolim. He thanked me for informing him of the error.

This passion for the truth that this rav demonstrated is the foundation of emunas chachomim. We presume that our sages have such a concern for truth. However if we see in otherwise - there is no mitzva to be stupid. Emunas chachomim is not a synonym for intellectual laziness and lack of concern for reality.

They are trying to make it illegal to question the results of a bad election.”

 https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/aug/09/donald-trump/trump-says-doj-is-trying-to-criminalize-asking-que/

The Aug. 1 federal indictment against Donald Trump over efforts to subvert 2020 election results said the former president "had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election" and make false claims. It says Trump also was entitled to challenge the results lawfully through recounts, audits or lawsuits. 

 Trump was indicted for his actions, not for questioning the election. 

Guest posts request

 Anyone can submit a guest post describing the impact of blogging and blogs on a personal or community level. I will post them to see how they are received and then will possibly include them in my selections from the 15 years of the Daas Torah Blog

Pseudonyms can be used. They need to be submitted within next two weeks

Haredi minister condemns family who cursed IDF soldier

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/375312

Construction and Housing Minister Yitzhak Goldknopf (United Torah Judaism) on Wednesday morning published a statement responding to footage showing a haredi family cursing female IDF soldiers on a train.

"Anyone who humiliates another person in public has no share in the World to Come," Goldknopf said, emphasizing that this refers to "any Jew, no matter who he is."

"Even IDF soldiers are included in this rule," he added. "I condemn this behavior, which does not represent the Torah-observant community."

R Elchonon Wasserman: An Amora had the potential right to disagree with a Tanna

from Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Kovetz Shiurim Bava Basra 170a #633): Rav said that the halacha is neither that of R’ Yehuda nor of R’ Yochanon. The Rashbam said that Rav was considered a Tanna and thus could disagree with other Tanaim. However Tosfos (Kesubos) says that R’ Yochanon disagreed with this halacha and since we have a rule that in a dispute between Rav and R’ Yochacon that we rule in accord with R’ Yochanon that means that Rav is not viewed as a Tanna and thus cannot argue with Tannaim. But this presents a question. How can it be that Rav is disagreeing with the Mishna here? This question I asked my teacher R’ Chaim Brisker and he answered, “That in truth an Amora has the right to disagree with a Tanna. This that we regularly find the Talmud rejecting the views of an Amora by simply showing that a Tanna rejects it – that is because as a general rule an Amora did not disagree with a Tanna. So if the Amora only knew the view of the Tanna we assume he would not disagree with it. However where we see that an Amora explicitly disagrees with a Tanna it is possible that the final halacha is in agreement with the Amora.” : …There is a major innovation proposed by the Ramban (Bava Basra 131a). He says the Talmud brings a refutation to an Amora from a Tanna – only when the words of the Tanna are taught in the Mishna or Braissa – but if it is just quoted by the Talmud it is possible to disagree with the words of the Tanna. We also find this view recorded in the Shita Mekubetes in the name of Rabbeinu Yona, “Even though it is not normal for an Amoraim to disagree with Tannaim – but that is only when the view of the Tanna is found in a Mishna or Braissa.” This appears true from the language of Gittin (42), “This is only a quote of his views and Rava doesn’t agree with it.” Rashi explains that it is a view stated in the Talmud but was not found in a Mishna or Braisa. It would seem that the reason for this distinction is that Mishna and Braissos were redacted and approved by all the Sages of the generation… In contrast a view quoted by the Talmud simply represents view of the Tanna himself. Thus we see that the distinction is not between Tannaim and Amoraim but Mishna and Braissa versus a cited view of a Tanna…

R. S. R. Hirsch: Dangers of losing grasp of G-d's personality is worse than dangers of corporality

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Bereishis 6:6): Regarding this and similar anthropomorphic expressions of G-d, we would like to make a general remark. For so long people have philosophized all round these expressions to remove the danger of the slightest thought of any materiality or corporality of G-d that at the end one runs very nearly into the danger of losing all idea of the personality of G-d. Had that been the purpose of the Torah, those kind of expressions could easily have been avoided. But this last danger is greater than the first. The two anthropomorphic expressions here save the two essential conceptions:the freedom, the free-will of G-d and that of Man. Not for nothing doesn't say, "when G-d saw etc." The wickedness of Man was not a matter of necessity. G-d had to see it before He knew it. This expression gives us the guarantee of human free-will. And the fate that overtook mankind was not the result of physical causes which followed set laws, it was preceded by an examination by G-d and His decision; the decision itself pained the Decider. All this presupposes the personality and free-will of G-d and keeps this clear in our minds. The Raavad already, one of the most Jewish of our thinkers, is of the opinion that such consciousness of the personality of G﷓d is of much greater importance than speculating about it, as to whether this or that can be asserted of G﷓d.

Misunderstanding Rashi: Punishment of family is mida keneged mida

Just received the following nasty put down regarding a recent posting regarding the Divine punishment of those who could but don't protect the helpless against molesters and abusers (Shemos 22:21-23) There are those who have eyes and don't see and brains but fail to understand.

DF has left a new comment on your post "Rashi indicates one's children are punished for no...":

I dont think've I seen a more dishonest heading for a blog post -on a blog purportedly run by a frum man, that is - than this one. Rashi's comment has nothing to do with molestors. As a man with a hammer sees a nail everywhere, your unhealthy obsession with molesters leads you to see references to them everywhere.

---------------------------

You clearly missed the point of Rashi's commentary.

Let me explain what Rashi is saying. The Torah is explicity saying that a man who allows widows and orphans to be tormented with be punished by being killed by G-d and thus his wife will become a widow and his children orphans. It is not enough that he be killed but his family must suffer too.

This is mida keneged mida. He failed to protect widows an orphans so he is punished that his wife and children suffer in the same way.That is the lesson of this verse according to Rashi.

In addition Rashi accepts the view of R' Yishmael that this verse is not limited to widows and orphans - but it includes all those who are weak and defenseless.

So what is the mida keneged mida for one who fails to protect a child from being molested? Is it enough that his wife is made into a widow and his children orphans? But how is the mida keneged mida aspect fulfilled? The punishment must be directly linked to what their father and husband failed to do.

I think it is reasonable to deduce from this Rashi that his wife and children will be put into situations that they suffer that which he failed to protect others from.

Similarly in all cases of the torment of the weak and unprotected - his family deserves suffering the indignity that he failed to protect others from.

 This is simple pshat

Shut HaRid: Basis of authority - midgets standing on giants

from Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Shut HaRid (# 62): Whatever does not make sense to me – then even if Yehoshua ben Nun said I would not agree [Chullin 124a]. And I don’t stop myself from expressing what appears correct to me according to my limited intellect. Thus I do what it says in Tehilim (119:46), I speak regarding Your words even against kings and I am not ashamed…. Because even when it appears to me that I have successfully refuted the words of the early authorities – G﷓d forbid for me to be so arrogant to say that it is because of my superior wisdom (Koheles 2:9). Rather the reason that I can argue with the early authorities is because of the rationale provided by philosophers. I heard that a group of philosophers asked the greatest amongst them, “We acknowledge that the early scholars were wiser and more intelligent than us. But at the same time we acknowledge that we argue with their ideas and refute them in many issues and in fact our criticisms of them are correct. How could that be?” He replied to them, “Who can see farther – a midget or a giant? It is obviously a giant because his eyes are much higher than a midget. However if a midget stands on the shoulder of a giant – who can see farther? Obviously it is the midget because his eyes are now higher than the eyes of the giant. So it is with us. We are midgets riding on the shoulders of giants because we know that it is their wisdom that elevates us. Therefore our wisdom is based on their wisdom.” Thus what we say is not because we are greater than them. We can comment regarding the early scholars in a situation where we see that they disagree with each other – one permitting and the other prohibiting. So which authority should we rely on? … We can not simply say that one is greater and therefore the words of the others are refuted. Rather we must analyze all their words because they are the words of the living G﷓d. We need to debate and investigate their words to see which way the law seems to be going. That in fact is what the sages of the Mishna and Talmud did. We see the later Talmudic scholars did not refrain from disagreeing with the early scholars and to decide amongst what the early sages disagreed with each other as well as to contradict their words. We find that the Amoraim would refute a Mishna and say that it was not the halacha. The fact is the wisdom transcends the individual sage and there is no sage who is free from error. Only G﷓d is free of error.