The Tribe of Levi in Our Times: The Form of the Discussion (Column 589)
A few weeks ago I was sent a post by a Jew named Shmuel Ben Uliel, which related to the debate between Gafni and Amit Segal about exempting Torah learners from military service and from core curriculum studies. The debate is ancient and hackneyed, and it’s entirely clear who is right. But because it is such a typical and characteristic genre, I thought the very framework of the discussion is worth a few comments.
First, I will bring his words in full so that you too can enjoy:
| Core Studies, Acquiring a Profession, and Financial Responsibility According to Maimonides
A clip has been circulating online of a clash between Amit Segal and Gafni about the importance of the core curriculum and the Haredi opposition to it. In the course of the debate, Gafni cited Maimonides (Rambam) in the Laws of Shemittah as proof for his view, and Amit Segal opened Maimonides in the Laws of Torah Study as proof for his own view. Do Maimonides’ statements contradict each other? What does Maimonides really say about core studies, livelihood, and money? Let’s put things in order. Disclosure: Maimonides’ thought and the thought of the ancient Spanish sages is a field I understand. Whoever is interested can watch a series of classes I gave on Maimonides on my personal YouTube channel. First, a few words about Maimonides. 1. Maimonides is (without a doubt, and there’s no debate about this) the greatest of Israel’s sages during the exile, that is, in the last 2,000 years. Not for nothing did they say of him “From Moses to Moses none arose like Moses,” and in the piyyut “Ochil Yom Yom Eshtaha” he is called “a master over all the sages.” 2. Maimonides’ “religious” greatness does not derive only from his wisdom and sound understanding, but from a direct tradition from the Talmudic sages in Babylonia (through the Geonim) to the Spanish sages in Córdoba where he studied and was educated. Thus, in effect, all of Maimonides’ words in his Commentary on the Mishnah and in halakha are words of tradition in understanding the Talmud and reflect the stance and worldview of the Sages and the values of Israel. 3. He learned and understood all the sciences of his time—mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, botany, psychology, and medicine. He is known as the personal physician of Saladin, the sultan of Egypt who fought and defeated England in the Crusades. 4. Maimonides supported himself by the work of his hands, and his brother David (also a Torah scholar) was a very successful businessman until he drowned in the Indian Ocean with the family’s assets. All this suffices to understand Maimonides’ approach (and that of all the ancient sages of Israel) regarding the “core curriculum,” acquiring a profession, and earning a living independently without relying on the public. But let’s see what he actually rules in halakha… “The way of the sensible is that a person should first establish a trade that supports him; afterwards he should acquire a dwelling house; and afterwards he should marry a woman… But fools begin by marrying a woman, and afterwards, if his hand finds \[the means], he buys a house; and afterwards, at the end of his days, he turns back to seek a craft or to be supported by charity…” First of all, everyone should acquire a profession in order to earn a living. Then, as he earns and saves, he should buy a house, and then he should marry. And the fools do the opposite: they first marry, and afterwards, when they see they have no other choice—since a home cannot be maintained on a kollel stipend—he looks to learn a profession in order to support himself. In other words, according to the greatest of Israel’s sages, the worldview and way of life of the Haredi parties is foolish and forbidden by halakha. Beyond that, Maimonides also sets out an order for proper and responsible financial conduct. Everyone must learn to manage properly and invest in a way that grows his assets. “And it is forbidden for a person to declare all his property ownerless or consecrate it, and thereby burden the public. Nor should he sell a field (that yields fruit, a business) to buy a house; nor a house to buy movable goods (merchandise), or do business with the money of his house (savings); rather he sells movable goods (merchandise) and buys a field (a revenue-producing asset). The general rule is: he should set his aim on the success of his property—not on adorning himself a little for the moment or enjoying a little, and thereby losing much.” 1. Do not sell a revenue-producing asset in order to buy a (non-yielding) house. 2. Do not sell an asset in order to buy merchandise. An asset is secure and stable; merchandise can lose value or be lost entirely. That is, do not dispose of a secure asset in exchange for a riskier investment. 3. Do not trade using the family’s savings. 4. Engage in trade in order to upgrade to a business (a revenue-producing asset). 5. Buy a residence from surplus income (savings) from the business. 6. Always be oriented toward economic growth. But what about one whose “Torah is his profession”? That is, whose profession is Torah study from which he earns a living. This is what he rules in the Laws of Torah Study (which Amit Segal cited): “Anyone who sets his heart to engage in Torah and not do work, and to be supported by charity—this is a desecration of the Name, and a degradation of the Torah, and he extinguishes the light of the religion, and he causes harm to himself, and forfeits his share in the World to Come, for it is forbidden to derive benefit from words of Torah in this world. The Sages said: ‘Anyone who benefits from words of Torah removes his life from the world.’ And they further commanded and said: ‘Do not make them a crown with which to aggrandize yourself, nor a spade with which to dig.’ And they further commanded and said: ‘Love work and hate lordship (authority, politics).’ And any Torah that is not accompanied by work will ultimately be nullified; and the end of such a person is that he will rob the public.” See also the expansion in the Commentary on the Mishnah on “Do not make them a crown to magnify yourself, nor a spade to dig with.” Meaning: Torah study is not a legitimate profession from which to earn a living. One who does this—has no share in the World to Come. Beyond this, one who studies Torah and does not ensure to support himself with a legitimate profession will, in the end, be a thief and a criminal. To expect or to ask the public to support Torah learners is a desecration of God’s Name and arouses hatred toward Torah learners. Let them argue with Maimonides’ ruling as much as they wish. It is clear as day that the hatred some of the public has toward the Haredim is precisely on this point: shirking the public burden and casting themselves upon the public with the claim that the public must support Torah learners. So whether or not one agrees with Maimonides about whether technically one may earn a living from Torah study—he is right, and it is a desecration of God’s Name. And what about the core curriculum? One can argue about studying the sciences or higher education—whether this is something one is halakhically obligated to learn. According to Maimonides it is clear that one should learn them, and it is not considered “secular studies” at all but part of Torah study—“Ma’aseh Bereishit.” Maimonides says this in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah and repeats it countless times in the Guide of the Perplexed. |
But core studies come before that: they are the basic skills that enable one to study a profession later on.
In the discussion with Amit Segal, Gafni said that in the state system they do not learn “Jewish core studies.” The truth is that in the Haredi yeshivot they also do not learn “Jewish core studies.” They only learn Talmud and musar (ethical literature). Neither of these is “Jewish core studies.” Gafni asked why the Bible (Tanakh) is not studied in the state system. I ask why the Bible is not studied in Haredi yeshivot. “Jewish core studies” include: Bible, foundational works in Jewish thought (Kuzari, Emunot Ve-De’ot by Saadya Gaon, Maimonides’ Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, Maimonides’ writings, etc.), Mishnah, and halakha. Apart from a bit of halakha, Haredi education studies none of this—only Talmud. Talmud is not “Jewish core studies” but advanced study (which one should not study before mastering the core). By the way, according to Maimonides, its goal has already been achieved in the halakhic rulings of the Mishneh Torah, and one need not engage in it excessively as though its goal were sharpening one’s debating skills. And do the Haredim not know all these statements of Maimonides? The answer is no. All these appear in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, De’ot, and Torah Study. All of these are in the first book of the Mishneh Torah—The Book of Knowledge. And this is the book (together with the Guide of the Perplexed) that they used to burn in the past and that many Haredi rabbis to this day forbid their students to study. So on which Maimonides does Gafni rely? The halakha Gafni mentioned is the final halakha in the Book of Seeds, in the Laws of Shemittah and Yovel. “And why did Levi not merit a portion of the Land of Israel and its spoils with his brothers? Because he was separated to serve the Lord and minister to Him, and to teach His upright ways and righteous laws to the many, as it is said: ‘They shall teach Your judgments to Jacob and Your Torah to Israel.’ Therefore they were separated from the ways of the world—they do not wage war like the rest of Israel, and they do not inherit, and they do not obtain for themselves by the strength of their bodies… And not only the Tribe of Levi, but any person of all who enter the world whose spirit moved him and whose understanding made him wise to separate himself to stand before the Lord, to minister to Him, to serve Him, to know the Lord, and he walked straight as God made him, and he cast off from his neck the yoke of the many calculations that people seek—behold, he is sanctified as holy of holies, and the Lord will be his portion and his inheritance forever and ever, and He will grant him in this world that which suffices for him…” It is worth reflecting on this halakha, because the Haredim often use it to justify their entire way of life. It is important to note that this is in fact the only Maimonides they quote—and they do so incorrectly, with a completely distorted understanding, to justify their worldview and lifestyle. And there is a reason for this: Maimonides’ entire worldview is the polar opposite of the Haredi worldview. First, it is worth noting that this is the final halakha of the Book of Seeds. Why is that important? Because Maimonides tends to conclude each of the 14 books of the Mishneh Torah with words of encouragement and inspiration. That is, this is not necessarily a practical halakha but words of uplift. But let’s see what he actually said. 1. In the penultimate halakha, the Tribe of Levi is exempt from participating in war because they were set apart as a tribe to serve the Lord and to teach (not only to learn) Torah to the public. Because of this they do not receive a portion in the land and do not receive a share in the spoils of war. If the Haredim want to claim they are “like” the Tribe of Levi and are exempt from military service because they learn Torah, then they also should not receive a portion in the land. 2. The purpose of the “exemptions” for the Tribe of Levi is so that they teach and educate the public. Out of the hundreds of thousands of kollel men supported by the public in Israel, only a few truly bring their Torah out to the public. And even then, many of them demand payment for participating in conferences and lectures. 3. The entire analogy between the Levites and those whose “Torah is their profession” according to halakha is only that they are sanctified as holy of holies—not any exemption from military service or anything else. “Whose spirit moved him and whose understanding made him wise to separate himself to stand before the Lord to minister to Him…”—“behold, he is sanctified as holy of holies…” 4. “And he cast off from his neck the yoke of the many calculations that people seek…”—that is, he has no interest in the things that interest other people. Not deal-making, not politics, not vacations and “bein hazmanim,” and no public office whatsoever. 5. “And He will grant him in this world that which suffices for him”—he still needs to support himself. Only that he should be content with sufficient livelihood to live, and no more. Under no circumstances should others, or the public, have to worry about his livelihood so that he can continue to study. In summary: 1. Everyone needs to study the core curriculum; it is essential for acquiring a profession in the future. 2. The sciences are in any case not “secular studies” but part of Torah study—“Ma’aseh Bereishit.” 3. One must conduct oneself financially in a responsible manner and ensure economic growth. 4. I would add—financial education should be part of the core curriculum (for everyone). 5. Everyone should study “Jewish core studies,” including the Haredim. 6. Talmud is not “Jewish core studies.” 7. Torah study is not a legitimate profession from which to earn a living. 8. One who earns a living from Torah study has no share in the World to Come. 9. One who earns a living from Torah study degrades the Torah and causes hatred of religion. 10. One who wants to attain the crown of Torah, or to devote himself solely to Torah study, still needs to support himself. Let him cut back on other luxuries that interest other people and support himself at a subsistence level, and study Torah with the rest of his time. My advice to anyone who wishes to attain the crown of Torah: study a profession and acquire revenue-producing assets that will truly allow you to work little (financial freedom) in order to support yourself, so that you will have more free time to study Torah. |
As for his forceful tone, it is a common phenomenon that someone who speaks emphatically and assertively considers that itself a persuasive argument. Personally, I prefer arguments over declarations and assertiveness. Still, there are good arguments there. The gist of his words is, of course, correct. First I will note a few points in what he wrote, and afterward I will return to the framework of the discussion.
The Misrepresentations
The assertion that Maimonides was by all accounts the greatest of Israel’s sages in exile (it reminded me of Leibowitz’s statement about Maimonides as the greatest thinker and believer and the greatest halakhist since Moses our teacher) is, of course, ridiculous. Not because it’s necessarily false, but because there is no way to determine such a thing. It is the characteristic childish enthusiasm of one who wants to promote his ideas and hangs them on Maimonides by way of ad hominem. It reminds me that I once read in a book by Rabbi Mazuz where he mentioned an article of his in which he “proved” something like that the author of Sha’agat Aryeh was greater than the Vilna Gaon, or something like that. I didn’t see that article, but I’m eager to see how one proves such a claim.
As for the substance of the claim, it is hardly necessary to cite here the words of the Maharshal, who wrote that the Ri and Rabbenu Tam, the Tosafists, were greater than Maimonides. So to say that this undefined claim is agreed upon by all is absurd. I assume that in a poll among the sages of Israel you would get different answers regarding the Talmudic sages (Tannaim and Amoraim), the Rif, Rabbi Joseph ibn Migash, and others, in comparison to Maimonides. And in general, if you have good arguments—and Ben Uliel indeed has them—you don’t need ad hominem tricks or aggrandizing Maimonides’ name to promote and bolster them.
The claim that all of Maimonides’ words are words of received tradition is, of course, baseless. Maimonides has quite a few innovations that are far from the consensus core of our tradition. For example, in his enumeration of the commandments he himself writes that he went against all who preceded him. In the second root he argues that the status of laws derived homiletically (derashot) is that of rabbinic decrees (divrei sofrim)—and this is, of course, his innovation (which does have some esoteric antecedents among the Geonim who preceded him). The Ramban, in his glosses there, writes that this is so problematic that it almost overshadows the value of the entire book. The very construction of a comprehensive halakhic code with rulings without citing the sources in the Sages is an unprecedented act that was the subject of very great controversies (see in Menachem Elon’s Jewish Law on the “codification controversies”), and more and more. Maimonides drew on one halakhic tradition among several, and of course added many ideas of his own, like the other early authorities. It should be clear that I am far from claiming that any of this disqualifies Maimonides’ words. Of course not, since I have no objection to innovations and deviations from tradition. But to say that he alone bears the tradition as against the other sages of the generations is nonsense.
I think that if I had to bring an example from the history of halakha of a sage with an independent mind who did not feel bound to the details of tradition, I would choose Maimonides. So to say of him that he is the most prominent representative of following tradition sounds quite detached. These statements remind me of the way of the “Kav” people to disqualify all others as lacking a tradition to rely on. I have explained in the past that this is the way of all those who themselves deviated from tradition, and they feed their inferiority complex with emphatic declarations about the solid tradition from Moses our teacher directly to their rebbe and against all others (see about this in Column 330. There I also discussed the Briskers’ habit of speaking again and again in the name of “tradition,” apparently for the same reasons.)
Nor would I build too lofty a tower on the financial recommendations he brings in Maimonides’ name—even if Maimonides were the giant of tradition and of the entire universe. Better to act according to common sense and market conditions. Regarding my investments I would prefer to consult, say, Warren Buffett, or any other investment advisor. Maimonides is not the recommended source of study for such matters. Ben Uliel’s attitude toward the Bible and Jewish thought (which, according to him, are the Jewish “core studies”) is of course not acceptable to me; conversely, neither is his attitude toward Talmud (which in his opinion is not included among Jewish core studies). But his argument toward Gafni—“from your own place,” i.e., let him practice what he preaches—is, of course, correct (one who criticizes others for not studying Tanakh should first correct his own practice).
But none of this is my point here. In this column I wish to touch on the framework of the discussion.
The Framework of the Discussion
While reading, I recalled an anecdote brought by Baruch Kahana at the beginning of his critique of my book Two Wagons:
They say that one day the duck called to the eagle: “Are you the one who sees himself as king of the birds? Come compete with me in swimming and we’ll see who is best!” The eagle agreed—no bird like him would flee a confrontation! But he did not get far. His mighty talons were helpless against the currents; his feathers were completely soaked; and midway he was forced to withdraw in shame. “Then you come compete with me!” the duck called out to the eagle’s brother, who had watched his sibling’s defeat. “No, thanks!” the brother replied, and fled back to his lofty nest high atop a mountain.
The duck, who had won two fair contests, was officially crowned the new king of the birds and ruled with a strong hand. No one dared to disagree with his opinion on any matter or field, and no one dared to imagine the marsh without its undisputed master. But after a time an eagle was seen there again, lifting his head proudly. “Who are you?” asked the duck. “The one I defeated or the one who ran away?” “Neither,” replied the eagle. “I am their younger brother. I have come to invite you to a contest—but this time, not of swimming. I have come to propose a contest of flight.”
We have a tendency to engage in polemics on the field set by the speakers who preceded us. For example, the tiresome arguments about where there are more “great Torah scholars” (Hasidim, Lithuanians, religious-Zionists), where there is more fear of Heaven, where there is greater educational success—all suffer from this fallacy. They are conducted by the measures dictated by one of the sides (usually the Haredi side). And so too with Ben Uliel. If Gafni relies on Maimonides, Amit Segal answers with another Maimonides. And then Ben Uliel comes and shows what Maimonides really thought.
But as a certified heretic, I wonder: why should I care at all what Maimonides thought on this matter? Why should Maimonides’ words decide the debate? And not because halakha does not follow him since there are other opinions (see the well-known words of the Kesef Mishneh on that halakha in the Laws of Torah Study. But “as is well known,” the Kesef Mishneh is not considered a serious decisor and one should not relate to his words), but because this is not a halakhic question. Moreover, even in a halakhic question I would not accept Maimonides’ words as an unquestionable authority. One may disagree with him even in halakha, and many do. Our issue concerns how a private individual should conduct himself and how to allocate public resources and tasks; these are questions entrusted to the individual and to the public itself. The answers may of course change with the times and accepted norms—and it’s good that they do. Therefore such citations and examinations of Maimonides’ stance have value that is, in principle, historical-academic (clarifying what Maimonides thought), but their practical value is rather limited.
Consider Maimonides’ words that it is not proper to study Torah and fall upon the public’s shoulders. Those words were written about eight hundred years ago. In our day it is accepted that every society carries on its shoulders outstanding individuals in many fields, and they too “fall upon the public’s shoulders.” See artists, athletes, writers and intellectuals, academics, and more. Is it not right that the Torah should receive similar treatment? Should “the priestess be a barmaid”?! Is it even relevant to cite these words of Maimonides as though eight hundred years have not passed, and as though we do not live in a completely different world in which supporting intellectuals is axiomatic?! Especially when speaking about the desecration of God’s Name—surely that depends on circumstances and accepted norms. What people think changes from time to time. True, even today Haredi conduct is a terrible desecration of God’s Name—but not because of Maimonides’ words and not because of supporting Torah learners. It is mainly because of the proportion of those supported, their general contribution to society, and their attitude toward it. If the demand were to support a few hundred outstanding Torah learners, I would be the first to support it, and I assume there would be many like me (see about this in Column 34).
The Manner of the Discussion: Resorting to Sources and to Halakha
In the religious world, and especially the halakhic one, there is an unseemly tendency to resort to precedents and sources. In a practical discussion in which you have good arguments and straight reasoning, there is no reason to conduct an inquiry into Maimonides’ position—unless you are researching his thought. Can you not say there is a desecration of God’s Name, that it is improper for people not to engage in livelihood, and the like—without resorting to precedents? Maimonides himself wrote this without relying on precedents. By the way, if one is already resorting to precedents, Maimonides is a very shaky basis, since among the decisors and commentators this is a thoroughly minority, even esoteric, view (see the Kesef Mishneh cited above on the spot). I too disagree with the Haredi approach, but not because of Maimonides—rather because of honesty and common sense.
By the way, this is also true with regard to genuinely halakhic questions. There are situations in which the answer is self-evident on the basis of conceptual analysis or simple reasoning, yet people resort to sources and their analysis, to difficulties and answers on this or that early authority, instead of simply saying what needs to be said (see on first-order psak in my article here, in Column 332, and also here). This is all the more so when one relies on sources of little weight in the halakhic world (this or that responsum), just to show that there are precedents. How much more so are these points true when we deal with matters of thought, where by the very genre, sources and precedents have very limited value.
I will note that there still remains in Ben Uliel’s words an argument of “from your own place.” The Haredim tend to rely on Maimonides’ words at the end of the Laws of Shemittah and Yovel, and therefore it is appropriate to clarify Maimonides’ thought on this matter to show the foolishness of their argument on their own premises. And he wrote well that this is not only contradicted by other sources in Maimonides, but that the very application of his words in the Laws of Shemittah and Yovel to the entire Haredi public is a mistake—or in fact a gross falsehood. But for that purpose there was no need for all this length, and certainly no need to explain how great Maimonides was. It therefore appears that Ben Uliel’s goal was also to argue on the substance of the matter.
Discussion
I myself read this in his writings. Of that I am certain. Only regarding the content of the claim am I not sure. Either that the Sha'agat Aryeh was the greatest of the Acharonim, or that he was greater than the Gra, or something like that.
By the way, there is a well-known story about a meeting between the Gra and the Sha'agat Aryeh, where the Gra said to him: You are in the revealed Torah, and I am in the hidden. Maybe that is what made me think of the second claim. Right now it seems to me that it was the first.
"As for his emphatic language, it is a common phenomenon that a person who speaks forcefully and categorically sees this as a persuasive argument"—funny that this bothers you, when your own tactic is much more shallow: to take small mistakes (or not even that; it’s a matter of wording, for example whether Rambam was among the greatest sages of his generation, etc.) and turn the mistakes into deceptions and claim that this is childish, etc. It’s an arrogant, condescending, and very shallow tactic. That’s why I didn’t keep reading.
All right, then I join the desire to see that article (if it contains independent claims, and not a quotation of old praises. I would be surprised).
1 – It is impossible to win a halakhic argument against Haredim on the basis of explicit laws or any Torah sources whatsoever. After all, from their perspective, the da'at Torah of the great rabbis of the generation is the halakhah. So it does not matter how many Rambams we quote, or how many Chafetz Chaims worked in their wives’ grocery stores, or how many Tannaim worked at all kinds of backbreaking jobs. In the end, they have decisors who do not dare contradict the paradigm that has grown in Israel (and to a lesser extent, abroad) in recent years. And from their perspective, that is the halakhah, by definition. The argument needs to take place in the realm of common sense, but among Haredim that barely plays any role.
2 – I very much identify with what you wrote at the end about the irrelevance of laws or semi-halakhic statements from 800 years ago. But where does that leave us—commandment-observant Jews—with regard to all sorts of laws considered binding, touching on the many areas of life in which things have changed beyond recognition, including biblical commandments? Our attitude toward women, gentiles, systems of government, law, etc. Clearly this is a hot and problematic issue, but I don’t think we even have good approaches for how to live alongside it.
It seems to me much simpler to cite the father’s obligation to teach his son a trade and the obligation of a person to go to work so that they will not rob people, because poverty causes them to violate the will of their Creator—both of which were ruled in the Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim—than to go to Rambam. The reasoning is direct, clear, and relevant in our day as at any time. Already now many regard Haredi society as a society of robbers, even if this is done legally through coalition allocations. Violating religion because of poverty does not have to mean robbery specifically. It can also lead to Sabbath desecration and other transgressions. What will Gafni say if Sabbath desecration comes about because poverty causes them to violate the will of their Creator?
2. It only obligates us to think.
That’s all.
A search in Otzar HaChochma turned up the book Durpatekei DeOraita, vol. 3, by Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer, siman 3, page 9, where it says: "And our master, the greatest of the Acharonim (as I brought in my work Brit Yaakov, fol. 138), namely the great gaon Rabbi Aryeh Leib of blessed memory, in his wondrous book Sha'agat Aryeh."
Perhaps this is the thing referred to. (And this writer’s style is very far from Rabbi Mazuz’s style.) And there too, in Brit Yaakov, Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer merely drew on the ropes of quotations and did not speak from himself.
It would be worth reading a few more columns, or at least the books of the writer of the columns, because he answers no. 2 in fairly detailed fashion…
The title is misleading.
Thank you very much for the article!
Very nice. Waiting.
Correct. It remained from an earlier draft. I changed it. Thanks.
With God's help, 12 Elul 5783
On the subject of Torah learners, whether they are in the category of "the tribe of Levi"—see the material I brought in my comment "A Levite" and those following it, on column 34, "On Supporting Torah and the Need for a New Social Covenant."
Regards, Fish"l
It should also be noted that there are many trades that do not require an academic education—merchant, plumber, electrician, bookkeeper, insurance agent, barber, medic, caregiver for the elderly, and many more. All the more so professions in the sacred sphere—rabbi, cantor, ritual slaughterer, Torah scroll scribe, yeshiva teacher, elementary teacher, kashrut supervisor, printer, proofreader, and librarian. So there are quite a few possibilities for making a living even without a matriculation certificate or academic degree.
Regards, Sh.Tz.
Relying on one great authority or another is not meant to strengthen the argument, but to persuade the other side.
You will make an argument that this is a desecration of God’s name, and they will argue that according to their view it is exactly the opposite.
When you bring a Rishon whose view is accepted by both sides, you only force the other side to accept the fact that this is a legitimate opinion that has to be taken into account (not that the way Ben Uliel presented the argument shows that this was his intention rather than merely being combative. In addition, it is clear that Rambam is not a significant figure in terms of influence on the conduct of Haredi society. If the Chazon Ish had written this, it would have been more significant).
This is an instance of the "from where you come" argument that I mentioned.
Our master Michael attacks with great vehemence the "vehemence" of the article under review.
And yet, despite the vehemence, I (the small one) find his arguments correct and without blemish.
"Shall not a priestess be like an innkeeper"? Perhaps it would be better not to fund innkeepers and then not come with complaints on behalf of the priestess. (Does it seem moral to you, or at least practically advisable, to take money by force for something they hate, like "leftists" and Torah, or Kavniks and gender studies?)
An amusing sharpening, except that I did not attack his vehemence. Reading comprehension is a very important skill.
If there is a significant group of people for whom this is important, and without government funding it will not happen, there is logic in funding it.
That Rambam is the greatest of the generation is conventional wisdom. I did not understand what all the fuss was about. Greatness is measured by several parameters, and even if there is some Maharshal or another, in practical halakhah Rambam’s opinion is the most influential. Even the Rema, in his introduction, claimed only that the Tosafists have the advantage of being "the many."
Rambam’s economic recommendations rescue us from rash thinking in the style of "just rely on God." If we are talking about Haredim, there is an ideology such as the belief that things will be fine, or that certainly this is God’s will and halakhah says this is how one should act, and therefore this is the available choice, and if so certainly God will help. When it is written in Rambam—it is the halakhah.
In the claim that Rambam forbids benefiting from Torah study, there is a serious miss. It does not mean that this is merely immoral. It means a halakhic prohibition. That is much more interesting to Haredim. The reason they ruled against Rambam in this matter is because of the need of the generation that people should study, so there is agreement with Rambam’s words, even if not with the sharpness with which he states them. To say today that there is a prohibition against becoming a burden on the public and to set it aside because of the "need of the generation" is certainly laughable and absurd.
The "from where you come" argument is not just "according to Rambam’s own view." It is according to the view of halakhah, where precedents and sources matter.
Just noting in response to the words of the historian Sh.
A. Rambam relied on the table of his brother David until the latter drowned at sea, as explained in his lament over him, and ostensibly his occupation as a physician was not for livelihood but as education.
B. To cite Rambam’s words that it is forbidden to study Torah and support oneself from charity as something agreed upon by all generations before him and as the accepted tradition is somewhat amusing in light of Rambam’s words in his Commentary on the Mishnah, where he prefaces by explaining how innovative his words are and that they would not be accepted by the Torah scholars of his generation (although of course his words have a basis in the Gemara, still this was not the accepted tradition in his time, as is evident from his own words).
That is with respect to the historian puffed up with self-importance..
In any case, it is Torah and we want to learn it—what, in your opinion, is the real resolution of the contradiction in Rambam? I always read the two Rambams and am amused by the thought that two such contradictory texts came from the pen of one man within the same halakhic framework (unlike the Guide for the Perplexed, of course).
A. Was he engaged in medicine before his brother drowned?
B. What is accepted among the "learners" does not necessarily correspond to tradition. This law in our day is clearly extant, and there is a tradition for it, but the Torah scholars of our generation do not accept it.
What is wrong with the proposed resolution (that a person should limit himself on his own, without help)?
We learned in this column not to be emphatic…
When people ask you who is greater, LeBron or Jordan, you dismiss the discussion on the grounds that it is meaningless, but you yourself invest thought, formulation, and writing of thousands of words to show why it is not relevant to compare great figures.
I do not know whose convention this is or what generation you are talking about. In any case, he spoke about the greatest sage among the Jews in exile.
The prohibition Rambam is talking about is not halakhic, at least no more than the prohibition of desecrating God’s name in this act or another, whose basis lies in reasoning and assessment of reality, not in such-and-such sources.
You are also mistaken regarding public need. The Kesef Mishneh there on the passage (which I mentioned) speaks not about the public’s need to have Torah scholars in it, but about the ability to grow and develop in Torah. That is true today as well.
🙂
(Just for the sake of sharpening the point. I did not invest anything in that question in this column.)
Rambam’s words are the most influential on halakhah.
"Do not make the Torah a spade with which to dig" derives from the prohibition against using words of Torah for benefit—"whoever uses the crown passes away." And Rambam combines the prohibition of desecrating God’s name with the intrinsic prohibition involved in benefiting from words of Torah.
O.K., my mistake. A different need. But there is a halakhic prohibition that they permit violating for the sake of need. Meaning that this places the Haredi position in a post facto position: that the "halakhah" is that it is forbidden to benefit from Torah, and there are "meta-halakhic" considerations that make it permissible. That opens the discussion from a much better position.
I would like to ask Rambam’s great devotee, Shmuel Ben Uliel, whether he is careful to observe these words of Rambam:
Rambam, Laws of Marriage 13:11
But it is disgraceful for a woman to be constantly going out, now outside and now in the streets, and the husband may prevent his wife from this and not allow her to go out except perhaps once a month or twice a month as needed, for a woman’s beauty is only to sit in the corner of her home, as it is written, "The king’s daughter is all glorious within" [Psalms 45].
If there is a group for whom it is important, and it is significant, it can fund it itself, no?
Not always. This is one of the types of market failure that requires intervention. For example, if a person is very ill and does not have money for surgery, it is reasonable that the state would fund it for him. A group may hold a value that is very important to it and not have the money to sustain it, or alternatively if it does sustain it, other problems will arise that require treatment. Sometimes it is a liquidity problem (a lot of money is needed right now), and so on.
Read under the heading "Deceptions."
You definitely did invest in explaining why it is not relevant to compare great figures.
Quotations:
"The declaration that Rambam was, by all opinions, the greatest of the sages of Israel in exile . . . is of course ridiculous…"
"It reminds me that I once read in a book by Rabbi Mazuz in which he mentioned an article of his where he 'proved' something like that the Sha'agat Aryeh was greater than the Gra…"
"Yes, to say that this undefined claim is agreed upon by all—that is ridiculous."
"But to say that he is the one who upholds the tradition as opposed to the rest of the sages of the generations—that is nonsense."
Does this mean there will be a continuation on the issue of Torah and work?
No
There is a set of things bought in the world with money; let us arrange it according to the level of importance to the public, since the public buys what is more important to it. Whatever has an audience has more importance in the eyes of the public. When you subsidize any product from this set, the item before it in that ordering gets hurt, even though it is more important in the eyes of the public. That is what you do not see when you subsidize something.
(Everything I write here is only according to your approach, that there really is logic in subsidizing something for a group that values it highly; I do not accept that assumption at all.)
Not every low demand can be considered a market failure.
Two comments.
1.
In the parable of the duck and the eagle competing, I actually see your criticism (and not for the first time), in the best case, as the duck in the swamp (or in the worst case like the "nesharka" of HaGashash) and not like the king of birds atop the cliff. Many times you raise here arguments and discussions among people, rabbis, thinkers, or politicians. And you insist on not engaging within the framework of their discussion.
With a kind of pretentiousness, you go and take the ball and leave to play with it on your own field.
Imagine that someone like Gafni comes and bases his entire argument on Rambam; that is of course his full right. Amit Segal respects him and discusses with him from another Rambam. What is so hard to understand that the issue in the discussion here is Rambam (tempting to write here …the Great Eagle)
Even if he lived a million years ago—so what.
Then along comes Mr. Duck and says, funny stuff, let’s move the discussion to the wastewater in my swamp.
True, that is also your right, but hello, you are in the wrong competition.
The framework of the competition was that they felt like discussing Rambam’s words (and in an intelligent way, it should be said).
The core of the argument is who is a more original copy of him, and you are taking the ball off the field for no reason.
On a personal note: in my view this is what usually leaves you outside most of the discussions in Israeli society.
And your thought in general remains on the bench outside and gathers dust; the number of comments on your columns on the site only proves it.
People like to start from shared starting points and points of contact and return to agreed taboo domains, each according to his style
(Holocaust–Zionism–Torah–God–the Gedolim – evolution – science). That is simply how they are, and you are always complaining about them discussing from the zero point, from absolute nothingness. Enjoy.
Neither Gafni nor Amit said or declared that it is correct to determine reality only through Rambam’s lenses, nor that he is the basis for every framework of discussion whatsoever. But a person comes and says: for anyone interested, I am running a flight competition. A sailing competition is not here.
2.
For years you have written the following argument here:
That Torah study deserves equal treatment to artists, singers, and other scientists who are exempt from military service because of the added value they can provide society. So first of all, I would expect you here too to ask: who exactly determined that this is really all right???
Who determined that every TikTok singer or tattooed hooligan who runs after a ball should receive an exemption from military service.
But beyond that,
there is in your words here an echo of the distinctly Lithuanian complex of devotion solely to Torah
like their pride that Rabbi Elyashiv did not know the names of his grandchildren because he was so immersed in Torah.
Leave aside Rambam, who studied medicine and was troubled by it from morning until evening, as he wrote, and still was a great halakhic decisor by all opinions.
Our Einstein, he—not an angel and not a seraph—spent his time and learned to play the violin beautifully and other things that modesty prevents me from mentioning
and that did not prevent him from giving humanity amazing things.
Contribution and public responsibility in a small country like ours, even if it is minor, can be significant.
Another point you miss or ignore:
the difference is that many of those geniuses who study Torah agree on some level or another that enlistment in the army is a commandment (you surely do not hold that way); some of them even agree that this is an obligatory war against an enemy oppressing them (damn that Rambam).
So maybe we should exempt them from other commandments too, like having children, because their soul yearns for Torah,
or from standing in prayer or standing in line for the rabbi with the lulav, just because at that same time they could ascend to yet another Rashba or crack yet another difficult Pnei Yehoshua. Torah study at bottom is the fulfillment of a commandment, just as you always tell us that in Judaism there is nothing "besides halakhah,"
and Torah scholars, whoever they are, need to observe it.
Summary of the column – the Haredim make use of Rambam and so-and-so argued that they have no possibility of relying on Rambam. A classic religious argument. Then the writer comes and claims that it is not interesting what Rambam said. Why does this take more than 500 words? You could cut the columns in half easily.
Presumably yes. First of all, Rambam wrote "as needed," so presumably that has changed. Today being shut up at home is like being in prison ("house arrest"). In the past it was not like that for women. Besides, today a husband has no power whatsoever to prevent his wife from such a thing because she would divorce him. Today women work outside the home (even the wife of the Chazon Ish worked), so it is not relevant that they should remain at home. And Rambam wrote here words of moral instruction: "It is disgraceful… and the husband may…" And this is not halakhah. What can you do—halakhic books do not always write only pure law. It is like that in the Mishnah too, where there are sometimes aggadic statements.
Rabbi bar bar Chana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Ilai: Come and see the difference between the earlier generations and the later generations. The earlier generations, who made their Torah fixed and their work temporary—both endured in their hands. The later generations, who made their work fixed and their Torah temporary—neither endured in their hands" (Berakhot 35a).
Rabbi Kook explained Rabbi Yehuda’s words (Ein Ayah): "The earlier generations, who made their Torah fixed, and it guided them in the way of true morality, to the fear of God and to good and proper character traits, and their work temporary—both endured in their hands, for little was enough for them, being people of precious traits, their bodies healthy and their souls happy in their labor. The later generations, who made their work fixed, such that concern for materiality filled their hearts and left no proper place for moral concerns, and their Torah temporary—neither endured in their hands, for the traits were corrupted and peace of mind was taken away; one will not say 'enough' even with the accumulation of great wealth, nor will he find contentment in the world with all his possessions."
There is no question at all that labor is required. Even Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, for whose sake the entire world was sustained, was a stonecutter. This was the way of the great Tannaitic figures. The question is what the correct relationship is between Torah and labor. About this Rabbi Meir said: Engage little in business and occupy yourself with Torah.
This is not the first time you have criticized titles of the type "the greatest sage in the last 1000 years," etc.
Statements of that kind usually come to give the reader the sense that one cannot disagree with that sage in question. But for you that does not matter, because you examine arguments and not arguers. So let them say that Rambam was second only to God—so what???
From your point of view it changes nothing.
One should note a few things:
1. Rambam at the end of Shemittah and Yovel spoke not only about Jews but about "each and every person from among all the inhabitants of the world." (Shall we open a kollel for gentiles and raise money for it in Bnei Brak? And its avrechim will be able to study from a mobile phone about which there is concern of Sabbath desecration?)
2. The tribe of Levi was mentioned as those whose role is "to serve God and minister to Him and to teach His ways." The intention is Temple service (sacrifices, priests), the accompanying service of the Levites, and instruction. That was the public service in Temple times. Regarding all other people it says, "to stand before God, to serve Him and worship Him so as to know…" and the intention apparently is standing before God in the sense of living מתוך recognition of God in the sense of the Guide for the Perplexed and its concluding chapters.
3. The Levites indeed received their financial share from the divine table. Regarding all other people, all that is said is that one who casts off from his neck the yoke of calculations—that is, who takes no account whatsoever of matters of this world—God will be his portion and provide him with what is sufficient for him. But it is not the public’s concern to provide this (and what this provision is depends on the interpretation of providence in the Guide).
According to the rabbi’s view, a few hundred Haredi Torah scholars are enough, and they certainly could be supported by the community. If so, where is the market failure?
This discussion is pointless. There is a real reason why they do not enlist, and that is that this is not the army of the Jewish people and one cannot rely on its commanders. It does not matter at all who is in the government, because in any case it does not decide. A parallel army needs to be established to protect Jews.
In a situation where there is no market failure, then there is none. My claim is that if there is market failure, that can constitute justification. But even maintaining a few hundred or a few thousand is not an easy task. The public does not sustain the artists it values, and likewise not the athletes. There too government support is required.
As for the substance of Ben Uliel’s remarks, without addressing the correctness of Rambam’s words on the matter (which I believe are in themselves the truth of Torah, and of course realistic and clear-eyed)—Ben Uliel’s words are rather superficial.
Regarding the tradition from the Geonim and the sages of Babylonia—many, many disagreed with Rambam (even if we accept that this was his own absolute self-perception) and held that it was to them that the chain of tradition and halakhic authority had passed.
As for Rambam’s conduct in his own life—it is not true that throughout his life he supported himself by the labor of his own hands. In one of his letters he writes explicitly that as long as his brother David was alive, it was he who supported him, and Rambam sat occupied with Torah and worship; only after David’s ship was wrecked at sea, and after a year or two in which Rambam was apparently sunk in grief/depression, did Rambam begin to put to use the medical knowledge he had acquired.
You wrote that you would support supporting hundreds of Torah scholars in measured fashion.
That is absurd beyond absurd, and here the Haredi argument is correct—who will determine who is worthy of support?
And I would add (and this is also a difficulty for the Haredi jobs culture itself): do we want rabbis and Torah scholars who are "official appointees"?
For let us admit the truth: on the day support is filtered according to recommendations/quotas/levels of study/the degree of closeness of the "ornament" to the main faucet, then whatever little Torah study "for its own sake" there is in the people of Israel—where will it go?
Therefore one must summon spiritual courage and climb down from this rotten tree—there is one rule and it will not change—that the state (whether a secular liberal Israeli state or a Jewish theocratic halakhic state) should not fund even one Torah learner, so long as he does not provide real value that can be quantified in providing real value (that is to say, educational—teaching others—or practical) to others—and even these should be measured. No state (not even a radical halakhic state) has any need, for example (not that it is like this now, but people always want it), for thousands of neighborhood rabbis and tens of thousands of kashrut supervisors, and so on.
As for the army—I did not understand why they bring the well-known Rambam in the Laws of Torah Study as counter-evidence? There he speaks about funding study (= avrechim), not about enlistment.
I greatly appreciate emphaticness. It is also very impressive to me. It is just that I have a bit of a problem with your arguments.
Who will determine who is worthy of support? Exactly the same as who determines which academics or artists are worthy of being sustained. One can establish a filtering track with selection according to achievements. You also automatically assume that here there must be corruption, meaning that this issue cannot be overcome (even if we overcome the conventions regarding the number of learners). An interesting assumption, but I do not know what it is based on.
Beyond that, society supports quite a few people who do not provide it with real value, but there are people or groups who want them to exist. In my opinion that is perfectly fine.
In the newsletter Bayit Ne’eman, issue 303, 1 Nisan 5782 (2/4/2022), note 10, Rabbi Mazuz cites from the book Aliyot Eliyahu, note 16, that the Gra said about Rabbi Sha'agat Aryeh that he could run through the entire Talmud in one hour.
Maybe that is what you saw?
One of the latest comments on the site led me here 🙂
Run through it in his mind******
I saw the remarks in some book of Rabbi Mazuz that I leafed through at random many, many years ago, and not in the newsletter. It was not dealing with that statement, which is very well known, but there was a claim there that the Sha'agat Aryeh was the greatest of the Acharonim.
I already wrote to you on a post about military enlistment that you are mistaken about an explicit Mishnah, since the Mishnah Berurah brings this Rambam in the Laws of Shemittah and Yovel as halakhah and not as some sort of coda to a musical composition. You can only try to persuade me that you disagree with the Mishnah Berurah and that the halakhah follows the later authority.
[A small footnote. Regarding recalling the words of Rabbi (Meir) Mazuz, who claimed to have proved something to the effect that the Sha'agat Aryeh was greater than the Gra. That doesn’t sound fitting to me for such a figure—to make broad and careless claims in his central field—and I’m also somewhat inclined to assume that if this existed in his books and articles, I would know it. I do remember that somewhere Rabbi Mazuz praises the concision of the Mishmerot Kehunah, and he brings as a small example a place where the Mishmerot Kehunah successfully condenses the words of the Biur HaGra, which is itself considered concise, reducing it by about half, and according to Rabbi Mazuz this was done without losing information or clarity].