The Tribe of Levi in Our Times: The Form of the Discussion (Column 589)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
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.
[A small aside. Regarding the mention of the words of Rabbi (Meir) Mazuz, who claimed to have proven something like that the Shacha is greater than the Gra. It does not seem appropriate to me for a character to make general and careless claims in his central field, and I am also somewhat inclined to assume that if it existed in his books and articles, I would have known about it. I do remember that somewhere Rabbi Mazuz praises the ability to summarize the Mishmar Kehunah, and he cites as a small example a place where the Mishmar successfully summarizes the words of the Gra's commentary, which is considered concise in itself, truncated by about half, and according to Rabbi Mazuz, this is without losing information or clarity.]
I myself read it in his book. Of that I am certain. I am only not sure about the content of the claim. Either the Shaga was the greatest of the last, or he was greater than the Gra or something like that.
Incidentally, there is a well-known story about a meeting between the Gra and the Shaga, where the Gra said to him, "You are in the open and I am in the hidden." Maybe that is what made me think of the second claim. Now I think it was the first.
Well then I agree with the desire to see that article (if there are independent claims there, and not a quote from ancient praise. I would be surprised).
A search of the Treasury of Wisdom brought up the book Dropatki Da'Oriyata Ha'Gh by Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer, page 3, page 19, where it is written, "Our great rabbi of the last days" (as I quoted in the works of the Covenant of Yaakov, page 11), Mr. Niyo Rabba the Gaon Rabbi Aryeh Leib, z.l., in his wonderful book, Sha'gat Aryeh.
And perhaps he is the one mentioned. (And the quality of this writer is very far from the quality of Rabbi Mazuz). And the smell there in the Covenant of Yaakov was only pulling on the strings of the quotes and did not come from himself.
In the Beit Ne'eman newsletter, issue 303, Nisan 17, 5782 (2/4/2022), note 10, Rabbi Mazuz cites a number from "Alyot Eliyahu"; note 16, where the rabbi said about Rabbi Shaga that he could teach the entire Talmud in one hour.
Maybe that's what you saw?
One of the last comments on the site led me here 🙂
To pass on in his mind******
I saw the words in some book by Rabbi Mazuz that I was flipping through at random many, many years ago, and not in a pamphlet. It wasn't about this statement, which is very well-known, but rather there is a claim there that the Shaga was the greatest of the last.
“As for his firm language, it is a common phenomenon that a person who speaks firmly and decisively sees this as a convincing argument” It's funny that it bothers you while your tactics are much shallower, taking small mistakes (not even that, it's a matter of speech, for example if Maimonides was one of the greatest sages of his generation, etc.) and turning the mistakes into deceptions and claiming that it was childish, etc. It is an arrogant, condescending and very shallow tactic. That's why I didn't continue reading.
1 – You can't win a halakhic debate against the Haredim based on explicit laws or any Torah sources. After all, their test is the Torah wisdom of the great men of the generation, the halakhic. So it doesn't matter how many Rambals we quote, how many Chafetz Chaims worked in their wives' grocery stores, and how many Tannaims worked at all sorts of arduous jobs. In the end, they have poskim who don't dare contradict the paradigm that has emerged in Israel (and to a lesser extent, abroad) in recent years. And for them, this is the halakhic, by definition. The debate should be in the realm of common sense, but it hardly plays a role for the Haredim.
2 – I very much agree 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 – those who observe the commandments – In terms of our attitude to all sorts of laws that are considered binding, concerning the many areas of life in which things have changed beyond recognition, including commandments from the Torah. Our relationships with women, Gentiles, systems of government, law, etc. It is clear that this is a hot and problematic issue, but I don't think we even have good approaches to how to live alongside it.
2. It just requires thinking.
That's all.
It's worth reading a few more columns, or at least the columnist's books, because he answers 2 in quite detail…
It seems to me that it is much simpler to cite the father's duty to teach his son a trade and the man's duty to go to work so that they do not rob people because poverty makes them think of their neighbor, both of which are stated in the Shulchan Aruch of the Way of Life, than to go to the Rambam. The reasoning is direct, clear, and relevant to our day as it has always been. Already, many perceive Haredi society as plundering, even if it is done legally through coalitional division. Transgressing religion because of poverty does not necessarily have to be robbery. It is also possible to desecrate the Sabbath and other transgressions. What would Gafni say if they desecrated the Sabbath because poverty makes them think of their neighbor?
Thank you very much for the article!
Very nice. Waiting.
The title is misleading.
Correct. Left over from an earlier version. I changed it. Thanks
Does this mean that there will be a continuation of the issue of Torah and work?
not
On the 12th of Elul, 3rd of July
On the subject of Torah students, whether they are considered to be of the ‘tribe of Levi’ – see the material I provided in my response ‘Ben Levi’ and the following, to column 34 ‘On the holding of the Torah and the need for a new social contract’.
Best regards, Fish’l
It should also be noted that there are many jobs that do not require academic education - merchant, plumber, electrician, accountant, insurance agent, barber, paramedic, caregiver for the elderly and so on. And there are also professions in the sacred field - rabbi, cantor, butcher, sofer, rabbi, teacher, kashrut supervisor, printer, proofreader and librarian. So there are quite a few options for making a living even without a high school diploma or academic degree.
Best regards, Sh”t
Relying on one or another great person is not intended to strengthen the argument, but to convince the other side.
You will present an argument that it is a desecration of the ’ and they will argue that in their opinion it is exactly the opposite.
When you first present an opinion that is acceptable to both sides, you only oblige the other side to accept the fact that it is a legitimate opinion that needs to be taken into account (not that the way Ben Uliel presented the argument shows that this is his intention and not just to argue. In addition, it is clear that the 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 the "where you came from" that I mentioned.
Our Rabbi Michael very vehemently attacks the ”vehemence” of the article under review.
And yet, despite the vehemence, I (the little one) find that his arguments are valid and without flaw.
An amusing refinement, but I didn't attack his assertiveness. Reading comprehension is a very important skill.
Wouldn't a priest be a surrogate mother? Maybe it's better not to fund surrogates and then not to come with complaints on behalf of the priestess, (does it seem moral to you, or at least practically worthwhile, to forcibly take money for the benefit of something they hate like "Smolenists" and Torah or Kovniks and gender studies?)
If there is a significant group of people for whom this is important, and without government funding it wouldn't happen, it makes sense to fund it.
If there is a group that is important to it, and it is significant, it can finance itself, right?
Not always. This is one of the types of market failures that require intervention. For example, a very sick person who does not have money for surgery, it is likely that the state will finance him. A group can hold a very important value for it and does not have money to maintain it, or alternatively, if it maintains it, other problems will arise that require treatment. Sometimes it is a liquidity problem (a lot of money is needed now) and so on.
There is a group of things that are bought in the world with money, we will arrange it according to the level of importance to the entire public, because the public buys what is more important to them, what has an audience, has more importance in the eyes of the public. When you subsidize any product from this series, the member before it in this order is screwed, even though it has more importance in the eyes of the public, that's what you don't see when you subsidize something.
(Everything I write here is only according to your method that there really is logic in subsidizing something for a group that wants to be criticized, I don't accept this assumption at all)
Not every low demand can be considered a market failure.
According to the rabbi, a few hundred ultra-Orthodox Torah scholars are enough. They will certainly be able to be supported by the community. Therefore, where is the market failure?
In a situation where there is no market failure, then there is none. My argument is that if there is a market failure, it can be justified. But even holding a few hundred or thousands is not an easy task. The public does not hold the artists it wishes to honor, and neither do the athletes. That is where government support is required.
The Rambam is the greatest of the generation. It is a convention. I don't understand what the fuss is about. Greatness is measured by several parameters, and even if there is one or another of the Rambam's rabbis, the opinion of the Rambam is the most influential in the halakhah. Even the Rambam in his introduction claimed only that those who have the virtue of "many" have the virtue of "multiple"
The Rambam's economic recommendations are based on reckless thinking in the "near" method. If we are talking about the Haredi, then there is an ideology such as belief that it will be good, or that it is surely the will of God and the halakhah says to behave this way and in any case it is the choice that is available and therefore God will surely help. When it is written in the Rambam, it is the halakhah.
In claiming that the Rambam forbids enjoying Torah study, there is a serious miss. It does not mean that it is only immoral. It means a halakhic prohibition. Which is much more interesting to the Haredim. The reason they ruled against the Rambam on this is because of the generational need for people to learn, so there is agreement with the Rambam's words, even if not with the harshness with which he takes them. To say today that there is a prohibition on falling on the public and rejecting it because of the ‘generational need’ is certainly a hoka and a tallulah
The ”from where you came” is not only ‘according to the Rambam”s system’. It is according to the system of halakhah. In halakhah, precedents and sources are important.
I don't know whose convention and what generation you are talking about. In any case, he was talking about the greatest sages in exile.
The prohibition that Maimonides is talking about is not halakhic, at least no more than the prohibition of blasphemy in this or that act that is based on an explanation and assessment of reality and not on such and such sources.
You are also wrong about the need for many. The question about a website (which I mentioned) is not about the public's need for people to learn, but about the ability to grow and flourish in Torah. This is also true today.
The words of the Rambam have the most influence on the law.
Do not make the Torah a spade to dig in it, it is a prohibition against using the law, if you use the Taga, it is a substitute. And the Rambam combines the prohibition of desecrating the law with the self-prohibition that exists in enjoying the law.
o.k. My mistake. Another need. But there is a halakhic prohibition that is permitted to be transgressed for a need. In other words, this places the Haredi position in a retrospective position. The halakhic position is that it is forbidden to enjoy the law, and there are “meta-halakhic” considerations that are permitted. This opens the discussion from a much better position.
Just stating in response to the historian's words.
A. Maimonides relied on the table of his brother David until he drowned in the sea, as explained in his lament for him, and apparently his occupation as a physician was not for the sake of earning a living but rather for education.
B. Noting Maimonides' words that it is forbidden to study Torah and earn a living from tzaddik as something agreed upon by all generations before him and as a generally accepted tradition is a bit amusing in light of Maimonides' words in the commentary on the Mishnayot that anticipates how much his words are new and will not be accepted by Torah students of his generation (although of course his words have a basis in the Gemara, since this was not the tradition practiced at the time as explained in his words)
This is in relation to the historian who is puffed up with importance.
So it is Torah and we want to study, what do you really think is the solution to the contradiction in Maimonides? I always read the two Maimonides and amuse myself with the thought that the two texts, so contradictory, came from the pen of one person within the same halachic framework (unlike the confused teacher, of course).
A. Was his practice of medicine before his brother drowned?
B. What is accepted among the ’students’ does not necessarily correspond to tradition. This law in our time clearly exists, and there is a tradition for it, but Torah students in our generation do not accept it
What is not good about the proposed settlement (that a person reduce his weight on his own without help)?
We learned in this column not to be dogmatic…
It is necessary to note a few things:
1. At the end of his name, the Rambam spoke not only of Jews but of “every man and woman from all over the world.” (Shall we open a kollel for the Gentiles and collect money for him in Bnei Brak? And will his descendants be able to learn from a mobile phone that is suspected of desecrating the Sabbath?)
2. The tribe of Levi is mentioned as having as its concern “to worship God and serve Him and teach His ways.” This refers to the work of the court (sacrifices, priests), the service of the Levites that accompanies this and teaching. This was the public service during the days of the Temple. Regarding the rest of the people, it is mentioned “to stand before God to serve Him and to worship Him for knowledge,” and the intention is apparently to stand before God in the sense of living from the knowledge of God in the sense of teaching the confused and its concluding chapters.
3. The Levites did indeed receive their financial share from a high table. Regarding the rest of mankind, it is only said that whoever has lifted the burden of accounts from his neck – who is completely oblivious to the affairs of the world – God will be his share and provide him with something sufficient for him. But it is not the public’s business to provide (and what this satisfaction is – depends on the interpretation of Providence in the MOH).
When you are asked 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 thousands of words to show why it is irrelevant to compare the greats.
🙂
(Just for clarification. I didn't invest anything in this question in this column.)
Read under the heading “Falsehoods”.
You definitely invested in explaining why it is *irrelevant* to compare greats.
Quotes:
“The statement that Maimonides was by all accounts the greatest of the Jewish sages in exile . . . is ridiculous, of course…”
“This reminds me of reading a book by Rabbi Mazuz in which he mentioned an article of his in which he ‘proved’ something like the Shaga was greater than the Ger…”
“Yes, to say that this undefined claim is universally agreed upon is ridiculous.”
“But to say that he is the one who upholds the tradition compared to the other sages of the generations is nonsense.”
This is not the first time you criticize titles like “the greatest sage in the last 1000 years” etc.
Statements of this kind usually come to give the reader the feeling that it is impossible to disagree with the sage in question. But it doesn't matter to you because you are examining claims and not making claims. So let them say that the Rambam was second to God, so what???
It doesn't matter to you.
I would like to ask the great follower of the Rambam, Shmuel ben Uliel, whether he is careful to observe these words of the Rambam:
Rambam, Laws of Wives, Chapter 13, Halacha 11
But it is a disgrace for a woman to always go out, sometimes outside, sometimes in the streets, and the husband must prevent his wife from this and not allow her to go out except once a month or twice a month as needed, for there is no beauty for a woman except to sit in a corner of her house, as it is written in +Psalms 5:1+ All her glory is in the king's daughter.
Probably yes. First of all, Maimonides wrote “as needed” so it has probably changed. Today, being locked up in a house is like being in prison (“house arrest”). It wasn't like that for women in the past. Besides, today, a husband has no power to prevent his wife from doing such a thing because she will divorce him. Today, women work outside the home (even the woman in the vision was a working woman) and therefore it is not appropriate for them to stay at home. Maimonides also wrote moral words here: ” It is a disgrace…and it belongs to the husband”. And this is not halacha. What can be done? Books of halacha do not always write only the pure halacha. Even in the mishnah, it is like that, sometimes there are fairy tales in it.
Two comments.
1.
In the parable of the competing duck and eagle, I actually see your criticism (and not for the first time) at best like the duck in the swamp (or at worst like the whistle of the tracker) and not like the king of birds on top of the cliff. You often raise arguments and discussions here between people, rabbis, thinkers or politicians. And you insist on not getting involved in their discussion.
With a kind of pretentiousness, you go to pick up the ball and go play with it on your own court.
It's worth your while for a person like Gafni to come and base his entire argument on Maimonides. This is his full right, of course, Amit Segal respects him and discusses another Maimonides with him. How difficult is it to understand that the person in the discussion here is Maimonides (it's tempting to write here "the great eagle")
Even if he lived a million years ago, so what.
Then Mr. Duck comes along and says, "Funny, let's copy the discussion to whoever has zeros in my egg."
That's your right, too, but hey, you're in the wrong competition.
The competition felt like (and in an informed way, it must be said) discussing Maimonides' words.
The point of the debate is who is a more original copy of him, and you're literally taking the ball out of the court for nothing.
On a personal note: In my opinion, this is what keeps you out of most discussions in Israeli society.
And your thinking in general remains on the bench outside, gathering dust. The number of comments on your columns on the site only proves this.
People like to start from common starting points and launch points and return to areas of taboo agreed upon, each according to their own style
(Holocaust-Zionism-Torah-God-Great God – evolution – science) That's what they do, and you always get them to discuss from the zero point of absolute nothingness. Enjoy yourself.
Neither Gafni nor Amit said or declared that it is right to determine reality only through the prism of Maimonides, and that he is not the basis for any discussion framework whatsoever. But a man comes along and says: For anyone interested, I am running a competition in flight. A competition in sailing is not here.
2.
You have been writing the following argument for about two years:
That Torah study deserves equal treatment as artists, singers and other scientists who are exempt from conscription because of the added value they can provide to society. So before you, I would have expected you to ask here too, who actually determined that this is really okay???
Who determined that every TikTok singer or tattooed hooligan who chases a ball will be exempt from conscription?
But beyond that,
There is an echo of the distinct Lithuanian complex of devoting oneself only to Torah,
such as their pride in the fact that Rabbi Eliashib did not know the names of his grandchildren because he was so immersed in Torah.
Forget the Maimonides, who studied medicine and was bothered by it from morning to night, as he wrote, and was still a great legal arbiter by all accounts.
Our Einstein, neither an angel nor a charlatan, spent his time learning to play the violin beautifully and other things that modesty in seeing
and this did not prevent him from giving humanity amazing things.
The contribution and public responsibility in a country as small as ours. Even if it is minor, can be significant.
Another point you miss or ignore
The difference that many of those geniuses who study Torah agree to one degree or another that enlisting in the army is a mitzvah (you probably don't believe so) Some even agree that it is a mitzvah war against those who oppress them (to hell with this Maimonides)
So maybe we will exempt them from other mitzvahs such as having children because their soul yearned for Torah
Or standing in prayer or in line for the rabbi with the lulav. Just because at the same time they can qualify for another Rashba or crack another hard-edged pen. Studying Torah at its core is observing the mitzvahs as you always tell us that there is nothing in Judaism ‘apart from Halacha’
And Torah students wherever they are should observe it.
Summary of the column: The Haredim use the Rambam and someone claimed that they have no way of relying on the Rambam. A classic religious debate. The writer comes and claims that it doesn't matter what the Rambam said. Why does it take more than 500 words? The columns could easily be cut in half.
Rabbi Aryeh said on behalf of Rabbi Ilai: Come and see what is between the first generations and the last generations, the first generations who made their Torah permanent and their secular work this and that was carried out by them, the last generations who made their Torah permanent and their secular work this and that was not carried out by them. (Blessings to her.)
Rav Kook (Ein Aya) explained the words of Rabbi Yehuda: “The first generations who made their Torah permanent, and it guided them to the path of true morality, to fear God and to good and righteous teachings, and their secular work, this and that was carried out by them, because the little was enough for them, since they had precious means and their bodies were healthy and their souls were happy in their labor. The generations of the latter, who did their work, determined that concern for material things filled their hearts and did not leave a proper place for moral concerns, and their Torah was superficial, this and that was not fulfilled in their hands, because the standards were corrupted and the peace of the heart was taken away, and it will not be said that it is enough to amass great wealth, and will not find contentment in the world with all its possessions.
There is no question at all that work is required. Even Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, for whom the entire world was fed, was a stonemason. This was the way of the great men of the world of the Tannaim. The question is what is the correct relationship between Torah and work. Rabbi Meir said about this: Be less busy and busy with Torah.
This discussion is pointless. There is a real reason why they are not enlisting and that is that it is not the army of the Jewish people and its commanders cannot be trusted. It does not matter at all who is in the government because it does not decide anyway. A parallel army should be established to protect Jews
As for the substance of Ben Uliel's words, without addressing the correctness of Maimonides' words on the matter (which I believe are in themselves the truth of the Torah, and of course realistically sober) - Ben Uliel's words are quite superficial.
Regarding Kabbalah, among the geniuses and sages of Babylon - many, many disagree with Maimonides (even if we accept that this was his absolute self-perception) and believe that they are the ones to whom the chain of Kabbalah and teaching passed.
Regarding Maimonides' leadership in his life - it is not true that he earned his living his entire life from what he earned, in one of his memoirs he explicitly writes that as long as his brother David was alive - He was the breadwinner, and the Rambam sat on the Torah and the work, and only after David's ship was wrecked at sea, and after a year or two in which the Rambam was apparently in a state of sadness/depression, did the Rambam begin to apply the medical knowledge he had acquired.
You wrote that you would support supporting hundreds of Torah students in moderation.
This is beyond absurd, and in this the Haredi claim is right – Who will determine who deserves support?
And I add (and this is also a problem with the Haredi job culture itself) – Do we want rabbis and Torah students ‘on behalf of’?
Yes, let's face it, on the day there will be subsidized support according to recommendations/quotas/levels of study/degree of proximity of the ’jewel’to the main branch, where will even the little Torah ‘for its own sake’ that exists in the Jewish people come from?
Therefore, we need to gather our remaining spirit and get down from this rotten tree – it is one and will not change – That the state (whether a liberal secular Israeli state or a theocratic Jewish state) will not fund even a single Torah student, as long as he does not provide real value that can be quantified by providing real value (whether it is academic - teaching others or practical) to others – and these too must be counted. No state (and even a radical Halacha state) has a need, for example (not that it is like that now, but they always want) for thousands of neighborhood rabbis, tens of thousands of kashrut supervisors, and so on.
Regarding the army – I did not understand why they bring up the Maimonides, known in the Hebrew language; Talmud Torah as evidence against him? There he talks about funding study (= avrechim), not about conscription.
I really appreciate it. It also really impresses me. I just have a little problem with your arguments.
Whoever determines who deserves support is exactly the same as whoever determines who academics or artists are worth keeping. A filter path can be established with selection based on achievements. You also automatically assume that there must be corruption here, meaning that this issue cannot be overcome (even if we overcome the conventions regarding the number of students). An interesting assumption, but I don't know what it's based on.
Beyond that, society keeps quite a few people who don't give it any real value, but there are people or groups who want them to exist. That's perfectly fine in my opinion.
I already wrote to you about the recruitment post that you are wrong about the mishnah, since the Mashabah brings this Rambam in the laws of Shemita and Yuval according to the halakha and not as some kind of ending chord to a musical composition. You can only try to convince me that you disagree with the Mashabah and halakha according to the evidence.