I skimmed through it, and it is a collection of nonsense and errors on the level of a Mishnah student. First, factually, not everyone enjoys it. On the contrary, in my estimation most do not enjoy it and would prefer some other occupation. Not to mention the meager livelihood they get from it over many years. Second, the purpose of study is not strengthening faith. Where did he get that nonsense from? And third, obviously the main purpose of study is not to know what to do in practice, since that kind of involvement is only a means to fulfilling a commandment. But the study itself is a commandment in its own right. You also do not recite a blessing over a means to a commandment, whereas over Torah study you do recite one (the blessing over Torah study). I have already brought several proofs for this in a number of places; for example, women’s obligation in the blessing over Torah study is explained by the fact that they are obligated to learn the laws relevant to them (Mishnah Berurah and Magen Avraham). So why is it said that they are exempt from the commandment of Torah study? Don’t they need to believe? Don’t they need to know what to do?
In short, these are empty words not worth responding to. What is especially ridiculous here is that these are ideas every schoolchild knows, and someone presenting himself as a scholar should have known them and at least addressed them in his article.

Thank you.
I felt the same way too.
Especially since the writer presents himself as shattering a false myth…

I didn’t understand what bothered you about his writing that the purpose of Torah study is to strengthen faith.
After all, this is God’s Torah, so studying it should strengthen faith…

I didn’t say that study does not strengthen faith, only that this is not the purpose of the study. Sometimes study also gives satisfaction; does that mean its purpose is satisfaction? He proved that this is not Torah study because it does not strengthen faith, and that proof is nonsense. If there is someone whose faith is strengthened by study, good for him, but that is not the purpose of the commandment of Torah study.

I sent a response to the newspaper yesterday. We’ll see what happens with it.

With God’s help,
I would like to respond to Hillel Lerman’s article, “One Can Envy the Yeshiva Students,” published in last Sabbath’s supplement (Parashat Vayishlach, 5782).

The writer is described as a researcher of Jewish thought and philosophy, and precisely because of that I felt I had to respond, because in doing so I am defending the honor of philosophy as well, not only that of Torah and its students. Someone who deals with philosophy and Jewish thought is supposed to present and define his assumptions, and very preferably also substantiate them. But he does not bother to do either. And no, quoting a verse from the Written Torah and a short passage from a letter of Maimonides is not substantiation (especially since from other places in Maimonides himself one can show that he is mistaken). Briefly, I will focus on three main points in his remarks: factual, logical, and halakhic.
Factually: As someone who greatly enjoys study, I repeatedly find that not all yeshiva students enjoy it, and not even the small portion among them who are actually successful at it and talented for it. On the contrary, my impression (from close familiarity) is that most of them do not enjoy it very much and would prefer another occupation. Not to mention the meager livelihood they receive from it for many years. That is the difference between them and those engaged in academic study, without needing “the watchmaker’s magnifying glass,” as he put it.
Logically: The fact that someone enjoys something does not necessarily mean that he does it for the enjoyment and for its sake. Is a fighter in the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit who goes through grueling training and risks his life not entitled to our gratitude because he enjoys the challenge involved?! Rabbi Yehuda says that the obligation of gratitude does not depend on motives, even with regard to the wicked of the world and conquerors like the Romans (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 33b). On this very matter the author of Eglei Tal already touched in his introduction, where he writes that it is desirable and proper to enjoy Torah study (every morning we bless, “And make the words of Your Torah pleasant in our mouths, Lord our God”), but it is not correct to study for the sake of, and because of, the enjoyment.
Torah study: Lerman is mistaken in his assumptions regarding the nature and purpose of Torah study, in both of his assumptions (which are not stated explicitly but are found in the subtext of his words): 1. The purpose of Torah study is not strengthening faith. I do not know where he drew this strange idea from. Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin discussed this at length in Gate 4 of Nefesh HaChaim. I will not bother bringing contrary proofs here (and there are many), since Lerman did not bother to bring even the slightest proof for this assumption. 2. The main purpose of study is not to know what to do in practice, as he assumes. Such involvement is only a means to a commandment, whereas Torah study is a commandment in itself. Moreover, as Rabbi Yisrael Salanter proved, one does not recite a blessing over a means to a commandment, whereas over Torah study one does recite a blessing (the blessing over Torah study).
To see these two points simply, we need only look at women’s obligation in the blessing over Torah study, even though they are exempt from the commandment of Torah study. The halakhic decisors (Mishnah Berurah, Magen Avraham, and others) explain that this is because they are obligated to learn the laws relevant to them. Why then is it said that they are exempt from the commandment of Torah study? According to Lerman, Torah study is about knowing what to do, and that exists for women too. Moreover, don’t women need to believe? As noted, according to Lerman’s view, the purpose of study is strengthening faith.
In conclusion, I have rich experience in going against rabbinic and social consensus, and from this it is also clear that I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that Lerman’s remarks contradict accepted thinking. On the contrary. But I have made it a rule that when I present a novel position, I support it with well-founded arguments. To come out forcefully against accepted foundational ideas while relying on chicken legs and arguments that are factually, logically, and halakhically absurd—that is a self-inflicted wound to intellectual revolutionaries (myself included). In my remarks here, I was also defending their honor.

More power to you.
I knew it was important to bring the article to your attention, especially since you are also deeply analytical in Talmud and the halakhic decisors. Keep us updated if there is a response, and we’d be glad if you also write in this important bulletin.

By the way, in my opinion Talmudic pilpul, even if not for deriving practical Jewish law, is still words of Torah, and it also brings a Jew closer to the Giver of the Torah; and there is a commandment to enjoy and rejoice in it, like every commandment one performs. So the article is flawed from the ground up.

I didn’t understand how on the one hand you prove that Torah study is not for the sake of knowing what to do, from the fact that we recite a blessing on the commandment of Torah study and not on means to a commandment, and on the other hand you say that women are exempt from Torah study and that the reason they recite the blessing over Torah study is because they need to learn the laws relevant to them—after all, that is only a means to a commandment?
Of course, I completely agree with your conclusion…

The first argument was written according to the approach of the Mishnah Berurah and Magen Avraham, who held that this is a blessing over commandments. My own position is that this is not a blessing over commandments but rather praise.