I thank the Ba`al ha-Blog, Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin, for sharing this clarification of the position of the Rashbaz. It is a travesty that this ga'on is cited in support of something that so vividly contravenes the values that he held and the life that he lead. For yet another powerful expression by the Rashbaz on this topic, see his autobiographical comments on being forced to take a salary as a dayyan, rather than earn his wage as a physician, after he fled to Algiers (commentary on Avot 4:5).
And now for some links that may be valuable to people who are interested in the topic of this post and things related to it.
1. For more on Rabbi Shimon ben Zemah Duran's attitudes towards Torah and Science, see here:
2. Here is a current (functional) link to download my dissertation of the philosophy of the Rashbaz (the ones at the webpage linked to by Rabbi Slifkin are no longer current (see page 10 for some brief comments and references on this topic):
4. And finally here is a link to the autobiographical comments by Rashbaz on this topic at the end of his commentary to Avot 4:5 (see the end of his comment on that segment):
Yes. There isn't even a הוה אמינא that this היתר could apply to anyone in whom the community doesn't see a need for their paid public service.
The autobiographical comments also bring the point home: Here is an extraordinary Torah scholar who never took a single coin from his community in Spain, but rather earned his livelihood as a expert physician or surgeon. He later faced life-threatening danger in a massive, vicious שמד (in 1391, known as גזירות קנ"א). In order to remain both alive and loyal to the Torah, he literally sacrificed *all* of his extensive wealth and voluntarily became an exile from the only land he ever knew (namely Spain). In a completely new land (Algeria) he faced a choice between starvation or becoming a paid dayyan (at the new community's explicit request). He chose the latter, but never ceased to apologize for it, and instead declared that were he able to return to medicine as a livelihood he would do so in order to honor the Torah. The difference between this and the currently reality is so vast that it boggles the mind.
Why is a secularist, MO, LGBTQ-supporting society the ONLY alternative. What about Yeshivish society in America? Overwhelming majority of people there realize they need to work and don't stay in Kollel their whole lives.
Would you kindly give us your English translation of The Tashbetz’ entire responsa. I’m not sure you’re ignorance is any less than your accusation of Seth’s .
That passage has been quoted up and down this comment board.
This is my third time giving my impression of it:
“I am certainly no expert on Tashbetz, but your [RNS’s] quote of his [Tashbetz] in section “VI” that: חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחבת גבולם בתלמידי'
Suggests to me that he may have been referring to the community supporting /subsidizing the yeshiva tuition for such students (merit based or need based scholarships) not subsidizing a yeshiva student raising their whole family on and supporting their whole lifestyle.
And relatedly, I wonder if that might also be a distinction in 148 between למנותו פרנס for those who actually WORK in leadership positions and EARN that level of support and למטרח בריפתיה for those who don’t.”
Incidentally, I wonder why everyone keeps cherry picking this one passage to quote.
Serious people don't get their Torah from "source sheet" internet blogs, especially those which are entitled with 80s pop rock songs.
That's what I was saying in the previous post. This type of "analysis" is unproductive. Stick to what you know (animals), and leave the learning to the experts.
Actually, serious people appreciate good scholarship wherever they find it, and disdain shoddy scholarship no matter how revered the source. Parshablog, for example, has superior analyses of the Chumash than that found in many a yeshivah.
Ah, so you're backing down from your original claim that serious people don't get Torah from blogs, and now you're saying that it's just my blog which shouldn't be take seriously. Well, I'm sure you'll appreciate that given that I have many years of yeshiva learning and a Master's in Jewish Thought and a doctorate in Jewish history and numerous scholarly publications under my belt, whereas you are some random anonymous guy providing exactly zero arguments as to why my lengthy analysis of Tashbetz is flawed, some people might have a different view as to what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't. Have a great day!
If that's what you took out of my comment then you *really* don't know how to learn. Parshablog is Mikrah, a completely different field than TSHBP. What goes for one doesn't go for the other. And that's aside from the הלכה למעשה aspect. And still further I never said it was the medium of blogs that was the problem, I said "source sheet" internet blogs, and the same is true of "source sheet" learning in general. If you don't even understand what that means then I can't help you, but I assure you a real talmid chacham does. Are you familiar with a single other Tashbetz (which is how people who actually know it refer to it, not "Tashbatz" or "R. Duran") than the one you "analyze" here? How about a single other Drisha? Cherry picking sources doesn't mean a thing. That you have a masters and doctorate in others areas is very nice indeed, but meaningless to learning. Maybe it impresses the עם הארץ, but not those who actually know something.
Look at it this way: Would you be impressed by an accountant that reads the encyclopedia entry and a few things online about amphibians and then writes about it? Would you take seriously even for a moment his advice about how to care for and manage the frogs? Or would you just smile?
Nobody here is claiming that there are other responsa in Tashbatz which lead to different conclusions. In fact, *I'm* the one who brought other sources in Tashbatz which further reinforce my analysis!
As for academic qualifications - what they mean is that I have been trained to analyze texts and understand the ramifications of their context and draw conclusions as to what they are actually saying, rather than merely relying on my yeshiva training, which taught me how to completely isolate texts from context and make them conform to charedi ideology.
You are welcome to claim that I am cherry-picking, but unless you actually have other cherries to exhibit, your claim is meaningless, and as an anonymous critic, it's not as though you actually have any credibility.
Actually 'dumb marine biologists' are also taught to analyze texts and understand the ramifications of their context and draw conclusions as to what they are actually saying.
Typical yeshivish instant response without much thought. 90% of yeshivah people have no idea how to present ideas, no structure, no beginning, no middle, no end, no signposting, just a bilbul of source texts, some sevoris, some more source texts, proofs jumbled up in
the middle, no summaries etc etc etc. Anybody trained in both academia or litigation who also has a yeshivah kollel background can produce a much better 'shtickle torah' than most kollel peope. Why do you think that is?
Cue for the yeshivish response 'are you saying rav chaim k/rav shlomo zalman etc, cannot learn'?
The real problem is when such limited allowance for scholarly support is mixed with the belief espoused in Chareidi circles and mussar books, that anyone can become a gadol hador - if only they worked hard enough. Thus everyone has a right to support and why would anyone in their right mind give that up when celestial pie is up for grabs (in any event there is no correlation between hishtadlus and paranassah - provided one has the requisite bitachon of course!). Based on this view, of course it is sacrilege to teach secular studies to a child as who knows what greatness may be in store for him? Despite the financial ruin bred by this form of intellectual communism - as noble as it sounds - people continue to prop it up at the behest of the leaders/politicians/askanim at the top who have an interest in perpetuating it. Can't help but be reminded of Boxer in Animal Farm.
Rav Moshe also wrote that the name "Draizel" is not a real name. I know many women named Draizel. And he never heard of Menachem Meili either. Are you equating the rare factual error by the gadol hador to his halachic analyses?!
Ah, there we go again! If I recall correctly, it wasn't a forgery, just written by his son Shmuel (I believe) who seems wasn't such a Talmid Chacham. So R' Moshe was close enough. And there is a massive difference between knowing a Halachic sugya, in which R' Moshe was a towering giant, to being able to research historical finds which was not his specialty.
This is an exceedingly surprising commment. You (always?) champion the timelessness of the views of the rationalist Rishonim, now you seem to be adopting the approach of your opponents.
One of your opponents is fond of citing an authority from a few centuries back in Eastern Europe that Rambam לא כתב אלא לדורו. (But that authority himself who recognizes time limits, was talking *לדורו.* That authority might agree that our דור is closer in nature to the Rambam's דור than to his—we should benefit to select elements of Rambam's views even those that were detrimental in centuries-ago Eastern Europe of his day.) Now you're doing that about R' Moshe.
Let me add that R' Moshe's children and students support Kollel today also. They believe his 1962 Teshuva either timeless or at least currently unexpired. If it ever expires they'll let us know. Till then we're to stick with it.
Read the end of R Moshe’s teshuva. He clearly says it should not be limited. To the Slifkins of the world, we quote from last week’s parsha; וכאשר יענו אותם כן ירבו וכן יפרוץ. Keep it up!
I'm not sure who this post was intended for. If it was intended for Natan's target non-Kollel-alumni undereducated MODOX audience, he could just say gobbly gobbly gook and they wouldn't know the difference. If it is intended for a more educated crowd, if they get involved and look up the sources, they will see immediately how Natan is skewing and misrepresenting things, but if someone doesn't have the time, take a look from this comment https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/defying-chazal-is-not-holy/comment/11555117 and on to see how we dealt with this piece as it was concocted. I did notice a couple of new things in this post that weren't mentioned there and hopefully will address them later.
Not being familiar in depth with any of these sources, I would be interested to hear your refutation of Rav Slifkin's arguments. What, in your opinion, is the strongest rebuttal of anything he's said here?
After establishing that a congregation is obligated to support the 'elite' Talmidei Chachamim in their midst, he goes on to say:
ואפי' התלמידים העוסקים בתורה כל ימיהם אף על פי שאינן ראשי ישיבות חייבין הצבור לפרנסם דרך כבודם כדאמרינן בפרק ואלו קשרים (קי"ד ע"א) איזהו ת"ח שבני עירו מצוין לעשו' מלאכתו כל שמניח עסקיו ועוסק בחפצי שמי' למאי נ"מ למיטרח לי' בריפתיה.
He then proceeds to bring proofs from Chazal about supporting seemingly ordinary sounding Talmidei Chachamim. And in s. 148, which Natan conveniently omitted, where he sums up the bottom line of his very long six siman treatise, after talking about the obligation to support 'elite' Talmidei Chachamim, he says:
ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (קי"ד ע"א). ואם יש פרנס בעיר ראוי לכל זה והוא עשיר וגדול מאליו ויש בעיר חכם אחר שצריך שיגדלוהו מדרך ענוה וחסידות הוא שיאמר להם שאותו חכם אחר ראוי לישב בישיבה כדי שיגדלוהו כדמוכח בפ' ואלו נאמרים (מ' ע"א) וכן חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחב גבולם בתלמידי' כדמוכח ההיא דפ' הניזקין (ס' ע"ב) זהו חיוב הצבור.
There are other things as well, but this is possibly the strongest rebuttal. Also, the way the Poskim throughout the generations have understood this heter is simply not as how Natan is trying to misconstrue it. I hope to provide some solid examples later.
No, you cherry-picked one line of it that said עדיין and tried to build a mountain out of it. Every beginning avreich is not yet a moreh hora'ah or Talmid Chacham yet hopes to get there one day. And you conveniently omitted the line that says that every community has to set aside money for all the talmidim who are sitting and learning.
ולמען הרחב גבולם בתלמידי' כדמוכח ההיא דפ' הניזקין (ס' ע"ב) זהו חיוב הצבור
I think this means that more talmidim (even of a lower caliber than the elite who are the source of the obligation) are a benefit for the elite scholars and therefore the community's obligation to support the elite extends (even) to their weaker students.
As long as a students presence in yeshiva adds to the learning of the elite he should be supported by the community according to the tashhbetz.
From the sequence, it does not sound like it. Here is how he sums up all the responsa on the subject:
(א)
הצבור חייבים לגדל משלהם מי שהוא חשוב בדורו כר' אמי בדורו וגם החכם עצמו נוטל מעצמו הראוי לו לגדולתו כדמוכחא ההיא דפ' הזרוע (קל"ד ע"ב)
(ב)
ואם הוא חכם ששואלין אותו דבר הלכה בכולה תלמודא ואומ' ראוי למנותו פרנס על כל ישראל וריש מתיבתא וכל ישראל חייבים לגדלו
(ג)
ואם שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו דבר הלכה ואומר ראוי למנותו פרנס בעירו והם מגדלין אותו
(ד)
ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (קי"ד ע"א).
(ה)
ואם יש פרנס בעיר ראוי לכל זה והוא עשיר וגדול מאליו ויש בעיר חכם אחר שצריך שיגדלוהו מדרך ענוה וחסידות הוא שיאמר להם שאותו חכם אחר ראוי לישב בישיבה כדי שיגדלוהו כדמוכח בפ' ואלו נאמרים (מ' ע"א)
(ו)
וכן חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחב גבולם בתלמידי' כדמוכח ההיא דפ' הניזקין (ס' ע"ב)
זהו חיוב הצבור.
So, it sounds like the reason for the communal obligation to set up a fund to support Torah scholars is for the COMMUNITIES benefit to have more Talmidei Chachamim. Part of the reason Natan is having such a tough time with this is because he sees zero value in Talmidei Chachamim and Torah study, so he keeps trying to go back to his 'elite scholar' talking point.
And don't think that 'elite scholars' mean bench pressers who learn to themselves the whole day, like R' Elyashiv. It means 'elite scholars' who are providing 'a service for people', and capable of giving entertaining Torah related zoology lectures.
Yes, we're talking about students, not the whole community! Name one community in Europe where everyone sat and learned and no one worked. How about in the time of the beis Hamikdash? Nope. The time of the Tannaim? Nope again. Throughout Jewish history, most people always worked. It's that simple.
We're talking about whoever sets aside their entire day for learning, as is clear in the sources. The Halacha does not give a quota cap on it. We've almost never had it in history, but the world has never been as wealthy as it is now.
Throughout Jewish history (excluding from the Haskalah and on), most people have always been faithful to Halachah. It's that simple.
1. I'm translating הרחב גבולם as the gevul of the elite scholars.
I'm in agreement that the ultimate purpose is the community's benefit however I'm arguing that the immediate michayiv is to increase the learning of the elite.
2. A benefit of my reading is that it could be argued that even according to rabbi dr slifkin any yeshiva that contributes to creating an atmosphere conducive to producing elite talmidei chachamim should recieve as a matter of -obligation- (i.e. community taxes) support.
(I don't think he will actually end up agreeing with this . Maybe he will say " atmosphere conducive " is to indirect or some such however it should be stressed that the tashbetz is talking about chiyuv, and below chiyuv(obligation) is mitzva (not necessarily obligation type command i.e. sort of good deeds) of various levels.)
I know that's how you are reading it, but to me it does not sound like that's what the Tashbetz means. He breaks it down into separate categories and it sounds like it's a unique obligation independent of supporting 'elite scholars'.
I wrote this morning about the same passage to RNS:
“I am certainly no expert on Tashbetz, but your quote of his in section “VI” that: חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחבת גבולם בתלמידי'
Suggests to me that he may have been referring to the community supporting /subsidizing the yeshiva tuition for such students (merit based or need based scholarships) not subsidizing a yeshiva student raising their whole family on and supporting their whole lifestyle.
And relatedly, I wonder if that might also be a distinction in 148 between למנותו פרנס for those who actually WORK in leadership positions and EARN that level of support and למטרח בריפתיה for those who don’t.”
What is the point of quoting this gemara or that tshuva or another midrash? Each side will interpret the material in the way that suits them. There r enough different citations available for every1 to prove their own point.
So perhaps in addition to Mark Twain’s (or maybe Benjamin Disraeli’s) “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics” we can add “citations to Gemaras, tshuvot, and midrashim”. 😜
Might as well add kabalas. Of course. Jewish tradition is at least 2500 years old, and it contains more recorded opinions than u can shake a stick at. In addition, most of those quotes can be interpreted in a very broad range. "Oh, the citation cannot possibly mean THAT literally! Surely it is an allegory--a teaching point! What it REALLY means is THIS: 'shelo asani isha' means it is HOLIER, noch besser, to be a woman!"
Disputant A says I’m correct and Disputant B is wrong. Disputant B accuses Disputant A of faulty interpretations of Disputant B’s and A’s “proofs”. And round and round we go. What do we say about a religion whose sources are so easily manipulated strained and/or farfetched so as to easily allow folks like HappyGoLucky and מכרכר make them fit with their menacing confirmation bias.
By definition, every ancient religion cannot possibly discuss future events and societal changes, so the plethora of opinions is to be expected without divine intervention.
Indeed, no set of laws can be relevant for over 2000 years. It is absurd to try to stretch Talmudic law into today's society. For 1, women r no longer considered chattel property.
The leading reason that frums go OTD is because of halachic treatment of women. Halacha is so out of touch in this domain, that we lose complete faith in halacha in other areas as well. What can shechita possible mean for animal welfare if we hang them by their hind legs, without sedation, and slash their arteries till they slowly exsanguinate to death.
If I recall correctly, the Ramban in his introduction to "Milchemes Hashem" a work defending the positions of the Rif from critics, states that in gemara there are no absolute proofs as in mathematics. One must rather use context and logic to arrive at the most reasonable explanation.
"Frequently, I criticize the charedi mass-kollel system, or stories of people in kollel who are praised even as they need to beg for charity because they have no way to support themselves. I DO SO IN LIGHT OF CHAZAL’S NUMEROUS STATEMENTS ABOUT THE VALUE OF WORK AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY AND OF FORCING THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT ONESELF IN POVERTY."
BS. Gimme a break. You do so because it bothers you that they are 'a threat to national security' and other terms you've used in the past. If it were really for such a holy reason you can start looking in your own backyard for much bigger sins, even if kollel was arguably wrong. YOU ARE FOOLING NOBODY!!!!
Your first source that you bring is the BS. I assume here that you are referring to the בכור שור. Now he predates the רשב"ץ by some 200 years and was one of the Baalei Tosfos. He was close with ר"ת and מהר"י קרא. Now not wishing to cause any more confusion than you have already caused, I'm sure everyone knows that ר"ת is Rav Yaakov Tam. But just to be sure, מהר"י קרא, who is Rav Yosef Kara, is a Talmid of Rashi, and should not be confused with Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch.
So coming back to your reference from the BS, I was wondering whether you are referring to a particular Tosfos, his פירוש על התורה, or one of the סליחות that he composed.
I know you think you're some brilliant prankster who's gonna pull a good joke on that dumb Charedi troll, but besides for your humor being inappropriate (referring to the בכור שור as the bull), it's extremely juvenile and not quite as clever as you think!
There is simply NO ancient source stating that anyone who feels like it is entitled to sit and learn and force other people to support them, whether through begging, collecting, government welfare, or any other means.
That is currently the system in E"Y. This has never before been the case in Jewish history, and that is what Rabbi Slifkin (along with any other objective person) has a problem with. Why is this so complicated?
(Their reason for not working is actually probably not hashkafic, rather historical and sociological - Chareidim are simply scared/unsure/threatened by the thought of interfacing with the larger Israeli economy, and are unsure how to do it. Similar to their lack of participation in the army, though in that case their real concern legitimate.)
??? It's a false choice and the issues have nothing to with each other. Are you allowed to make a claim on someone else's money because he has a TV?
I'm glad to see that you agree with my basic point though.
Again, contrast with the kollel system in America, which NS has no problem with. In E"Y, I might even be in favor of a national support system for an elite few learners, say the top 5%.
Don't hide behind attacking NS and anti-secularist rants. Stay on topic.
So you're saying the halacha is if anyone wants to sit and learn, they can force people to support them. Not a town Rav, rosh yeshiva, or an outstanding scholar. Just anyone? Like one- third of the country in Israel today? (And don't fool yourself - most Chareidim don't not work because all consider themselves holy unique individuals who are somehow pattur from working. They don't work because the government give them free money not to!)
And again, if that is the halacha - and this is the point which you always ignore - why was this this never done in the entire Jewish history? Even in the times of the Bais Hamikdash, the Tannaim, Malchus beis Dovid, most people worked for a living!
It's so bizarre how you constantly claim that the only alternative to the modern charedi system are the most fringe parts of Orthodoxy. You really need to get out more and see the vast range of Orthodox communities that are not Israeli charedi.
Meanwhile, there were observant Jews throughout history that did things that you (and sometimes even I) would find absolutely shocking. Like girls going to dance in the vineyards and boys checking them out for wives, or tannaim dancing with brides on their shoulders, or Rishonim adopting Greco-muslim philosophy and massively adjusting the Torah to match, or Rishonim and Acharonim writing love songs, etc., etc.
1. The point isn't power politics - do you want to poll most non-chareidim in EY and see what think about supporting chareidim who don't work? Would YOU want money taken out of your paycheck to give to people who refuse to work? I don't think so.
2. No one said everything else they do is ok, and again, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
3. Mass kollel was encouraged as a hora sha'ah after the Holocaust. I thought everybody knew that. In EY, state funding was set up when there were 400 yeshiva guys in 1950, which has nothing to with today's situation. The status quo has continued because of unthinking ideological inertia (people are in the habit of protesting whatever their fathers protested for), and the fact that chareidi parties keep on forcing more funding because of their increased political clout, i.e., *because they can*. Why do you think this isn't the case in the U.S.? Different history.
4. Did you even read NS's article?? It's abundantly clear that forcing support for joe shmo to sit and learn is a *daas yachid* who is probably not even saying that!
"And it is better that they would cancel some of their time from studying day and night rather than relying on the community to support them."
The words "it is better" doesn't imply something is obligatory.
"“And if he is not yet in this category, but is busy with his studies and leaves his business, the city is required to buy themselves with his sustenance.”
The word yet doesn't imply the person is learning to become a leader. The person is learning. The goal of the support may be to produce leaders but there's no way to tell who will become one.
I am certainly no expert on Tashbetz, but your quote of his in section “VI” that: חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחבת גבולם בתלמידי'
Suggests to me that he may have been referring to the community supporting /subsidizing the yeshiva tuition for such students (merit based or need based scholarships) not subsidizing a yeshiva student raising their whole family on and supporting their whole lifestyle.
And relatedly, I wonder if that might also be a distinction in 148 between למנותו פרנס for those who actually WORK in leadership positions and EARN that level of support and למטרח בריפתיה for those who don’t; which you mention in brief in your post and @Happy expands on in his comment about 45 mins ago.
I think Rabbi Slifkin is often criticized by fanatics, or should I say this is just his ... Ordinary World?... But why couldn't he... Dance into the Fire..?.
I just needed to contribute to these quotes, I felt... Hungry like a Wolf... I feel relieved now, I gotta say.
An interesting topic of conversation would be if Rabbi Slifkin's Cofrut is the consequence of a Timtum Halev caused by 90's pop music. I guess we need to... Save a Prayer... for him, okay, I've got to stop with this.
About the subtitle, you raised the stakes very high for whoever gets things wrong. The way you're putting it, one side is right, while the other side is creating a new religion. Perhaps there's nothing you should know, and your opponents are creating a new religion. Or perhaps there's something you should know, and you are creating a new religion.
Very interesting topic but are there statistics, for the States and/or Israel, to quantify the problem of unemployment/poverty in the chareidi/yeshivish system? It seems in Israel that there are many chareidi men working in businesses and community ventures likes schools. Perhaps they entered the work force later (having learned in Kollel) or are under employed. In the states, most Kollel learners go on to have jobs albeit in their late 20's. Are the collectors knocking on doors really impoverished or just scamming the system. Many of the poverty statistics are hard to interpret as the chareidi communities are younger than other benchmark communities, rely on gemachs for many items and don't have or need cars (in Israel) to the degree of other communities.
Gotta give props to R' Slifkin for this clever line: "They reflexively start chanting Duran, Duran, and expect me to come undone." I figure only about half of his readers will catch the reference.
The Charedi leadership unintentionally has a view to a kill of their society, long term. When men aren't allowed to work or gain skills to work, it produces poverty and their families are hungry like a wolf.
There's a story that one rov was at the (separate) beach when he came up with a proof for the Charedi way of life. He had a ra'aya and was dancing in the sand.
I thank the Ba`al ha-Blog, Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin, for sharing this clarification of the position of the Rashbaz. It is a travesty that this ga'on is cited in support of something that so vividly contravenes the values that he held and the life that he lead. For yet another powerful expression by the Rashbaz on this topic, see his autobiographical comments on being forced to take a salary as a dayyan, rather than earn his wage as a physician, after he fled to Algiers (commentary on Avot 4:5).
And now for some links that may be valuable to people who are interested in the topic of this post and things related to it.
1. For more on Rabbi Shimon ben Zemah Duran's attitudes towards Torah and Science, see here:
https://jtr.shanti.virginia.edu/vol-13-no-1-jan-2022/%E1%B8%A5asdai-crescas-and-simeon-ben-%E1%BA%93emah-duran-on-tradition-versus-rational-inquiry/
2. Here is a current (functional) link to download my dissertation of the philosophy of the Rashbaz (the ones at the webpage linked to by Rabbi Slifkin are no longer current (see page 10 for some brief comments and references on this topic):
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropbox.com%2Fs%2Fu7w87sz3grrobm0%2FBook-of-Abraham-2011.pdf%3Fdl%3D0%26fbclid%3DIwAR1mjgbAUObq1im2aeoJo6_F-QGWh-YLw9e2LDMW_LjryWdutKvyjHxiKLs&h=AT3DWEphX8eUGe1nCyxVqN_3nCCLzaD7UUcKpzZE1ODF5m2-_0ubZ8HruWnXw_RMGU_c8-9u7YUOzfyaA6EQfZP_5DF2uQhJ6w8reM14_gBGDVC2oNTJblIVoIB7qkJ6u0ATpKK9Irs
3. And here is a direct link to my guest blog on the "Torah Encylopedia" of Rashbaz (an earlier and easier-to-read version of link #1 above):
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/guest-post-r-shimon-b-tzemach-durans
4. And finally here is a link to the autobiographical comments by Rashbaz on this topic at the end of his commentary to Avot 4:5 (see the end of his comment on that segment):
https://mishna.alhatorah.org/Dual/R._Shimon_b._Tzemach_Duran/Avot/4.5#m7e1n6
Thank you so much for those links. I noticed the following in his commentary to Avot:
מכל אלו המעשים נראה שאדם חשוב וצבור צריכין לו מותר ליטול ממון מהם
There we have it in black-and-white. It's about an important person that the community needs.
Yes. There isn't even a הוה אמינא that this היתר could apply to anyone in whom the community doesn't see a need for their paid public service.
The autobiographical comments also bring the point home: Here is an extraordinary Torah scholar who never took a single coin from his community in Spain, but rather earned his livelihood as a expert physician or surgeon. He later faced life-threatening danger in a massive, vicious שמד (in 1391, known as גזירות קנ"א). In order to remain both alive and loyal to the Torah, he literally sacrificed *all* of his extensive wealth and voluntarily became an exile from the only land he ever knew (namely Spain). In a completely new land (Algeria) he faced a choice between starvation or becoming a paid dayyan (at the new community's explicit request). He chose the latter, but never ceased to apologize for it, and instead declared that were he able to return to medicine as a livelihood he would do so in order to honor the Torah. The difference between this and the currently reality is so vast that it boggles the mind.
Why is a secularist, MO, LGBTQ-supporting society the ONLY alternative. What about Yeshivish society in America? Overwhelming majority of people there realize they need to work and don't stay in Kollel their whole lives.
@HappyGoLucky,
No it could not be less clear.
Would you kindly give us your English translation of The Tashbetz’ entire responsa. I’m not sure you’re ignorance is any less than your accusation of Seth’s .
Uriah,
That passage has been quoted up and down this comment board.
This is my third time giving my impression of it:
“I am certainly no expert on Tashbetz, but your [RNS’s] quote of his [Tashbetz] in section “VI” that: חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחבת גבולם בתלמידי'
Suggests to me that he may have been referring to the community supporting /subsidizing the yeshiva tuition for such students (merit based or need based scholarships) not subsidizing a yeshiva student raising their whole family on and supporting their whole lifestyle.
And relatedly, I wonder if that might also be a distinction in 148 between למנותו פרנס for those who actually WORK in leadership positions and EARN that level of support and למטרח בריפתיה for those who don’t.”
Incidentally, I wonder why everyone keeps cherry picking this one passage to quote.
Serious people don't get their Torah from "source sheet" internet blogs, especially those which are entitled with 80s pop rock songs.
That's what I was saying in the previous post. This type of "analysis" is unproductive. Stick to what you know (animals), and leave the learning to the experts.
Actually, serious people appreciate good scholarship wherever they find it, and disdain shoddy scholarship no matter how revered the source. Parshablog, for example, has superior analyses of the Chumash than that found in many a yeshivah.
I agree completely, I've used it many times, it's excellent. But this isn't parshablog, and you're not Josh Waxman.
Ah, so you're backing down from your original claim that serious people don't get Torah from blogs, and now you're saying that it's just my blog which shouldn't be take seriously. Well, I'm sure you'll appreciate that given that I have many years of yeshiva learning and a Master's in Jewish Thought and a doctorate in Jewish history and numerous scholarly publications under my belt, whereas you are some random anonymous guy providing exactly zero arguments as to why my lengthy analysis of Tashbetz is flawed, some people might have a different view as to what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't. Have a great day!
If that's what you took out of my comment then you *really* don't know how to learn. Parshablog is Mikrah, a completely different field than TSHBP. What goes for one doesn't go for the other. And that's aside from the הלכה למעשה aspect. And still further I never said it was the medium of blogs that was the problem, I said "source sheet" internet blogs, and the same is true of "source sheet" learning in general. If you don't even understand what that means then I can't help you, but I assure you a real talmid chacham does. Are you familiar with a single other Tashbetz (which is how people who actually know it refer to it, not "Tashbatz" or "R. Duran") than the one you "analyze" here? How about a single other Drisha? Cherry picking sources doesn't mean a thing. That you have a masters and doctorate in others areas is very nice indeed, but meaningless to learning. Maybe it impresses the עם הארץ, but not those who actually know something.
Look at it this way: Would you be impressed by an accountant that reads the encyclopedia entry and a few things online about amphibians and then writes about it? Would you take seriously even for a moment his advice about how to care for and manage the frogs? Or would you just smile?
Nobody here is claiming that there are other responsa in Tashbatz which lead to different conclusions. In fact, *I'm* the one who brought other sources in Tashbatz which further reinforce my analysis!
As for academic qualifications - what they mean is that I have been trained to analyze texts and understand the ramifications of their context and draw conclusions as to what they are actually saying, rather than merely relying on my yeshiva training, which taught me how to completely isolate texts from context and make them conform to charedi ideology.
You are welcome to claim that I am cherry-picking, but unless you actually have other cherries to exhibit, your claim is meaningless, and as an anonymous critic, it's not as though you actually have any credibility.
Actually 'dumb marine biologists' are also taught to analyze texts and understand the ramifications of their context and draw conclusions as to what they are actually saying.
Typical yeshivish instant response without much thought. 90% of yeshivah people have no idea how to present ideas, no structure, no beginning, no middle, no end, no signposting, just a bilbul of source texts, some sevoris, some more source texts, proofs jumbled up in
the middle, no summaries etc etc etc. Anybody trained in both academia or litigation who also has a yeshivah kollel background can produce a much better 'shtickle torah' than most kollel peope. Why do you think that is?
Cue for the yeshivish response 'are you saying rav chaim k/rav shlomo zalman etc, cannot learn'?
By the way, Avigdor Lieberman also understood the Tashbetz like you. So at least you have SOME company.
@מכרכר
So what drives you to assert that Avigdor Lieberman is wrong and you’re right?
UW, I know you're a kofer and a letz, but I always thought you at least had a sense of humor. But it seems the irony of this joke was lost on you.
Whether anybody "gets" your "humor" or not, facetious comments distract from serious discussion of serious issues.
Lol, facetious. Coming from Howard Schranz. You mean comments like this one?
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/duran-duran/comment/11914634
I always wonder what avowed kofrim are doing on this site. If you have no interest in Judaism, aren't the discussions boring?
The real problem is when such limited allowance for scholarly support is mixed with the belief espoused in Chareidi circles and mussar books, that anyone can become a gadol hador - if only they worked hard enough. Thus everyone has a right to support and why would anyone in their right mind give that up when celestial pie is up for grabs (in any event there is no correlation between hishtadlus and paranassah - provided one has the requisite bitachon of course!). Based on this view, of course it is sacrilege to teach secular studies to a child as who knows what greatness may be in store for him? Despite the financial ruin bred by this form of intellectual communism - as noble as it sounds - people continue to prop it up at the behest of the leaders/politicians/askanim at the top who have an interest in perpetuating it. Can't help but be reminded of Boxer in Animal Farm.
Rav Moshe (IM YD 2:116) justified kollel men receiving stipends as a necessity to preserve Torah. I do agree, though, that it should be limited.
Do you also object to the taxpayers being forced to subsidize sporting events and films?
LOL, here is the real reason why he thinks that R' Moshe isn't a proof:
https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-it-better-to-be-supported-in.html?showComment=1367945934924&m=1#c5351836011491589833
"Lone Flame - What makes you so sure that Rav Moshe studied the topic more thoroughly than me? Have you studied my monograph?"
Because he knows better than R' Moshe!🤣🤣
No doubt you also believe that the commentary of R. Yehuda HaChassid is a forgery.
Rav Moshe also wrote that the name "Draizel" is not a real name. I know many women named Draizel. And he never heard of Menachem Meili either. Are you equating the rare factual error by the gadol hador to his halachic analyses?!
Ah, there we go again! If I recall correctly, it wasn't a forgery, just written by his son Shmuel (I believe) who seems wasn't such a Talmid Chacham. So R' Moshe was close enough. And there is a massive difference between knowing a Halachic sugya, in which R' Moshe was a towering giant, to being able to research historical finds which was not his specialty.
Actually, as it happens, I don't think that Rav Moshe was wrong here. I just think that he was writing for the reality of 1962.
This is an exceedingly surprising commment. You (always?) champion the timelessness of the views of the rationalist Rishonim, now you seem to be adopting the approach of your opponents.
One of your opponents is fond of citing an authority from a few centuries back in Eastern Europe that Rambam לא כתב אלא לדורו. (But that authority himself who recognizes time limits, was talking *לדורו.* That authority might agree that our דור is closer in nature to the Rambam's דור than to his—we should benefit to select elements of Rambam's views even those that were detrimental in centuries-ago Eastern Europe of his day.) Now you're doing that about R' Moshe.
Let me add that R' Moshe's children and students support Kollel today also. They believe his 1962 Teshuva either timeless or at least currently unexpired. If it ever expires they'll let us know. Till then we're to stick with it.
Read the end of R Moshe’s teshuva. He clearly says it should not be limited. To the Slifkins of the world, we quote from last week’s parsha; וכאשר יענו אותם כן ירבו וכן יפרוץ. Keep it up!
Yes, he writes that in order to save Torah from being lost, kollel students should be supported, and he wishes that there were many more.
Note that he wrote this in 1962.
People like you said the same exact thing in 1962 as well! Like I said, they failed and so will you!
I'm not sure who this post was intended for. If it was intended for Natan's target non-Kollel-alumni undereducated MODOX audience, he could just say gobbly gobbly gook and they wouldn't know the difference. If it is intended for a more educated crowd, if they get involved and look up the sources, they will see immediately how Natan is skewing and misrepresenting things, but if someone doesn't have the time, take a look from this comment https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/defying-chazal-is-not-holy/comment/11555117 and on to see how we dealt with this piece as it was concocted. I did notice a couple of new things in this post that weren't mentioned there and hopefully will address them later.
Not being familiar in depth with any of these sources, I would be interested to hear your refutation of Rav Slifkin's arguments. What, in your opinion, is the strongest rebuttal of anything he's said here?
These lines:
After establishing that a congregation is obligated to support the 'elite' Talmidei Chachamim in their midst, he goes on to say:
ואפי' התלמידים העוסקים בתורה כל ימיהם אף על פי שאינן ראשי ישיבות חייבין הצבור לפרנסם דרך כבודם כדאמרינן בפרק ואלו קשרים (קי"ד ע"א) איזהו ת"ח שבני עירו מצוין לעשו' מלאכתו כל שמניח עסקיו ועוסק בחפצי שמי' למאי נ"מ למיטרח לי' בריפתיה.
He then proceeds to bring proofs from Chazal about supporting seemingly ordinary sounding Talmidei Chachamim. And in s. 148, which Natan conveniently omitted, where he sums up the bottom line of his very long six siman treatise, after talking about the obligation to support 'elite' Talmidei Chachamim, he says:
ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (קי"ד ע"א). ואם יש פרנס בעיר ראוי לכל זה והוא עשיר וגדול מאליו ויש בעיר חכם אחר שצריך שיגדלוהו מדרך ענוה וחסידות הוא שיאמר להם שאותו חכם אחר ראוי לישב בישיבה כדי שיגדלוהו כדמוכח בפ' ואלו נאמרים (מ' ע"א) וכן חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחב גבולם בתלמידי' כדמוכח ההיא דפ' הניזקין (ס' ע"ב) זהו חיוב הצבור.
There are other things as well, but this is possibly the strongest rebuttal. Also, the way the Poskim throughout the generations have understood this heter is simply not as how Natan is trying to misconstrue it. I hope to provide some solid examples later.
"which Natan conveniently omitted" No, I discussed it in detail. Read the post again.
No, you cherry-picked one line of it that said עדיין and tried to build a mountain out of it. Every beginning avreich is not yet a moreh hora'ah or Talmid Chacham yet hopes to get there one day. And you conveniently omitted the line that says that every community has to set aside money for all the talmidim who are sitting and learning.
Rav Slifkin:
“ No, I discussed it in detail. Read the post again.”
מכרכר:
“No,you cherry-picked one line of it that said עדיין and tried to build a mountain out of It”
LOL ! I haven’t heard such vigorous logical disputations since the era of Lincoln-Douglas.
ולמען הרחב גבולם בתלמידי' כדמוכח ההיא דפ' הניזקין (ס' ע"ב) זהו חיוב הצבור
I think this means that more talmidim (even of a lower caliber than the elite who are the source of the obligation) are a benefit for the elite scholars and therefore the community's obligation to support the elite extends (even) to their weaker students.
As long as a students presence in yeshiva adds to the learning of the elite he should be supported by the community according to the tashhbetz.
If I'm wrong please tell me.
From the sequence, it does not sound like it. Here is how he sums up all the responsa on the subject:
(א)
הצבור חייבים לגדל משלהם מי שהוא חשוב בדורו כר' אמי בדורו וגם החכם עצמו נוטל מעצמו הראוי לו לגדולתו כדמוכחא ההיא דפ' הזרוע (קל"ד ע"ב)
(ב)
ואם הוא חכם ששואלין אותו דבר הלכה בכולה תלמודא ואומ' ראוי למנותו פרנס על כל ישראל וריש מתיבתא וכל ישראל חייבים לגדלו
(ג)
ואם שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו דבר הלכה ואומר ראוי למנותו פרנס בעירו והם מגדלין אותו
(ד)
ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (קי"ד ע"א).
(ה)
ואם יש פרנס בעיר ראוי לכל זה והוא עשיר וגדול מאליו ויש בעיר חכם אחר שצריך שיגדלוהו מדרך ענוה וחסידות הוא שיאמר להם שאותו חכם אחר ראוי לישב בישיבה כדי שיגדלוהו כדמוכח בפ' ואלו נאמרים (מ' ע"א)
(ו)
וכן חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחב גבולם בתלמידי' כדמוכח ההיא דפ' הניזקין (ס' ע"ב)
זהו חיוב הצבור.
So, it sounds like the reason for the communal obligation to set up a fund to support Torah scholars is for the COMMUNITIES benefit to have more Talmidei Chachamim. Part of the reason Natan is having such a tough time with this is because he sees zero value in Talmidei Chachamim and Torah study, so he keeps trying to go back to his 'elite scholar' talking point.
And don't think that 'elite scholars' mean bench pressers who learn to themselves the whole day, like R' Elyashiv. It means 'elite scholars' who are providing 'a service for people', and capable of giving entertaining Torah related zoology lectures.
Yes, we're talking about students, not the whole community! Name one community in Europe where everyone sat and learned and no one worked. How about in the time of the beis Hamikdash? Nope. The time of the Tannaim? Nope again. Throughout Jewish history, most people always worked. It's that simple.
We're talking about whoever sets aside their entire day for learning, as is clear in the sources. The Halacha does not give a quota cap on it. We've almost never had it in history, but the world has never been as wealthy as it is now.
Throughout Jewish history (excluding from the Haskalah and on), most people have always been faithful to Halachah. It's that simple.
1. I'm translating הרחב גבולם as the gevul of the elite scholars.
I'm in agreement that the ultimate purpose is the community's benefit however I'm arguing that the immediate michayiv is to increase the learning of the elite.
2. A benefit of my reading is that it could be argued that even according to rabbi dr slifkin any yeshiva that contributes to creating an atmosphere conducive to producing elite talmidei chachamim should recieve as a matter of -obligation- (i.e. community taxes) support.
(I don't think he will actually end up agreeing with this . Maybe he will say " atmosphere conducive " is to indirect or some such however it should be stressed that the tashbetz is talking about chiyuv, and below chiyuv(obligation) is mitzva (not necessarily obligation type command i.e. sort of good deeds) of various levels.)
I know that's how you are reading it, but to me it does not sound like that's what the Tashbetz means. He breaks it down into separate categories and it sounds like it's a unique obligation independent of supporting 'elite scholars'.
Hey, that quoted passage from 148 looks familiar.
I wrote this morning about the same passage to RNS:
“I am certainly no expert on Tashbetz, but your quote of his in section “VI” that: חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחבת גבולם בתלמידי'
Suggests to me that he may have been referring to the community supporting /subsidizing the yeshiva tuition for such students (merit based or need based scholarships) not subsidizing a yeshiva student raising their whole family on and supporting their whole lifestyle.
And relatedly, I wonder if that might also be a distinction in 148 between למנותו פרנס for those who actually WORK in leadership positions and EARN that level of support and למטרח בריפתיה for those who don’t.”
What is the point of quoting this gemara or that tshuva or another midrash? Each side will interpret the material in the way that suits them. There r enough different citations available for every1 to prove their own point.
@Howard,
So perhaps in addition to Mark Twain’s (or maybe Benjamin Disraeli’s) “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics” we can add “citations to Gemaras, tshuvot, and midrashim”. 😜
Might as well add kabalas. Of course. Jewish tradition is at least 2500 years old, and it contains more recorded opinions than u can shake a stick at. In addition, most of those quotes can be interpreted in a very broad range. "Oh, the citation cannot possibly mean THAT literally! Surely it is an allegory--a teaching point! What it REALLY means is THIS: 'shelo asani isha' means it is HOLIER, noch besser, to be a woman!"
@Howard Schranz,
Yes indeed. It’s called unfalsifiability.
Disputant A says I’m correct and Disputant B is wrong. Disputant B accuses Disputant A of faulty interpretations of Disputant B’s and A’s “proofs”. And round and round we go. What do we say about a religion whose sources are so easily manipulated strained and/or farfetched so as to easily allow folks like HappyGoLucky and מכרכר make them fit with their menacing confirmation bias.
We say it’s baloney.
Which religion is different?
By definition, every ancient religion cannot possibly discuss future events and societal changes, so the plethora of opinions is to be expected without divine intervention.
Indeed, no set of laws can be relevant for over 2000 years. It is absurd to try to stretch Talmudic law into today's society. For 1, women r no longer considered chattel property.
The leading reason that frums go OTD is because of halachic treatment of women. Halacha is so out of touch in this domain, that we lose complete faith in halacha in other areas as well. What can shechita possible mean for animal welfare if we hang them by their hind legs, without sedation, and slash their arteries till they slowly exsanguinate to death.
If I recall correctly, the Ramban in his introduction to "Milchemes Hashem" a work defending the positions of the Rif from critics, states that in gemara there are no absolute proofs as in mathematics. One must rather use context and logic to arrive at the most reasonable explanation.
"Frequently, I criticize the charedi mass-kollel system, or stories of people in kollel who are praised even as they need to beg for charity because they have no way to support themselves. I DO SO IN LIGHT OF CHAZAL’S NUMEROUS STATEMENTS ABOUT THE VALUE OF WORK AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY AND OF FORCING THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT ONESELF IN POVERTY."
BS. Gimme a break. You do so because it bothers you that they are 'a threat to national security' and other terms you've used in the past. If it were really for such a holy reason you can start looking in your own backyard for much bigger sins, even if kollel was arguably wrong. YOU ARE FOOLING NOBODY!!!!
To: מכרכר בכל עוז
Your first source that you bring is the BS. I assume here that you are referring to the בכור שור. Now he predates the רשב"ץ by some 200 years and was one of the Baalei Tosfos. He was close with ר"ת and מהר"י קרא. Now not wishing to cause any more confusion than you have already caused, I'm sure everyone knows that ר"ת is Rav Yaakov Tam. But just to be sure, מהר"י קרא, who is Rav Yosef Kara, is a Talmid of Rashi, and should not be confused with Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch.
So coming back to your reference from the BS, I was wondering whether you are referring to a particular Tosfos, his פירוש על התורה, or one of the סליחות that he composed.
I know you think you're some brilliant prankster who's gonna pull a good joke on that dumb Charedi troll, but besides for your humor being inappropriate (referring to the בכור שור as the bull), it's extremely juvenile and not quite as clever as you think!
We're going around in circles here.
There is simply NO ancient source stating that anyone who feels like it is entitled to sit and learn and force other people to support them, whether through begging, collecting, government welfare, or any other means.
That is currently the system in E"Y. This has never before been the case in Jewish history, and that is what Rabbi Slifkin (along with any other objective person) has a problem with. Why is this so complicated?
(Their reason for not working is actually probably not hashkafic, rather historical and sociological - Chareidim are simply scared/unsure/threatened by the thought of interfacing with the larger Israeli economy, and are unsure how to do it. Similar to their lack of participation in the army, though in that case their real concern legitimate.)
??? It's a false choice and the issues have nothing to with each other. Are you allowed to make a claim on someone else's money because he has a TV?
I'm glad to see that you agree with my basic point though.
Again, contrast with the kollel system in America, which NS has no problem with. In E"Y, I might even be in favor of a national support system for an elite few learners, say the top 5%.
Don't hide behind attacking NS and anti-secularist rants. Stay on topic.
So you're saying the halacha is if anyone wants to sit and learn, they can force people to support them. Not a town Rav, rosh yeshiva, or an outstanding scholar. Just anyone? Like one- third of the country in Israel today? (And don't fool yourself - most Chareidim don't not work because all consider themselves holy unique individuals who are somehow pattur from working. They don't work because the government give them free money not to!)
And again, if that is the halacha - and this is the point which you always ignore - why was this this never done in the entire Jewish history? Even in the times of the Bais Hamikdash, the Tannaim, Malchus beis Dovid, most people worked for a living!
It's so bizarre how you constantly claim that the only alternative to the modern charedi system are the most fringe parts of Orthodoxy. You really need to get out more and see the vast range of Orthodox communities that are not Israeli charedi.
Meanwhile, there were observant Jews throughout history that did things that you (and sometimes even I) would find absolutely shocking. Like girls going to dance in the vineyards and boys checking them out for wives, or tannaim dancing with brides on their shoulders, or Rishonim adopting Greco-muslim philosophy and massively adjusting the Torah to match, or Rishonim and Acharonim writing love songs, etc., etc.
1. The point isn't power politics - do you want to poll most non-chareidim in EY and see what think about supporting chareidim who don't work? Would YOU want money taken out of your paycheck to give to people who refuse to work? I don't think so.
2. No one said everything else they do is ok, and again, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
3. Mass kollel was encouraged as a hora sha'ah after the Holocaust. I thought everybody knew that. In EY, state funding was set up when there were 400 yeshiva guys in 1950, which has nothing to with today's situation. The status quo has continued because of unthinking ideological inertia (people are in the habit of protesting whatever their fathers protested for), and the fact that chareidi parties keep on forcing more funding because of their increased political clout, i.e., *because they can*. Why do you think this isn't the case in the U.S.? Different history.
4. Did you even read NS's article?? It's abundantly clear that forcing support for joe shmo to sit and learn is a *daas yachid* who is probably not even saying that!
"And it is better that they would cancel some of their time from studying day and night rather than relying on the community to support them."
The words "it is better" doesn't imply something is obligatory.
"“And if he is not yet in this category, but is busy with his studies and leaves his business, the city is required to buy themselves with his sustenance.”
The word yet doesn't imply the person is learning to become a leader. The person is learning. The goal of the support may be to produce leaders but there's no way to tell who will become one.
RNS,
I am certainly no expert on Tashbetz, but your quote of his in section “VI” that: חייבים הצבור ליחד תיבה לתלמידים העוסקי' בתלמוד כדי להרבות בישיבה ולמען הרחבת גבולם בתלמידי'
Suggests to me that he may have been referring to the community supporting /subsidizing the yeshiva tuition for such students (merit based or need based scholarships) not subsidizing a yeshiva student raising their whole family on and supporting their whole lifestyle.
And relatedly, I wonder if that might also be a distinction in 148 between למנותו פרנס for those who actually WORK in leadership positions and EARN that level of support and למטרח בריפתיה for those who don’t; which you mention in brief in your post and @Happy expands on in his comment about 45 mins ago.
Happy,
RNS quoted that passage in part “V” of the post. Again, I’m not an expert in Tashbetz, but his analysis seemed reasonable.
I think Rabbi Slifkin is often criticized by fanatics, or should I say this is just his ... Ordinary World?... But why couldn't he... Dance into the Fire..?.
I just needed to contribute to these quotes, I felt... Hungry like a Wolf... I feel relieved now, I gotta say.
An interesting topic of conversation would be if Rabbi Slifkin's Cofrut is the consequence of a Timtum Halev caused by 90's pop music. I guess we need to... Save a Prayer... for him, okay, I've got to stop with this.
About the subtitle, you raised the stakes very high for whoever gets things wrong. The way you're putting it, one side is right, while the other side is creating a new religion. Perhaps there's nothing you should know, and your opponents are creating a new religion. Or perhaps there's something you should know, and you are creating a new religion.
Very interesting topic but are there statistics, for the States and/or Israel, to quantify the problem of unemployment/poverty in the chareidi/yeshivish system? It seems in Israel that there are many chareidi men working in businesses and community ventures likes schools. Perhaps they entered the work force later (having learned in Kollel) or are under employed. In the states, most Kollel learners go on to have jobs albeit in their late 20's. Are the collectors knocking on doors really impoverished or just scamming the system. Many of the poverty statistics are hard to interpret as the chareidi communities are younger than other benchmark communities, rely on gemachs for many items and don't have or need cars (in Israel) to the degree of other communities.
Gotta give props to R' Slifkin for this clever line: "They reflexively start chanting Duran, Duran, and expect me to come undone." I figure only about half of his readers will catch the reference.
תַּשְׁבֵּץ
The Charedi leadership unintentionally has a view to a kill of their society, long term. When men aren't allowed to work or gain skills to work, it produces poverty and their families are hungry like a wolf.
Lay weeks parsha - Benjamin…בִּנְיָמִין֙ זְאֵ֣ב יִטְרָ֔ף בַּבֹּ֖קֶר יֹ֣אכַל עַ֑ד וְלָעֶ֖רֶב יְחַלֵּ֥ק שָׁלָֽל
Brilliant
There's a story that one rov was at the (separate) beach when he came up with a proof for the Charedi way of life. He had a ra'aya and was dancing in the sand.