I still remember a Kol Nidre drasha of the Rabbi of my shul in the Bronx, Rabbi Akiva Predmedsky o.b.m., from around 45 years ago! He spoke about the mishnah that says that, if the Kohen Gadol wasn't learned and couldn't study by himself all night, they would read to him the entire night of Yom Kippur, so that he shouldn't fall asleep. The three books that they would read to him were: Iyov, Ezra, and Divrei Hayamim.
Rabbi Predmedsky explained that Iyov symbolizes a person who was involved primarily in his own spiritual well-being. He would offer sacrifices on occasion for his children, but he wasn't involved much in improving others.
Ezra, on the other hand, devoted all of his energies to leading the Jewish people back from the exile and resettling the Land of Israel.
And the book of Chronicles contains lists of genealogies and names of people of varying levels of significance in Jewish history.
If I remember the final vort correctly, the message was that the Kohen Gadol was supposed to reflect on what type of role model does he want to be: someone who devotes the majority of his energies to his own spiritual advancement, or to the community, or just enough to only receive "honorable mention" in the chronicles of the Jewish people.
I agree--you make a good point. It's unfortunate I can't ask Rabbi Predmedsky anymore. I believe he passed away around 30 years ago. He was a very great orator, so his sermons were quite memorable.
There is a statement in Chazal where Iyov says to Hashem how charitable he was. Hashem responds that he wasn't as charitable as Avraham: Iyov only had one entrance to his tent, while Avraham had four!
That also doesn't seem to be much of an "answer" to justify Iyov's suffering, considering there are misers who refuse to ever host guests at all!
See for example, Rav Soloveitchik's “The Crisis of Human Finitude” in Out of The Whirlwind".
Here's a partial "summary" from a review in Tradition by William Kolbrener:
"...Job is represented simply... as the “philistine.” Job’s philistine tendencies show themselves in his desire for “conquest and security”: he “leads a narrow, shut-in-existence,” and all of his efforts are aimed to maintain the status quo, to secure “safety for himself and his family.” Job, the philistine, relates to religious life as an economic affair; his “religious act” is “the expression of a utilitarian, economy-minded individual”... religion is merely “a business venture, a pragmatic affair” through which he “hopes to appease his Creator and thus secure success and safety for himself and his family” ... domesticating the mystery of the divine through an attempt to subordinate it to
his utilitarian designs "
Rav Soloveitchik notes that Iyov's fortunes change for the better when he prays for his friends.
No, I don't know what he is referring to. I would have the same question on Rabbi Soloveitchik and William Kolbrener if they said like Rabbi Predmedsky. Do they have any source that Iyov was only involved in his own spiritual growth? Is there any Chazal or Mefaresh that says like that? Because the pesukim don't sound like that at all.
It thus follows that everything that Iyov did for others was merely out of fear of Divine retribution. All the charity was not out of והלכת בדרכיו; he did not really put himself out there for others. For him, חסד was a boomerang & shield meant to protect himself and ensure his security. So when you say " it's pretty clear that he was involved very much in improving others", you are going in a different direction (שבעים פנים?) than these particular statements of חז"ל.
Which bring us back to the משך חכמה on פנחס who writes rather daringly:
דפנחס עשה שני דברים, האחד שהרג ישראל בשביל נקמת כבוד ד' שלא יתחלל, וזה קנאין המקנאין לכבוד המקום והאומה פוגעים בו, השני שהפקיר את כל העוה"ב וקנא לטובתן של ישראל, וכמו שאמרו ויעמוד פנחס ויפלל שעשה פלילות עם קונו על אלה יהרגו כ"ד אלף מישראל...תחת אשר קנא לאלקיו, שהרג ישראל עבור כבוד הקב"ה, ויכפר על בנ"י, זה כפרת דברים שעשה פלילות עם קונו לתועליות האומה ולאהבתה
According to the משך חכמה, the greatness in פנחס was that he gave away his spiritual growth for the sake of saving עם ישראל.
I'm not picking any fight with him. Why quote him instead of Rabbi Soloveitchik himself? What does Kolbrener add?
".פרוש מיראה כאיוב, פרוש אהבה כאברהם"
I don't think any of that follows from that Chazal. Definitely not that Iyov was only interested in his own spiritual welfare. You might say the *reason* he was so philanthropic was yirah, but that's a very different claim than saying he was only interested in himself. So you have failed to support the claim or show the relevance to the army.
Where did Rabbi Predmedsky say that Iyov improved others materially but not spiritually? He said he wasn't involved much in improving others, period. And if Rabbi Predmedsky was only talking about spiritually improving others, how would that be relevant to army service, which is materially improving others?
Read it. "Rabbi Predmedsky explained that Iyov symbolizes a person who was involved primarily in his own SPIRITUAL well-being."
Spare me your Yeshivish "He didn't not say it" type stuff. Been there. Done that. In my world words mean what they say. Kvetch away all you like to avoid backtracking.
Honestly, chareidim would be very flattered to be compared to Noach איש צדיק תמים בדורותיו את האלקים התהלך נח, and would be rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of some mechalelei Shabbos or kofrim being compared to Moshe!
Fabulous misunderstanding of the Meshech Chochma's point! It's hilarious how you guys make him out to be a chiloni like yourselves, same as you do to the Rambam. Why not stick with Dawkins and Sam Harris? Why drag our rabbis into this? Anybody convinced by your butchering of the Meshech Chochma will be just as convinced by you quoting Richard Dawkins or Pope if you like.
The butchering refers to comparing chareidim to Noach, and the chiloni army to Moshe. Halevai the chareidim should reach Noach's ankles, and halevai the chilonim should pay heed to anything Moshe said.
It's possible that R' Slifkin is referring to the Dati and Hesder soldiers with that comparison. Those who come from the Beis Medrash, who want to stay in the Beis Medrash, but leave to fulfill their duty to the nation. The chiloni soldiers who risk everything to defend Klal Yisroel have also tremendous merits, be I agree that comparing them to Moshe Rabeinu is a stretch.
"The butchering refers to comparing chareidim to Noach, and the chiloni army to Moshe."
You misunderstood the משך חכמה (see further below), so I'll summarize:
1) Noah secluded himself and did not attempt to straighten out the people in his generation
2) Moshe...put himself out on behalf of Israel in killing the person who had been beating the Israelites
In what way do Charedim compare to the latter?
Where did RNS mention chilonim?
"יש מרבותינו דורשים אותו לשבח... ויש שדורשים אותו לגנאי"
The משך חכמה is operating within the latter דרשה. Why then do you claim that "Halevai the chareidim should reach Noach's ankles"? You're not displaying a coherent understanding of the משך חכמה.
Huh? I never said chareidim compare to the latter. Chas v'shalom to compare anybody to Moshe. You get put in cherem for saying something like that. Why do you say RNS? You should say NS. NS didn't mention chilonim specifically, but some things can be inferred from context. We can have a longer discussion about how to do that if you are interested.
The latter drasha doesn't claim Noach wasn't a tzaddik. Chas vshalom. How can you even think such a thing?
The other clear connection is that in the yeshivah world, a common metaphor used to convey the purpose of a yeshiva is as a Teivas Noach, protecting those inside from the influences of the outside world.
Rav Moshe Taragin draws a powerful, alternative metaphor of the yeshiva being a lighthouse, the years of clarity which we look to for guidance when navigating the choppy waters of work, professional life, secular environments, etc.
Nice but it shouldn't be a stira (and we probably agree): teiva for children and young adults who need to be sheltered from the mabul which will destroy them, and a lighthouse for the adults who already have a strong background and are ready to enter the world to at least remember their beautiful midbar, lighthouse, kulo (at least rubo) torah days.
When people have no response to an argument, they try to discredit their opponent, they try to change the subject, and they accuse their opponent of being obsessed with the argument. I hope such transparent foolishness and nastiness doesn't deter anyone from saying what needs to be said.
I remember a charedi rav reacting very negatively to someone who had written that Noach was a "tzadik in peltz," that is, wrapped in a fur coat, being righteous for himself and not for others. He quoted some charedi gadol who criticized this view heavily. I don't remember the names...except of course that chazal and lots of mefarshim say this.
I think a similar point can be made about Mordechai who was "ratzui lerov echav" which the Midrash explains that some members of the Sanhedrin disassociated with him as his relationship with the malchus caused him to be mevatel Torah. But you can explain that the same way as above.... that was a consequence of giving up of himself for the tzibur, but that certainly doesn't mean that Mordechai made a mistake for being HKB"H's tool to save Klal Yisroel.
Hatzalos nefashos obviously. But גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מהצלת נפשות is true ONLY IN ONE SENSE, not in totality, similar to all sweeping statements of the Gemara makes of this type.
I've always felt that drasha (rov ecghav) was a Rorschach test for the reader as we get no hint at what alternative, if any, those members of sanhedrin would have preferred
A few questions need to be answered before taking on the issue in full, and some additional data needs to be provided.
Do yeshiva students really learn full time.
Do the soldiers really fight
What are the objectives of the war
What are the objectives of the army and state of Israel.
Q1, No. They have an extensive vacation plan. First is Bein Zmanim, and they don't learn formally on Shabbat and Erev Shabbat. Q2 and 3. The IDF values protecting lives of "civilians" than those of the soldiers. Bibi has said that the war objective is not to topple Hamas nor re-take Gaza under Jewish control. The military commanders are leftists. Defeating the enemy is not their objective, but rather "containment." The soldiers are given outdated, substandard military equipment. Jonathan Pollard has given interviews where he says that the IDF should be doing more airstrikes and less ground operations that are booby trapped. He says that that there is a way to get to the tunnels without major risks to the lives of the soldiers.
A dati solider can't become a general or come close.
Q4. 50% of datil leumi Jews leave Torah observance, compared to 30% of Haredi. The goal of the state of Israel is to take yidden away from Torah observance. Therefore, Rav Sternbuch, Rav Binyamoin Zev Kahane HYD, and others say no Jew (whether dati or secular) should be required to join the IDF. To boot, there was an incident recently, where married male soldiers had to stay overnight with female soldiers There were occurrences, a few years ago, where married men and women were on guard duty overnight, and the men cheated on their wives.
“A man of the earth” (Gem. 9:20) - Moshe is more beloved than Noah. Noah went from being called “a righteous man” to “a man of the earth,” whereas Moshe went from being called “an Egyptian man” to “a man of God.” (Midrash Bereishis Rabbah 36:3)
A small point: In my Medrash Bershis Rabah איש האדמה is 36.5 Are there different versions or have I got it wrong ? ?
I don't like the "vort" because in Noach's case, the "secluded" individual was the only one to survive. That either implies that seclusion for divine service is superior to community service or that there were no people that performed community service.
It seems like there’s a misunderstanding regarding the 'seclusion' being referred to here. Here’s the relevant quote:
"We find that because Noah secluded himself and did not attempt to correct the people of his generation."
This refers to a critique by Chazal, noting that Noah didn’t try to rebuke or encourage repentance (it's not referring to the teivah).
The fact that Noah was the sole survivor of the Flood is part of the issue: if Noah had made an effort to correct the people of his generation, he may not have been the only survivor
I still remember a Kol Nidre drasha of the Rabbi of my shul in the Bronx, Rabbi Akiva Predmedsky o.b.m., from around 45 years ago! He spoke about the mishnah that says that, if the Kohen Gadol wasn't learned and couldn't study by himself all night, they would read to him the entire night of Yom Kippur, so that he shouldn't fall asleep. The three books that they would read to him were: Iyov, Ezra, and Divrei Hayamim.
Rabbi Predmedsky explained that Iyov symbolizes a person who was involved primarily in his own spiritual well-being. He would offer sacrifices on occasion for his children, but he wasn't involved much in improving others.
Ezra, on the other hand, devoted all of his energies to leading the Jewish people back from the exile and resettling the Land of Israel.
And the book of Chronicles contains lists of genealogies and names of people of varying levels of significance in Jewish history.
If I remember the final vort correctly, the message was that the Kohen Gadol was supposed to reflect on what type of role model does he want to be: someone who devotes the majority of his energies to his own spiritual advancement, or to the community, or just enough to only receive "honorable mention" in the chronicles of the Jewish people.
I don't understand how your rav could say this about Iyov, when it's pretty clear that he was involved very much in improving others:
בִּרְכַּ֣ת אֹ֭בֵד עָלַ֣י תָּבֹ֑א וְלֵ֖ב אַלְמָנָ֣ה אַרְנִֽן׃
צֶ֣דֶק לָ֭בַשְׁתִּי וַיִּלְבָּשֵׁ֑נִי כִּֽמְעִ֥יל וְ֝צָנִ֗יף מִשְׁפָּטִֽי׃
עֵינַ֣יִם הָ֭יִיתִי לַֽעִוֵּ֑ר וְרַגְלַ֖יִם לַפִּסֵּ֣חַ אָֽנִי׃
אָ֣ב אָ֭נֹכִֽי לָֽאֶבְיוֹנִ֑ים וְרִ֖ב לֹא־יָדַ֣עְתִּי אֶחְקְרֵֽהוּ׃
וָֽ֭אֲשַׁבְּרָה מְתַלְּע֣וֹת עַוָּ֑ל וּ֝מִשִּׁנָּ֗יו אַשְׁלִ֥יךְ טָֽרֶף׃
and
אִם־אֶ֭מְנַע מֵחֵ֣פֶץ דַּלִּ֑ים וְעֵינֵ֖י אַלְמָנָ֣ה אֲכַלֶּֽה׃
וְאֹכַ֣ל פִּתִּ֣י לְבַדִּ֑י וְלֹא־אָכַ֖ל יָת֣וֹם מִמֶּֽנָּה׃
כִּ֣י מִ֭נְּעוּרַי גְּדֵלַ֣נִי כְאָ֑ב וּמִבֶּ֖טֶן אִמִּ֣י אַנְחֶֽנָּה׃
אִם־אֶרְאֶ֣ה א֭וֹבֵד מִבְּלִ֣י לְב֑וּשׁ וְאֵ֥ין כְּ֝ס֗וּת לָאֶבְיֽוֹן׃
אִם־לֹ֣א בֵרֲכ֣וּנִי חלצו [חֲלָצָ֑יו] וּמִגֵּ֥ז כְּ֝בָשַׂי יִתְחַמָּֽם׃
אִם־הֲנִיפ֣וֹתִי עַל־יָת֣וֹם יָדִ֑י כִּֽי־אֶרְאֶ֥ה בַ֝שַּׁ֗עַר עֶזְרָתִֽי׃
Did he think Iyov was lying?
I agree--you make a good point. It's unfortunate I can't ask Rabbi Predmedsky anymore. I believe he passed away around 30 years ago. He was a very great orator, so his sermons were quite memorable.
There is a statement in Chazal where Iyov says to Hashem how charitable he was. Hashem responds that he wasn't as charitable as Avraham: Iyov only had one entrance to his tent, while Avraham had four!
That also doesn't seem to be much of an "answer" to justify Iyov's suffering, considering there are misers who refuse to ever host guests at all!
I think you know what Yehuda P. is referring to:
וה' שָׁ֚ב אֶת־[שְׁב֣וּת] (שבית) אִיּ֔וֹב בְּהִֽתְפַּֽלְל֖וֹ בְּעַ֣ד רֵעֵ֑הוּ
See for example, Rav Soloveitchik's “The Crisis of Human Finitude” in Out of The Whirlwind".
Here's a partial "summary" from a review in Tradition by William Kolbrener:
"...Job is represented simply... as the “philistine.” Job’s philistine tendencies show themselves in his desire for “conquest and security”: he “leads a narrow, shut-in-existence,” and all of his efforts are aimed to maintain the status quo, to secure “safety for himself and his family.” Job, the philistine, relates to religious life as an economic affair; his “religious act” is “the expression of a utilitarian, economy-minded individual”... religion is merely “a business venture, a pragmatic affair” through which he “hopes to appease his Creator and thus secure success and safety for himself and his family” ... domesticating the mystery of the divine through an attempt to subordinate it to
his utilitarian designs "
Rav Soloveitchik notes that Iyov's fortunes change for the better when he prays for his friends.
So Rabbi Predmedsky was on solid ground.
No, I don't know what he is referring to. I would have the same question on Rabbi Soloveitchik and William Kolbrener if they said like Rabbi Predmedsky. Do they have any source that Iyov was only involved in his own spiritual growth? Is there any Chazal or Mefaresh that says like that? Because the pesukim don't sound like that at all.
Rabbi Soloveitchik, huh.
Actually, you probably have no idea who he even was.
"I would have the same question on... William Kolbrener"
He wrote a review essay and accurately summarized the essay. Why are you picking a fight with him?
"Is there any Chazal or Mefaresh that says like that?"
Did you learn חז"ל or מפרשים on איוב? Start with the ירושלמי and the משנה:
".פרוש מיראה כאיוב, פרוש אהבה כאברהם"
לֹּא עָבַד אִיּוֹב אֶת הַמָּקוֹם אֶלָּא מִיִּרְאָה
ברטנורא: מיראה. מדאגת פורענות שלא תבא עליו:
It thus follows that everything that Iyov did for others was merely out of fear of Divine retribution. All the charity was not out of והלכת בדרכיו; he did not really put himself out there for others. For him, חסד was a boomerang & shield meant to protect himself and ensure his security. So when you say " it's pretty clear that he was involved very much in improving others", you are going in a different direction (שבעים פנים?) than these particular statements of חז"ל.
Which bring us back to the משך חכמה on פנחס who writes rather daringly:
דפנחס עשה שני דברים, האחד שהרג ישראל בשביל נקמת כבוד ד' שלא יתחלל, וזה קנאין המקנאין לכבוד המקום והאומה פוגעים בו, השני שהפקיר את כל העוה"ב וקנא לטובתן של ישראל, וכמו שאמרו ויעמוד פנחס ויפלל שעשה פלילות עם קונו על אלה יהרגו כ"ד אלף מישראל...תחת אשר קנא לאלקיו, שהרג ישראל עבור כבוד הקב"ה, ויכפר על בנ"י, זה כפרת דברים שעשה פלילות עם קונו לתועליות האומה ולאהבתה
According to the משך חכמה, the greatness in פנחס was that he gave away his spiritual growth for the sake of saving עם ישראל.
I'm not picking any fight with him. Why quote him instead of Rabbi Soloveitchik himself? What does Kolbrener add?
".פרוש מיראה כאיוב, פרוש אהבה כאברהם"
I don't think any of that follows from that Chazal. Definitely not that Iyov was only interested in his own spiritual welfare. You might say the *reason* he was so philanthropic was yirah, but that's a very different claim than saying he was only interested in himself. So you have failed to support the claim or show the relevance to the army.
"I'm not picking any fight with him. "
Then why did you question if he's just reviewing and summarizing.
" You might say the *reason* he was so philanthropic was yirah, but that's a very different claim than saying he was only interested in himself."
It wasn't me. It was the ברטנורא who, following the משנה, wrote that all of Iyuv's good deeds were in order to protect himself.
" but that's a very different claim than saying he was only interested in himself. "
Very different? Not subtly different? Instead of denying the similarity with superlatives, you should tell us what this big difference is.
"Why quote him instead of Rabbi Soloveitchik himself? What does Kolbrener add? "
Because it was a succinct and accurate summary.
"or show the relevance to the army."
I wasn't talking about the army. And neither was Rabbi Predmedsky. You lost the plot.
Daas torah is fallible? Big if true
Which phrase in those pesukim refers to 'improving others'? It's about material support. Nothing about the spiritual wellbeing of others.
Where did Rabbi Predmedsky say that Iyov improved others materially but not spiritually? He said he wasn't involved much in improving others, period. And if Rabbi Predmedsky was only talking about spiritually improving others, how would that be relevant to army service, which is materially improving others?
Read it. "Rabbi Predmedsky explained that Iyov symbolizes a person who was involved primarily in his own SPIRITUAL well-being."
Spare me your Yeshivish "He didn't not say it" type stuff. Been there. Done that. In my world words mean what they say. Kvetch away all you like to avoid backtracking.
Interesting. The Meshech Chochma’s underlying message is likely partially rooted in the traditional Jewish critique of Christian monasticism
So? We're not friar'im!
Honestly, chareidim would be very flattered to be compared to Noach איש צדיק תמים בדורותיו את האלקים התהלך נח, and would be rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of some mechalelei Shabbos or kofrim being compared to Moshe!
Fabulous refutation of the Meshech Chochma's point! Well done.
Fabulous misunderstanding of the Meshech Chochma's point! It's hilarious how you guys make him out to be a chiloni like yourselves, same as you do to the Rambam. Why not stick with Dawkins and Sam Harris? Why drag our rabbis into this? Anybody convinced by your butchering of the Meshech Chochma will be just as convinced by you quoting Richard Dawkins or Pope if you like.
"Fabulous misunderstanding of the Meshech Chochma's point!"
What is your understanding of the משך חכמה? Please be specific what you mean by "misunderstanding" and "butchering".
" Why not stick with Dawkins and Sam Harris? "
Please refer to where RNS has (approvingly) referred to Harris and Dawkins beyond a passing mention.
The butchering refers to comparing chareidim to Noach, and the chiloni army to Moshe. Halevai the chareidim should reach Noach's ankles, and halevai the chilonim should pay heed to anything Moshe said.
It's possible that R' Slifkin is referring to the Dati and Hesder soldiers with that comparison. Those who come from the Beis Medrash, who want to stay in the Beis Medrash, but leave to fulfill their duty to the nation. The chiloni soldiers who risk everything to defend Klal Yisroel have also tremendous merits, be I agree that comparing them to Moshe Rabeinu is a stretch.
"The butchering refers to comparing chareidim to Noach, and the chiloni army to Moshe."
You misunderstood the משך חכמה (see further below), so I'll summarize:
1) Noah secluded himself and did not attempt to straighten out the people in his generation
2) Moshe...put himself out on behalf of Israel in killing the person who had been beating the Israelites
In what way do Charedim compare to the latter?
Where did RNS mention chilonim?
"יש מרבותינו דורשים אותו לשבח... ויש שדורשים אותו לגנאי"
The משך חכמה is operating within the latter דרשה. Why then do you claim that "Halevai the chareidim should reach Noach's ankles"? You're not displaying a coherent understanding of the משך חכמה.
Huh? I never said chareidim compare to the latter. Chas v'shalom to compare anybody to Moshe. You get put in cherem for saying something like that. Why do you say RNS? You should say NS. NS didn't mention chilonim specifically, but some things can be inferred from context. We can have a longer discussion about how to do that if you are interested.
The latter drasha doesn't claim Noach wasn't a tzaddik. Chas vshalom. How can you even think such a thing?
The other clear connection is that in the yeshivah world, a common metaphor used to convey the purpose of a yeshiva is as a Teivas Noach, protecting those inside from the influences of the outside world.
Rav Moshe Taragin draws a powerful, alternative metaphor of the yeshiva being a lighthouse, the years of clarity which we look to for guidance when navigating the choppy waters of work, professional life, secular environments, etc.
https://yutorah.org/lectures/889386/Sichat-Mussar-Vayeitzei:-To-The-Lighthouse
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-vayetze/vayetze-lighthouse
Nice but it shouldn't be a stira (and we probably agree): teiva for children and young adults who need to be sheltered from the mabul which will destroy them, and a lighthouse for the adults who already have a strong background and are ready to enter the world to at least remember their beautiful midbar, lighthouse, kulo (at least rubo) torah days.
I anticipate the comments section will be flooded.
It might just be locally flooded.
When people have no response to an argument, they try to discredit their opponent, they try to change the subject, and they accuse their opponent of being obsessed with the argument. I hope such transparent foolishness and nastiness doesn't deter anyone from saying what needs to be said.
I remember a charedi rav reacting very negatively to someone who had written that Noach was a "tzadik in peltz," that is, wrapped in a fur coat, being righteous for himself and not for others. He quoted some charedi gadol who criticized this view heavily. I don't remember the names...except of course that chazal and lots of mefarshim say this.
"someone"
That someone was the Kotzker.
One expansion on the idea is the difference between one who dons a fur and one who kindles a fire in response to the cold.
Thank you sir.
I think a similar point can be made about Mordechai who was "ratzui lerov echav" which the Midrash explains that some members of the Sanhedrin disassociated with him as his relationship with the malchus caused him to be mevatel Torah. But you can explain that the same way as above.... that was a consequence of giving up of himself for the tzibur, but that certainly doesn't mean that Mordechai made a mistake for being HKB"H's tool to save Klal Yisroel.
He didn't make a mistake, but גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מהצלת נפשות.
What does that mean practically? When faced with hatzalos nefashos or Talmud Torah, where does the obligation lie?
Hatzalos nefashos obviously. But גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מהצלת נפשות is true ONLY IN ONE SENSE, not in totality, similar to all sweeping statements of the Gemara makes of this type.
תניא אידך "וראיתם אותו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה' " - שקולה מצוה זו כנגד כל המצות כולן so I guess גדול ציצית יותר מהצלחת נפשות.
עי' סוטה כב. תוס' ד"ה כל שאינו
I've always felt that drasha (rov ecghav) was a Rorschach test for the reader as we get no hint at what alternative, if any, those members of sanhedrin would have preferred
bsorot tovot
A few questions need to be answered before taking on the issue in full, and some additional data needs to be provided.
Do yeshiva students really learn full time.
Do the soldiers really fight
What are the objectives of the war
What are the objectives of the army and state of Israel.
Q1, No. They have an extensive vacation plan. First is Bein Zmanim, and they don't learn formally on Shabbat and Erev Shabbat. Q2 and 3. The IDF values protecting lives of "civilians" than those of the soldiers. Bibi has said that the war objective is not to topple Hamas nor re-take Gaza under Jewish control. The military commanders are leftists. Defeating the enemy is not their objective, but rather "containment." The soldiers are given outdated, substandard military equipment. Jonathan Pollard has given interviews where he says that the IDF should be doing more airstrikes and less ground operations that are booby trapped. He says that that there is a way to get to the tunnels without major risks to the lives of the soldiers.
A dati solider can't become a general or come close.
The war in 1967 was 6 days, and this war seems to be never ending. Rav Eliyahu Rahamim Zini is the Rosh Yeshiva of a Hesder Yeshiva says that the war is not being fought properly. A former Golani soldier says the same https://rumble.com/v5kz3hk-former-golani-soldier-with-straight-truth-they-are-sending-you-to-die-inten.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
Q4. 50% of datil leumi Jews leave Torah observance, compared to 30% of Haredi. The goal of the state of Israel is to take yidden away from Torah observance. Therefore, Rav Sternbuch, Rav Binyamoin Zev Kahane HYD, and others say no Jew (whether dati or secular) should be required to join the IDF. To boot, there was an incident recently, where married male soldiers had to stay overnight with female soldiers There were occurrences, a few years ago, where married men and women were on guard duty overnight, and the men cheated on their wives.
“A man of the earth” (Gem. 9:20) - Moshe is more beloved than Noah. Noah went from being called “a righteous man” to “a man of the earth,” whereas Moshe went from being called “an Egyptian man” to “a man of God.” (Midrash Bereishis Rabbah 36:3)
A small point: In my Medrash Bershis Rabah איש האדמה is 36.5 Are there different versions or have I got it wrong ? ?
Love it!!!
I don't like the "vort" because in Noach's case, the "secluded" individual was the only one to survive. That either implies that seclusion for divine service is superior to community service or that there were no people that performed community service.
It seems like there’s a misunderstanding regarding the 'seclusion' being referred to here. Here’s the relevant quote:
"We find that because Noah secluded himself and did not attempt to correct the people of his generation."
This refers to a critique by Chazal, noting that Noah didn’t try to rebuke or encourage repentance (it's not referring to the teivah).
The fact that Noah was the sole survivor of the Flood is part of the issue: if Noah had made an effort to correct the people of his generation, he may not have been the only survivor