This old essay makes a few critical blunders. You complain about the lack of scholarly analysis and the superficiality of the prominent Talmudists, but then you proceed to put forth a most unscholarly and superficial assessment of your own. And your "analysis", if it can be called such, is riddled with errors.
For example, you seem to think that the justification for kollel is the Rambam's statement in Shemittah v'Yovel. But this is incorrect. The standard justification is those many poskim who allow taking money for learning and teaching Torah, which is the universally accepted ruling.
You also make the superficial and erroneous assertion that the Rambam's statements at the end of Shemittah v'Yovel are mussar rather than halacha. You do not bring any support for this assessment, and you do not bring support for the implication that it being mussar as opposed to halacha would make a practical difference in this case.
You also imply that according to the Rambam, there is a distinction between learning and teaching Torah in terms of the permissibility of taking funds. He is very clear in Talmud Torah that there is no such distinction.
You also make a contrast between Levites and kollel avreichim, inasmuch Levites would teach while kollel avreichim don't teach. This is factually incorrect, kollel avreichim also teach.
You also make a statement about "halachic exemptions" in your discussion about receiving financial assistance for learning. This senseless use of the word "exemptions" can only be the product of a confused mind.
You also invent out of whole cloth an entire historical narrative about the Rambam which concludes "At no point was he simply receiving handouts from his brother." While this does not make any material difference to the issue, as we in any case don't follow the Rambam's opinion on this matter, is there any need to refute your fabrications?
Moving on to your statements about the exemption from military service, you note that the Rambam doesn't make mention of this exemption in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos. But this is irrelevant since he exempts them in Hilchos Shemittah v'Yovel, and there is no rule that the Rambam must place halachos exactly where the ignorant and unlearned would expect them. In fact, anybody familiar with the Rambam would recognize that he puts many halachos in unexpected places on countless occasions. Going with this train of thought, you claim it is absurd that he didn't mention such an exemption in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos. But the only absurdity is one who ignores the words of the Rambam in Shemittah v'Yovel which states that Levites are exempt from warfare, despite not mentioning it in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos.
Then, without missing a beat, you proceed to ignore the fact that the Rambam allows an exemption for Levites which he does not mention in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos, and go on to claim that they are nevertheless required to join a milchemes mitzvah.
Your first piece of evidence is from the Golden Calf, which you fail to notice was before the Levites were chosen, and is therefore irrelevant.
You claim that the Rambam links the exemption of the Levites to their lack of portion in the Land, but omit the fact that he also links it to הֻבְדְּלוּ מִדַּרְכֵי הָעוֹלָם, which would apply to a milchemes mitzvah as well.
You bring support from Rav Kook and Rav Sternbuch, but fail to mention Rav Chaim Kanievsky, who rules that Levites are exempt from all wars.
Finally, you bring a completely unsupported assertion from Rabbi Lichtenstein to the effect that the typical kollel students wouldn’t qualify as "to stand before God, to serve Him, to worship Him, to know God; and he walks aright as the Lord has made him and he has cast off from his neck the yoke of the many considerations which men have sought." Although Rabbi Lichtenstein is perfectly entitled to his baseless and cynical opinion, the many great rabbis who support the exemption based on the honorary Shevet Levi status would disagree.
However, the most glaring flaw of this so-called analysis and all such polemics is the lack of sources demonstrating that everybody must serve in the army. Forget about Torah scholars. What about butchers? Bakers? Shepherds tending their own sheep? What evidence is there that there is a halachic obligation for everybody to serve, whether a milchemes mitzvah or milchemes reshus? And what evidence is there that there must be some equality of burden? This is a critical point, since the entire polemic to draft Torah scholars hinges on this unstated obligation. It is especially problematic in light of the fact that it was historically not the case that everybody or even the majority of the population served in most of the Jewish wars, as can be inferred from troop counts throughout the Tanach. Without this piece, the case of those opposed to exemption for Torah scholars falls to pieces immediately.
Furthermore, there is no analysis and no sources about how many years people can be required to serve, and in what capacity.
The Torah authorities in favor of a draft can forgiven for not bringing evidence or sources for these questions, because those rabbis can make such rulings on the basis of their own authority or "daas Torah", and their followers will heed them. Less forgivable are the unlearned who act as if they know something about the subject and proceed to issue nonsensical and error-ridden halachic "analyses", such as the one under discussion.
Regarding this Rambam. First, i dont know what goes on in Lakewood or in Brooklyn, but thus Rambam is a central course for justifying Army exemptions for yeshiva students here in Israel, cited constantely by charedi spokesmen and appologists (this is reall a moot issue, the charedim have made it clear that they will opposes the drafting of any charedim, whether or not they are actualy learning- so the learning thing is just a cover).
First it should be clear that this is not a halakhic passage. That should be clear to any bar bei rav who has any expereince learning the yad keseder, but as it turns out this obvious fact has been confirmed by R. Sheilat with the passing of R, Chaim Kanievsky, I dot think there is anyone in the chareidi troah world who can claim to be worthy of being his bar plugta on these matters.
but we dotn even need R. Sheilat to tell us this. This in an aggadic passage because it makes no halakhic claims. It nowhere suggests that what ever privledges extended to Leviim in the presvious halakhot apply to these metaphorical leviim. He is simply saying that God will take care of these ovdei hashem ( which the radbaz on the spot empahszies means not taking any ztadaka from the community) not that other jews have other obliglations to them.
I have had this discussion with a few friends, and one argument goes: can you imagine if Rambam had been able to fully dedicate himself to Torah? Instead of having to run from a place to another and working as a court physician? What would he have achieved?
If this was the case, the current system in Israel should have produced huge amounts of Torah giants. But the Torah giants of the last few decades didn't emerge at all from Kollel, quite the opposite.
I personally think that Rambam's genius was fostered by his experience and wide knowledge. Rambam wouldn't be him without all the baggage. The man achieved in a lifetime more than most humans have. And fascinating fact, there is little talk that he was inspired by ruach hakodesh...
1. We finally had the book delivered and are really enjoying reading through the encyclopedia. Great research, fascinating details, seems pretty chareidi so far. Reminds me of the ban on One People Two Worlds, which primarily had the consequence of my going out of my way to read it in high school, and strengthening my frumkeit thanks to Rabbi Reinman.
2. Isn't a museum of Torah just another form of Kollel?
"Can anyone... confront a mirror and tell himself that ... he is kodesh kodashim, sanctum sanctorum, in the Rambam's terms? "
The answer is no. Rav Ahron Kotler explained the Rambam as referring to those Torah students who don't take money from the community. Those who rely on others are שבט יששכר, not שבט לוי.
The Rambam in his letter to the rabbi's of Marseille says that the beis hamikdash was destroyed because our forefathers "sinned" that they "did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands." Here you see the rambam would call charedim sinners.
To wit, while Rambam was able to earn a living through medicine, he only turned to this full time after his brother was tragically lost at sea and unable to continue the arrangement. From that point onward, Rambam’s time was dominated by these financial obligations, lamenting often his lack of time for writing the various sefarim which he wished to pen. Clearly the “tzarich k’lali” to write books for the benefit of the community was insufficient to warrant taking public funds. Moreover, his suggestion that one could take on the mantle of being a “Levi” is specifically for an individual who is so uplifted, not an institutionalized standard for a community writ large for which the rest of the population is required to support.
Rambam sad this, didn’t say that, meant this, didn’t mean that. Implied such, refuted what your earlier posited and couldn’t have possibly sided with your misunderstanding of that…
What pointless, hollow pettifoggery. A religion so easily malleable and transformable so as to make it fit with institutionalised cowardice is not the piety that motivated our faithful forefathers. And always when I see debates like this, I’m informed that I should never have second thoughts about abandoning Orthodoxy.
"Although this topic is of the gravest national importance, it is not presented with a comprehensive scholarly analysis; even when prominent Talmudists present this argument, they do so in a polemical and superficial manner."
When the normal mode of communication in a society consists of hysterical childish posters pasted to walls, this is what you get . . .
Actually, the Rambam in Hil. Talmud Torah is referring to people who decide to study Torah IN ORDER to make a living through charity. The context makes that clear, as he elaborates as to how it is prohibited to USE THE TORAH for self-aggrandizement and benefit.
This is why the Halacha appears in Hil. Talmud Torah. Were the meaning as you imply, it should fit better in Hil. De'os.
In any case, it certainly doesn't apply to most of today's Kollel scholars, who by and large don't enter Kollel for its financial rewards.
This old essay makes a few critical blunders. You complain about the lack of scholarly analysis and the superficiality of the prominent Talmudists, but then you proceed to put forth a most unscholarly and superficial assessment of your own. And your "analysis", if it can be called such, is riddled with errors.
For example, you seem to think that the justification for kollel is the Rambam's statement in Shemittah v'Yovel. But this is incorrect. The standard justification is those many poskim who allow taking money for learning and teaching Torah, which is the universally accepted ruling.
You also make the superficial and erroneous assertion that the Rambam's statements at the end of Shemittah v'Yovel are mussar rather than halacha. You do not bring any support for this assessment, and you do not bring support for the implication that it being mussar as opposed to halacha would make a practical difference in this case.
You also imply that according to the Rambam, there is a distinction between learning and teaching Torah in terms of the permissibility of taking funds. He is very clear in Talmud Torah that there is no such distinction.
You also make a contrast between Levites and kollel avreichim, inasmuch Levites would teach while kollel avreichim don't teach. This is factually incorrect, kollel avreichim also teach.
You also make a statement about "halachic exemptions" in your discussion about receiving financial assistance for learning. This senseless use of the word "exemptions" can only be the product of a confused mind.
You also invent out of whole cloth an entire historical narrative about the Rambam which concludes "At no point was he simply receiving handouts from his brother." While this does not make any material difference to the issue, as we in any case don't follow the Rambam's opinion on this matter, is there any need to refute your fabrications?
Moving on to your statements about the exemption from military service, you note that the Rambam doesn't make mention of this exemption in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos. But this is irrelevant since he exempts them in Hilchos Shemittah v'Yovel, and there is no rule that the Rambam must place halachos exactly where the ignorant and unlearned would expect them. In fact, anybody familiar with the Rambam would recognize that he puts many halachos in unexpected places on countless occasions. Going with this train of thought, you claim it is absurd that he didn't mention such an exemption in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos. But the only absurdity is one who ignores the words of the Rambam in Shemittah v'Yovel which states that Levites are exempt from warfare, despite not mentioning it in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos.
Then, without missing a beat, you proceed to ignore the fact that the Rambam allows an exemption for Levites which he does not mention in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos, and go on to claim that they are nevertheless required to join a milchemes mitzvah.
Your first piece of evidence is from the Golden Calf, which you fail to notice was before the Levites were chosen, and is therefore irrelevant.
You claim that the Rambam links the exemption of the Levites to their lack of portion in the Land, but omit the fact that he also links it to הֻבְדְּלוּ מִדַּרְכֵי הָעוֹלָם, which would apply to a milchemes mitzvah as well.
You bring support from Rav Kook and Rav Sternbuch, but fail to mention Rav Chaim Kanievsky, who rules that Levites are exempt from all wars.
Finally, you bring a completely unsupported assertion from Rabbi Lichtenstein to the effect that the typical kollel students wouldn’t qualify as "to stand before God, to serve Him, to worship Him, to know God; and he walks aright as the Lord has made him and he has cast off from his neck the yoke of the many considerations which men have sought." Although Rabbi Lichtenstein is perfectly entitled to his baseless and cynical opinion, the many great rabbis who support the exemption based on the honorary Shevet Levi status would disagree.
However, the most glaring flaw of this so-called analysis and all such polemics is the lack of sources demonstrating that everybody must serve in the army. Forget about Torah scholars. What about butchers? Bakers? Shepherds tending their own sheep? What evidence is there that there is a halachic obligation for everybody to serve, whether a milchemes mitzvah or milchemes reshus? And what evidence is there that there must be some equality of burden? This is a critical point, since the entire polemic to draft Torah scholars hinges on this unstated obligation. It is especially problematic in light of the fact that it was historically not the case that everybody or even the majority of the population served in most of the Jewish wars, as can be inferred from troop counts throughout the Tanach. Without this piece, the case of those opposed to exemption for Torah scholars falls to pieces immediately.
Furthermore, there is no analysis and no sources about how many years people can be required to serve, and in what capacity.
The Torah authorities in favor of a draft can forgiven for not bringing evidence or sources for these questions, because those rabbis can make such rulings on the basis of their own authority or "daas Torah", and their followers will heed them. Less forgivable are the unlearned who act as if they know something about the subject and proceed to issue nonsensical and error-ridden halachic "analyses", such as the one under discussion.
Regarding this Rambam. First, i dont know what goes on in Lakewood or in Brooklyn, but thus Rambam is a central course for justifying Army exemptions for yeshiva students here in Israel, cited constantely by charedi spokesmen and appologists (this is reall a moot issue, the charedim have made it clear that they will opposes the drafting of any charedim, whether or not they are actualy learning- so the learning thing is just a cover).
First it should be clear that this is not a halakhic passage. That should be clear to any bar bei rav who has any expereince learning the yad keseder, but as it turns out this obvious fact has been confirmed by R. Sheilat with the passing of R, Chaim Kanievsky, I dot think there is anyone in the chareidi troah world who can claim to be worthy of being his bar plugta on these matters.
but we dotn even need R. Sheilat to tell us this. This in an aggadic passage because it makes no halakhic claims. It nowhere suggests that what ever privledges extended to Leviim in the presvious halakhot apply to these metaphorical leviim. He is simply saying that God will take care of these ovdei hashem ( which the radbaz on the spot empahszies means not taking any ztadaka from the community) not that other jews have other obliglations to them.
I have had this discussion with a few friends, and one argument goes: can you imagine if Rambam had been able to fully dedicate himself to Torah? Instead of having to run from a place to another and working as a court physician? What would he have achieved?
If this was the case, the current system in Israel should have produced huge amounts of Torah giants. But the Torah giants of the last few decades didn't emerge at all from Kollel, quite the opposite.
I personally think that Rambam's genius was fostered by his experience and wide knowledge. Rambam wouldn't be him without all the baggage. The man achieved in a lifetime more than most humans have. And fascinating fact, there is little talk that he was inspired by ruach hakodesh...
1. We finally had the book delivered and are really enjoying reading through the encyclopedia. Great research, fascinating details, seems pretty chareidi so far. Reminds me of the ban on One People Two Worlds, which primarily had the consequence of my going out of my way to read it in high school, and strengthening my frumkeit thanks to Rabbi Reinman.
2. Isn't a museum of Torah just another form of Kollel?
Thank you for this. Much needed!
This idealized picture of Rambam always bothered me. Do we really think he shaved the sides of his beard and peyot like Muslims did…???
"Can anyone... confront a mirror and tell himself that ... he is kodesh kodashim, sanctum sanctorum, in the Rambam's terms? "
The answer is no. Rav Ahron Kotler explained the Rambam as referring to those Torah students who don't take money from the community. Those who rely on others are שבט יששכר, not שבט לוי.
See here: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13057&st=&pgnum=161
He was preceded by the כתב סופר who wrote a similar idea in the name of the חת"ס.
https://www.mesora.org/LettertoMarseille.htm
The Rambam in his letter to the rabbi's of Marseille says that the beis hamikdash was destroyed because our forefathers "sinned" that they "did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands." Here you see the rambam would call charedim sinners.
To wit, while Rambam was able to earn a living through medicine, he only turned to this full time after his brother was tragically lost at sea and unable to continue the arrangement. From that point onward, Rambam’s time was dominated by these financial obligations, lamenting often his lack of time for writing the various sefarim which he wished to pen. Clearly the “tzarich k’lali” to write books for the benefit of the community was insufficient to warrant taking public funds. Moreover, his suggestion that one could take on the mantle of being a “Levi” is specifically for an individual who is so uplifted, not an institutionalized standard for a community writ large for which the rest of the population is required to support.
Rambam sad this, didn’t say that, meant this, didn’t mean that. Implied such, refuted what your earlier posited and couldn’t have possibly sided with your misunderstanding of that…
What pointless, hollow pettifoggery. A religion so easily malleable and transformable so as to make it fit with institutionalised cowardice is not the piety that motivated our faithful forefathers. And always when I see debates like this, I’m informed that I should never have second thoughts about abandoning Orthodoxy.
"Although this topic is of the gravest national importance, it is not presented with a comprehensive scholarly analysis; even when prominent Talmudists present this argument, they do so in a polemical and superficial manner."
When the normal mode of communication in a society consists of hysterical childish posters pasted to walls, this is what you get . . .
Actually, the Rambam in Hil. Talmud Torah is referring to people who decide to study Torah IN ORDER to make a living through charity. The context makes that clear, as he elaborates as to how it is prohibited to USE THE TORAH for self-aggrandizement and benefit.
This is why the Halacha appears in Hil. Talmud Torah. Were the meaning as you imply, it should fit better in Hil. De'os.
In any case, it certainly doesn't apply to most of today's Kollel scholars, who by and large don't enter Kollel for its financial rewards.
What about Rambam Hilchot Shekalim 4:4?
Great analysis and overview.
The מכל באי העולם is part of Rambam's universalism