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.
1. "you seem to think that the justification for kollel is the Rambam's statement in Shemittah v'Yovel." No, I am addressing this because it is one justification that is commonly given, such as by the Bais HaVaad Halacha Center of Lakewood. I can't address everything in this post. Regarding the other justification, I have addressed it at https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/is-it-better-to-be-supported-in.
2. Regarding Rambam's statements at the end of the section being mussar, this is self-evident from their nature, along with a comparison to his statements at the end of other sections, such as Tahara. It is an observation made by numerous rabbinic authorities.
3. Rambam does, reluctantly, permit teaching the Written Torah for money, where such is the norm, and although he opposes receiving money for teaching Oral Torah, he does not do so with the same vehemence that he opposes taking money for studying Torah (Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:8-10)
4. The role of kollel avreichim is not to teach. It is to learn. (Unless you're talking about a community kollel.) Rambam specifies that the role of the Levites was to teach to the "rabbim," and supports this with a passuk describing Levi teaching to the nation of Israel.
5. Rambam describes the honorary quasi-Levites as פרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם, and as being provided for by Hashem. It is perfectly clear that this does not apply to the vast majority of kollel students. Rav Chaim Kanievsky says that NO kollel students are in this category, since they are supported by others.
4. "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?" Huh? Everyone must do their share. Of course, the army needs to decide that it makes more sense for some people to do combat and others to do other things.
"it was historically not the case that everybody or even the majority of the population served in most of the Jewish wars" But there was no such thing as a community-wide exemption.
5. "Furthermore, there is no analysis and no sources about how many years people can be required to serve, and in what capacity." That's for the army to decide, based on the defense needs of the country. Not relevant to this post, and not relevant to charedim claiming a community-wide exemption.
1. It is not the commonly given justification. Just because you found it in one place does not mean it is commonly given. I looked at your other post, where you "humbly" dispute Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, and that too is full of blunders, I am afraid. But I cannot address everything here.
2. It is not self-evident from their nature. Calling something self-evident does not make it so. And it is definitely not scholarly to call something self-evident with no support. Those who support the kollel system could easily say it is self-evident that the kollel system is necessary, also an observation made by numerous rabbinic authorities. Furthermore, even if "only" mussar, there is no reason to believe that this should make a difference in the practical application here.
3. He expresses great vehemence against teachers of Torah accepting money in his commentary on Avos, although we can likely presume he is talking about teaching the Oral Torah. His position is universally rejected.
4. This is incorrect. The role of kollel avreich is both to learn and teach. The kollel avreichim do teach the "rabbim". "Rabbim" does not just mean the ignorant and unlearned.
5. Your unsupported, evidence-free assertion that "it is perfectly clear that this does not apply to the vast majority of kollel students" does not make it so. Numerous rabbinic authorities disagree. Note that the Levites received tithes. Rav Chaim Kanievsky says no such thing that you attribute to him, and of course you fail to note that he was also in favor of exemptions.
6. Your statement that "everybody must do their share" is irrelevant to my point. I wasn't talking about bakers and butchers in the army, but civilian butchers and bakers.
The numerous rabbinic authorities who allow an exemption to Torah scholars based on the honorary Levite status do not seek a community-wide exemption, but only for those in yeshiva full-time, and for all who are in yeshiva full-time, whether in their community or in other communities. There are others who seek a community-wide exemption because of the spiritual danger of the IDF, but these are separate arguments that should not be conflated.
7. No. You can't demand a well-defined scholarly analysis of the exemption for yeshiva students which the unlearned public can understand, and then blithely dismiss any demands for an analysis of who must be drafted, and for how long.
And they demand exemptions for those who aren't, or who are but not actually learning full time. And their representatives in the Knesset believe that full time Torah students are not exempted if there are little holes in their kipot.
Who is "they"? We are talking about the people who support the exemptions from the army based on this Rambam. They are not demanding exemptions for those not learning. The people demanding exemptions for those not learning are demanding it for other, probably valid reasons.
Kollel avreichim 'teach the rabbim'? Well over 50% can't put a clear coherent sentence together without jumbling up several languages, and only fellow avreichim/bochurim can understand them. Do you know what 'teach' means? It does not mean 'learning b'chabrusoh'. Words mean things, at least in the real world they do. Not in Yeshivaland, I know, where everything can be 'lav davka', or kevetched away when it suits the agenda.
Well over 50% of kollel people are as obsessed with money as much as anybody else. That is not 'porek cheshbonos shbikshu benei odom'!
You are talking to the world of 'v'shov hacohen' equals 'u'boh hakohen'. Any Yeshivaland person worth his salt, with a few years experience, can kvetch anything to mean what they want it to mean. Wait for it.
It's not self-evident what you mean. If you mean obvious to a complete ignoramus who can't tell a halachic psak from an ethical aphorism, then you're right- it's not self evident. But it's self-evident that RNS didn't mean self-evident in such a manner.
But try this. Contrast the רמב"ם with the ש"ע:
היה לפניו נר ביתו ונר חנוכה או נר ביתו וקדוש היום נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו שהרי השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו. גדול השלום שכל התורה ניתנה לעשות שלום בעולם שנאמר דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום: בריך רחמנא דסייען:
מי שאין ידו משגת לקנות נר חנוכה ונר שבת יקנה נר שבת מפני שלום ביתו
No. I am saying that it is not self evident to a learned person. It might be self-evident to a complete ignoramus who has a compelling bias to make such a distinction. And it might be self-evident to the ignoramus that assigning something to the category of "mussar" or "ethical aphorism" means it has no practical implications. But to a learned person, it is anything but self-evident.
I don't see what you are trying to prove from Hilchos Chanukah, unless you are trying to prove my point. Are you saying that השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו is not halachic? Are you saying גדול השלום has nothing to do with the very halacha just stated, that ner shabbos takes precedence due to שלום?
" Are you saying that השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו is not halachic?"
I'm not aware of a הלכה that allows for מחיקת השם for furthering שלום בית, except for סוטה. I'm not a Reform Jew who turns ethical aphorisms into a halachic free-for-all.
" Are you saying גדול השלום has nothing to do with the very halacha just stated, that ner shabbos takes precedence due to שלום?"
No, I'm saying it has relevance to much of everything beyond הלכות חנוכה. Hence, it's not הלכה, but מוסר. The phrase " משום שלום ביתו" is sufficient itself, and that's all the ש"ע "quotes" להלכה. The rest does not anything to הלכות חנוכה and must therefore be a general ethical imperative that is not halacha, per se.
Please explain why the ש"ע omits these phrases.
Then explain away all other ethical passages that the רמב"ם brings at the end of the various sections.
So you agree that this passage in Hilchos Chanukah is halachic and has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. You are just arguing that the halacha has limited application.
I don't know what you mean by "No, I'm saying it has relevance to much of everything beyond הלכות חנוכה. Hence, it's not הלכה, but מוסר." means. You are not making any sense. It is halacha, and not just mussar.
Furthermore, you never explained why the fact that something is mussar means that it has no practical implication.
Since you failed to make your point from Hilchos Chanukah, what are " all other ethical passages that the רמב"ם brings at the end of the various sections" that you think have no practical implications and are just nice "ethical aphorisms"?
You do know that Shulchan Oruch 'paskens' clearly in hilchos talmud torah - ossur l'daber sichos chullin'?
It is clear to many that these sort of pesokim are mussar - of course the difficulty is knowing which are and which are not - who keeps hilchos hanhogas seudah as it is written these days? Why not?
Did you not read the title of the post ? Rescuing the Rambam. You are correct that most argue on the Rambam about taking money but that makes the point. The Rambam clearly and unequivocally is against kollel.
We know the Rambam is against many versions of kollel. He is not rescuing the Rambam with this list of erroneous and frankly ignorant arguments. The Rambam would be much happier without such "rescuing".
As per the position of Rav Ahron Kotler & כת"ס + חת"ס I cited earlier, this means that the שבט לוי archetype refers to a Torah scholar who doesn't take money but relies on his own labor and the blessings of הקב"ה.
In קרית מלך, RCK suggests that the source for the רמב"ם is "כל העוסק
בתורה נכסיו מצליחין לו" - this also indicates self sufficiency (via a Heavenly blessing) rather than living off handouts.
That statement of Rav Kanievsky has nothing to do with the army issue. I already mentioned that we do not follow the Rambam in regards to his prohibition of taking money for Torah study. Of course, you fail to note that Rav Kanievsky was also in favor of exemptions.
The statement of Rav Aharon Kotler is irrelevant to the typical kollel avreich, who recieves a pitiful sum from the government that is not nearly enough to live on, and must rely on his bitachon. You likewise fail to note that Rav Aharon Kotler was in favor of exemptions.
Most kollel students are not פרנסתם קבועה על ידי אחיהם because they receive a pitiful, token amount. Rather, they better fit the description of משליכים על ה׳ יהבם.
"I already mentioned that we do not follow the Rambam in regards to his prohibition of taking money for Torah study."
Whether there's a prohibition for Torah students to take money is irrelevant in defining such Torah students as שבט לוי. You can get away with the prohibition, either by outright disagreeing with the רבמ"ם or by interpreting him to allow exceptions, but that doesn't change his definition. His prohibition may allow exceptions, but his definition doesn't.
You're missing the point. You're making the exemption contingent on rejecting handouts. This is not the case- it's not an exchange or contract. The point is that the רמב"ם is defining a very unique individual who has cast off worldly concerns. Such concerns including hustling for money, whether from charity, in-laws or the gov't. Such a person, who is in a sense otherworldly is already not attached to the world of mundane military adventures. מלחמת מצוה, which by definition is a spiritual activity, does not exempt such a person.
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.
Most importantly, The Rabmam isnt talking about learning Torah at all!. He cant be because goyim are included in this category. He is apparently talking about "true philosophers" who seek to "know God."
This is one of the most uncharedi parts of the yad, which undercuts the very heart of contemporary litvische beliefs about Talmud Torah. Learning Shas and Poskim (along with actually doing mitzvos, especially chesed and tzedek) is ultimately only a means to an end. It can get you to the point where you can begin to safely study physics and metaphysics . It is not the only means to this end, just the most effective. There are, or at least could be, philosophers who have managed to get there, by perfecting themselves intellectually, morally with out the aid of Torah umitzvos. For the Rambam, learnign shas and poskim, is exteremely valuable. For msot people that is the most they can asprue to. But it is hardly the ultimate value. That is reserved for the pursuit of true yedias hashem which is achieved through philophical contemplation.
R Elyashiv had the intellectualy honesty to admit that the contempoary chareid worldview is based on a thorough going rejection of the Rambam's thought. going so far as to say, that true Maimonideans should be expelled fromthe community as heretics. The charedi worldview is rooted in the Ramban and his even more radical anti-maimondean contemporaries. conteporary chareidi leaders lack R. Elyashiv's honesty (and probaly knowledge of the Rambam) and insist on twisting the Great Eagle into their own mold.
If charedim understood this passage in the Rambam they would avoid citing it at all costs.
the rest of the jews in world are fighting a war against non-jewish enemies who seek our destruction. The Israeli haredi community is unwilling to fight in that war but they are willing to go to war against fellow Jews claiming it is a milchemet mitzva. Even when disagreeing with a great taimid chacham. The lack of respect among chareidim for talmdiei chachamim they disagree with is staggering. Herein lies the problem. We don't want to go to war with you we want you to join us in our war for the survival of the Jewish people.
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?
Its been commonly disputed. Especially since his statue in Cordova represents someone else entirely. I've seen articles claiming it was another Doctor of the Sultan in Egypt.
Anyway, the Payos thing shouldn't bother anyone, who said the artist cared to paint it even if it was there? Ever hear of artists rights? Maybe he was bald there, as some people are, like the guy who sits next to me in shul.
"Anyway, the Payos thing shouldn't bother anyone, who said the artist cared to paint it even if it was there? Ever hear of artists rights?"
Wasn't that portrait made centuries after Rambam's death anyway? Sure, it could have been based on a now extinct portrait, but you know what they say about about a photocopy of a photocopy, imagine a portrait of a portrait!
"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.
"This is why our kingdom was lost and our Temple was destroyed and why we were brought to this; for our fathers sinned and are no more because they found many books dealing with these themes of the star gazers, these things being the root of idolatry, as we have made clear in Laws Concerning Idolatry. They erred and were drawn after them, imagining them to be glorious science and to be of great utility. They did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands, but imagined that those studies would help them."
He's talking about community leadership in general terms. Nothing he writes here requires every single rabbi to be an expert in matters of security. Nor does he say anything about the extent of conscription.
Yes - He IS talking about about a community in general terms. And In general terms he clearly says that they should have busied themselves with the art of war.
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.
I don't know of a source that the Rambam was paid for his work as a physician. The same Halacha that forbids taking money for learning, forbids taking money for practicing medicine.
(I am sure all of those who express anger and horror at those who take money for learning, feel similarly about the salary drawn by physicians.)
"I don't know of a source that the Rambam was paid for his work as a physician."
That's quite an assumption you're making- that the רמב"ם was a slave. If you're such a skeptic, why aren't you asking for a source that he wasn't paid? It would be a bigger חידוש to say he was a slave, than to say he was paid. So why assume the ridiculous? Have you read his letter to Ibn Tibbon where he complains over his grueling schedule in the palace? Isn't strange he offers not the slightest hint that he was a slave and wasn't being paid?
I also find it rather irritating that you didn't bother to type a few words in the so very accessible internet to confirm or reject your ridiculous speculations that the רמב"ם was a slave. A few minutes of checking would have produced the following:
"Alfadhel [vizir to Saladin] placed the name of Maimonides on the list of royal physicians, bestowed an annual salary upon him, and loaded him with distinctions. " (Yellin & Abraham, Maimonides)
The Rambam forbids taking money for healing people. Trusting a story book against a clear pesak is the hallmark of negi'us.
If he received a salary, I can only assume it was for healing Goyim, because the prohibition against taking money for healing people is deduced from the obligation to return a lost object. Returning a lost object to a gentile is forbidden, so he was permitted, and perhaps obligated, to take money from them.
The Hippocratic Oath also forbids accepting payment, but of course all doctors have always gotten paid. Clearly it means something a bit more nuanced than that.
A doctor is allowed by Halacha to be paid for his time and the Sultan certainly paid him a salary that allowed him to see other patients of the general public both Jew and Muslim for free which he did.
I thought that the Tribe of Levi earned their status as the personal servants of Hashem because of their loyalty to Him during the Golden Calf incident; if that is the case, then it should not be cited as a time of them going to war because it was before their elevated status.
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.
"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."
Perhaps it doesn't. It is true that many (most?) authorities don't consider the רמב"ם here applicable. Either they disagree outright, or they interpret this רמב"ם to limit the applicability. But a Torah scholar who takes money legitimately in accordance with these authorities is nevertheless not a שבט לוי type.
Yes, so therefore this oft-cited quote of the Rambam is a severe misrepresentation. Rambam is criticizing those who use the Torah in order to make money. Similar to one who marries a girl from a rich family in order to secure his own future. Very few modern-day Kollel scholars fit that description. Yes, I agree that according to Rambam it is questionable whether financial support should be granted. That halachic discussion is well-documented elsewhere.
Thanks for the Mareh Hamakom. We will learn from there, important things related to our discussion. Because, even if we assume that Rambam is talking about financial support from people for all those who dedicate their lives to G-d, and he does decide here the obligation of financial support for some of the servants of the sanctuary, then even then we are dealing with very specific fields. In the context of the Talmidei Hahamim, we are talking about Only, those who teach the priests the laws of slaughter: "Mevakrei Mumim in Jerusalem and the scholars who teach the laws of slaughter to the priests and the laws of Kamitza and women who raise their children to red cows, all of them receive their wages from the donation of the office"
As long as you’re imagining Rambam’s cerebral possibilities, consider what Rambam might have achieved had he lived in present times. I wonder what he might have discovered about the structure of elementary sub-atomic particles or possibly engaged in the discovery of cancer cures. Brilliant minds possessed by the likes of Einstein or Feynman didi’t strive to become Gedolei Torah because they understood that it wasn’t relevant to something way more important. And I think Rambam would have traveled the same road.
Someone else might think the Rambam would have been a sports stats expert. He would have been the world's go to guru about every time a ball was flung into a net, or some shmoyger ran around a field. Why waste time figuring out the Halacha of a Shevu'as heses on less than two me'ah when a ball was kicked into a net forty seven years ago?
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.
1. "you seem to think that the justification for kollel is the Rambam's statement in Shemittah v'Yovel." No, I am addressing this because it is one justification that is commonly given, such as by the Bais HaVaad Halacha Center of Lakewood. I can't address everything in this post. Regarding the other justification, I have addressed it at https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/is-it-better-to-be-supported-in.
2. Regarding Rambam's statements at the end of the section being mussar, this is self-evident from their nature, along with a comparison to his statements at the end of other sections, such as Tahara. It is an observation made by numerous rabbinic authorities.
3. Rambam does, reluctantly, permit teaching the Written Torah for money, where such is the norm, and although he opposes receiving money for teaching Oral Torah, he does not do so with the same vehemence that he opposes taking money for studying Torah (Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:8-10)
4. The role of kollel avreichim is not to teach. It is to learn. (Unless you're talking about a community kollel.) Rambam specifies that the role of the Levites was to teach to the "rabbim," and supports this with a passuk describing Levi teaching to the nation of Israel.
5. Rambam describes the honorary quasi-Levites as פרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם, and as being provided for by Hashem. It is perfectly clear that this does not apply to the vast majority of kollel students. Rav Chaim Kanievsky says that NO kollel students are in this category, since they are supported by others.
4. "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?" Huh? Everyone must do their share. Of course, the army needs to decide that it makes more sense for some people to do combat and others to do other things.
"it was historically not the case that everybody or even the majority of the population served in most of the Jewish wars" But there was no such thing as a community-wide exemption.
5. "Furthermore, there is no analysis and no sources about how many years people can be required to serve, and in what capacity." That's for the army to decide, based on the defense needs of the country. Not relevant to this post, and not relevant to charedim claiming a community-wide exemption.
1. It is not the commonly given justification. Just because you found it in one place does not mean it is commonly given. I looked at your other post, where you "humbly" dispute Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, and that too is full of blunders, I am afraid. But I cannot address everything here.
2. It is not self-evident from their nature. Calling something self-evident does not make it so. And it is definitely not scholarly to call something self-evident with no support. Those who support the kollel system could easily say it is self-evident that the kollel system is necessary, also an observation made by numerous rabbinic authorities. Furthermore, even if "only" mussar, there is no reason to believe that this should make a difference in the practical application here.
3. He expresses great vehemence against teachers of Torah accepting money in his commentary on Avos, although we can likely presume he is talking about teaching the Oral Torah. His position is universally rejected.
4. This is incorrect. The role of kollel avreich is both to learn and teach. The kollel avreichim do teach the "rabbim". "Rabbim" does not just mean the ignorant and unlearned.
5. Your unsupported, evidence-free assertion that "it is perfectly clear that this does not apply to the vast majority of kollel students" does not make it so. Numerous rabbinic authorities disagree. Note that the Levites received tithes. Rav Chaim Kanievsky says no such thing that you attribute to him, and of course you fail to note that he was also in favor of exemptions.
6. Your statement that "everybody must do their share" is irrelevant to my point. I wasn't talking about bakers and butchers in the army, but civilian butchers and bakers.
The numerous rabbinic authorities who allow an exemption to Torah scholars based on the honorary Levite status do not seek a community-wide exemption, but only for those in yeshiva full-time, and for all who are in yeshiva full-time, whether in their community or in other communities. There are others who seek a community-wide exemption because of the spiritual danger of the IDF, but these are separate arguments that should not be conflated.
7. No. You can't demand a well-defined scholarly analysis of the exemption for yeshiva students which the unlearned public can understand, and then blithely dismiss any demands for an analysis of who must be drafted, and for how long.
" but only for those in yeshiva full-time"
And they demand exemptions for those who aren't, or who are but not actually learning full time. And their representatives in the Knesset believe that full time Torah students are not exempted if there are little holes in their kipot.
Who is "they"? We are talking about the people who support the exemptions from the army based on this Rambam. They are not demanding exemptions for those not learning. The people demanding exemptions for those not learning are demanding it for other, probably valid reasons.
Kollel avreichim 'teach the rabbim'? Well over 50% can't put a clear coherent sentence together without jumbling up several languages, and only fellow avreichim/bochurim can understand them. Do you know what 'teach' means? It does not mean 'learning b'chabrusoh'. Words mean things, at least in the real world they do. Not in Yeshivaland, I know, where everything can be 'lav davka', or kevetched away when it suits the agenda.
Well over 50% of kollel people are as obsessed with money as much as anybody else. That is not 'porek cheshbonos shbikshu benei odom'!
" Rav Chaim Kanievsky says no such thing that you attribute to him"
I provided the citations. He writes that the שבט לוי type of Torah student doesn't take money.
No. He does not say that.
"אין כונת רבנו שיקח מהבריות"
"It is not Rabbeinu's intent that he take from people".
He says it. Plainly.
No. That does not mean " the שבט לוי type of Torah student doesn't take money." It means no Torah student should take money according to the Rambam.
You are talking to the world of 'v'shov hacohen' equals 'u'boh hakohen'. Any Yeshivaland person worth his salt, with a few years experience, can kvetch anything to mean what they want it to mean. Wait for it.
" It is not self-evident from their nature."
It's not self-evident what you mean. If you mean obvious to a complete ignoramus who can't tell a halachic psak from an ethical aphorism, then you're right- it's not self evident. But it's self-evident that RNS didn't mean self-evident in such a manner.
But try this. Contrast the רמב"ם with the ש"ע:
היה לפניו נר ביתו ונר חנוכה או נר ביתו וקדוש היום נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו שהרי השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו. גדול השלום שכל התורה ניתנה לעשות שלום בעולם שנאמר דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום: בריך רחמנא דסייען:
מי שאין ידו משגת לקנות נר חנוכה ונר שבת יקנה נר שבת מפני שלום ביתו
Seems pretty self-evident to me.
No. I am saying that it is not self evident to a learned person. It might be self-evident to a complete ignoramus who has a compelling bias to make such a distinction. And it might be self-evident to the ignoramus that assigning something to the category of "mussar" or "ethical aphorism" means it has no practical implications. But to a learned person, it is anything but self-evident.
I don't see what you are trying to prove from Hilchos Chanukah, unless you are trying to prove my point. Are you saying that השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו is not halachic? Are you saying גדול השלום has nothing to do with the very halacha just stated, that ner shabbos takes precedence due to שלום?
" Are you saying that השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו is not halachic?"
I'm not aware of a הלכה that allows for מחיקת השם for furthering שלום בית, except for סוטה. I'm not a Reform Jew who turns ethical aphorisms into a halachic free-for-all.
" Are you saying גדול השלום has nothing to do with the very halacha just stated, that ner shabbos takes precedence due to שלום?"
No, I'm saying it has relevance to much of everything beyond הלכות חנוכה. Hence, it's not הלכה, but מוסר. The phrase " משום שלום ביתו" is sufficient itself, and that's all the ש"ע "quotes" להלכה. The rest does not anything to הלכות חנוכה and must therefore be a general ethical imperative that is not halacha, per se.
Please explain why the ש"ע omits these phrases.
Then explain away all other ethical passages that the רמב"ם brings at the end of the various sections.
So you agree that this passage in Hilchos Chanukah is halachic and has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. You are just arguing that the halacha has limited application.
I don't know what you mean by "No, I'm saying it has relevance to much of everything beyond הלכות חנוכה. Hence, it's not הלכה, but מוסר." means. You are not making any sense. It is halacha, and not just mussar.
Furthermore, you never explained why the fact that something is mussar means that it has no practical implication.
Since you failed to make your point from Hilchos Chanukah, what are " all other ethical passages that the רמב"ם brings at the end of the various sections" that you think have no practical implications and are just nice "ethical aphorisms"?
You do know that Shulchan Oruch 'paskens' clearly in hilchos talmud torah - ossur l'daber sichos chullin'?
It is clear to many that these sort of pesokim are mussar - of course the difficulty is knowing which are and which are not - who keeps hilchos hanhogas seudah as it is written these days? Why not?
Did you not read the title of the post ? Rescuing the Rambam. You are correct that most argue on the Rambam about taking money but that makes the point. The Rambam clearly and unequivocally is against kollel.
We know the Rambam is against many versions of kollel. He is not rescuing the Rambam with this list of erroneous and frankly ignorant arguments. The Rambam would be much happier without such "rescuing".
" but fail to mention Rav Chaim Kanievsky, who rules that Levites are exempt from all wars."
It would be nice if you actually provide the source.
But don't bother, here's what RCK writes in דרך אמונה:
אין כונת רבנו שיקח מהבריות שהרי בפ״ג מת״ת ה״י
התרעם ע״ז הרבה אלא כונתו שיעשה השתדלות מועטת והקב״ה ישלח ברכה במעשה ידיו
ויוכל לפרנס בכל מה שצריך לו
As per the position of Rav Ahron Kotler & כת"ס + חת"ס I cited earlier, this means that the שבט לוי archetype refers to a Torah scholar who doesn't take money but relies on his own labor and the blessings of הקב"ה.
In קרית מלך, RCK suggests that the source for the רמב"ם is "כל העוסק
בתורה נכסיו מצליחין לו" - this also indicates self sufficiency (via a Heavenly blessing) rather than living off handouts.
Ephraim, thanks for your comments, I will incorporate them into the post.
As long as you studied and verified the sources yourself. Don't take my word for it.
That statement of Rav Kanievsky has nothing to do with the army issue. I already mentioned that we do not follow the Rambam in regards to his prohibition of taking money for Torah study. Of course, you fail to note that Rav Kanievsky was also in favor of exemptions.
The statement of Rav Aharon Kotler is irrelevant to the typical kollel avreich, who recieves a pitiful sum from the government that is not nearly enough to live on, and must rely on his bitachon. You likewise fail to note that Rav Aharon Kotler was in favor of exemptions.
"The statement of Rav Aharon Kotler is irrelevant to the typical kollel avreich, who recieves a pitiful sum from the government"
RAK didn't say that.
He didn't say what you claimed he said.
כאותם תלמידי חכמים הנתמכים
בקביעותעל ידי אחיהם כדרך יששכר וזבולון ,ומאידך הארון המונח בקדש הקדשים הוא כנגד
אותם תלמידי חכמים שאין פרנסתם קבועה על ידי אחיהם אלא משליכים על ה׳ יהבם
He says they are the Torah scholars who unlike the שבט יששכר type, do not take money and depend on Hashem for their livelihood.
Most kollel students are not פרנסתם קבועה על ידי אחיהם because they receive a pitiful, token amount. Rather, they better fit the description of משליכים על ה׳ יהבם.
"I already mentioned that we do not follow the Rambam in regards to his prohibition of taking money for Torah study."
Whether there's a prohibition for Torah students to take money is irrelevant in defining such Torah students as שבט לוי. You can get away with the prohibition, either by outright disagreeing with the רבמ"ם or by interpreting him to allow exceptions, but that doesn't change his definition. His prohibition may allow exceptions, but his definition doesn't.
He is not defining Torah students, but explaining what they are allowed and not allowed to do according to the Rambam.
I wrote: "defining such Torah students". Note the word "such".
You wrote: "He is not defining Torah students". I never wrote that.
"but relies on his own labor and the blessings of הקב"ה."
Sort of like how the Amish are exempt from paying Social Security, but only because they (as a group) don't accept it either.
Also, call me an apikores, but I'd dismiss any statement in favor of exemptions made after, say, 1948.
You're missing the point. You're making the exemption contingent on rejecting handouts. This is not the case- it's not an exchange or contract. The point is that the רמב"ם is defining a very unique individual who has cast off worldly concerns. Such concerns including hustling for money, whether from charity, in-laws or the gov't. Such a person, who is in a sense otherworldly is already not attached to the world of mundane military adventures. מלחמת מצוה, which by definition is a spiritual activity, does not exempt such a person.
Ah, I see.
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.
Most importantly, The Rabmam isnt talking about learning Torah at all!. He cant be because goyim are included in this category. He is apparently talking about "true philosophers" who seek to "know God."
This is one of the most uncharedi parts of the yad, which undercuts the very heart of contemporary litvische beliefs about Talmud Torah. Learning Shas and Poskim (along with actually doing mitzvos, especially chesed and tzedek) is ultimately only a means to an end. It can get you to the point where you can begin to safely study physics and metaphysics . It is not the only means to this end, just the most effective. There are, or at least could be, philosophers who have managed to get there, by perfecting themselves intellectually, morally with out the aid of Torah umitzvos. For the Rambam, learnign shas and poskim, is exteremely valuable. For msot people that is the most they can asprue to. But it is hardly the ultimate value. That is reserved for the pursuit of true yedias hashem which is achieved through philophical contemplation.
R Elyashiv had the intellectualy honesty to admit that the contempoary chareid worldview is based on a thorough going rejection of the Rambam's thought. going so far as to say, that true Maimonideans should be expelled fromthe community as heretics. The charedi worldview is rooted in the Ramban and his even more radical anti-maimondean contemporaries. conteporary chareidi leaders lack R. Elyashiv's honesty (and probaly knowledge of the Rambam) and insist on twisting the Great Eagle into their own mold.
If charedim understood this passage in the Rambam they would avoid citing it at all costs.
You fail to continue the argument.
If it is Aggadaic, therefore........................................
And your appeal to the authority of Rabbi Shilat would be quaint, if it wasn't used in service of a war against Jews and their beliefs.
the rest of the jews in world are fighting a war against non-jewish enemies who seek our destruction. The Israeli haredi community is unwilling to fight in that war but they are willing to go to war against fellow Jews claiming it is a milchemet mitzva. Even when disagreeing with a great taimid chacham. The lack of respect among chareidim for talmdiei chachamim they disagree with is staggering. Herein lies the problem. We don't want to go to war with you we want you to join us in our war for the survival of the Jewish people.
I must have missed that piece of news.
Which members of the Israeli Haredi community went to which war?
Who disrespected whom?
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?
Excellent comment! That's what I call a real Charedi, one who isn't scared off from pahkevilin.
Have you ever mentioned this to Rabbi Reinman? I'm sure he would get chizuk from it.
And have you purchased his newest book yet? https://rabbireinman.com/books/the-hesterville-bible-trial/
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…???
Its been commonly disputed. Especially since his statue in Cordova represents someone else entirely. I've seen articles claiming it was another Doctor of the Sultan in Egypt.
Anyway, the Payos thing shouldn't bother anyone, who said the artist cared to paint it even if it was there? Ever hear of artists rights? Maybe he was bald there, as some people are, like the guy who sits next to me in shul.
"Anyway, the Payos thing shouldn't bother anyone, who said the artist cared to paint it even if it was there? Ever hear of artists rights?"
Wasn't that portrait made centuries after Rambam's death anyway? Sure, it could have been based on a now extinct portrait, but you know what they say about about a photocopy of a photocopy, imagine a portrait of a portrait!
"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.
No. Here's a more fuller quote from that website:
"This is why our kingdom was lost and our Temple was destroyed and why we were brought to this; for our fathers sinned and are no more because they found many books dealing with these themes of the star gazers, these things being the root of idolatry, as we have made clear in Laws Concerning Idolatry. They erred and were drawn after them, imagining them to be glorious science and to be of great utility. They did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands, but imagined that those studies would help them."
He's talking about community leadership in general terms. Nothing he writes here requires every single rabbi to be an expert in matters of security. Nor does he say anything about the extent of conscription.
Yes - He IS talking about about a community in general terms. And In general terms he clearly says that they should have busied themselves with the art of war.
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.
I don't know of a source that the Rambam was paid for his work as a physician. The same Halacha that forbids taking money for learning, forbids taking money for practicing medicine.
(I am sure all of those who express anger and horror at those who take money for learning, feel similarly about the salary drawn by physicians.)
"I don't know of a source that the Rambam was paid for his work as a physician."
That's quite an assumption you're making- that the רמב"ם was a slave. If you're such a skeptic, why aren't you asking for a source that he wasn't paid? It would be a bigger חידוש to say he was a slave, than to say he was paid. So why assume the ridiculous? Have you read his letter to Ibn Tibbon where he complains over his grueling schedule in the palace? Isn't strange he offers not the slightest hint that he was a slave and wasn't being paid?
Ridiculous!
I also find it rather irritating that you didn't bother to type a few words in the so very accessible internet to confirm or reject your ridiculous speculations that the רמב"ם was a slave. A few minutes of checking would have produced the following:
"Alfadhel [vizir to Saladin] placed the name of Maimonides on the list of royal physicians, bestowed an annual salary upon him, and loaded him with distinctions. " (Yellin & Abraham, Maimonides)
The Rambam forbids taking money for healing people. Trusting a story book against a clear pesak is the hallmark of negi'us.
If he received a salary, I can only assume it was for healing Goyim, because the prohibition against taking money for healing people is deduced from the obligation to return a lost object. Returning a lost object to a gentile is forbidden, so he was permitted, and perhaps obligated, to take money from them.
"If he received a salary, I can only assume it was for healing Goyim"
Why assume? The source states he was paid for services in the palace. Services for gentiles!
(And please don't answer that the money he received from the vizir was in fact a kollel stipend.)
So your complaints against Kollelim are equal to your complaints against doctors who charge for their services?
Sure!
You've lost the plot. Please try to following you're own train of thought, and be honest when you've gone off the rails.
You wrote:
"I don't know of a source that the Rambam was paid for his work as a physician."
I gave you a source. Be honest and admit it. After you admit it, feel free to kvetch out a solution.
The Hippocratic Oath also forbids accepting payment, but of course all doctors have always gotten paid. Clearly it means something a bit more nuanced than that.
A doctor is allowed by Halacha to be paid for his time and the Sultan certainly paid him a salary that allowed him to see other patients of the general public both Jew and Muslim for free which he did.
Like the article, but one note:
I thought that the Tribe of Levi earned their status as the personal servants of Hashem because of their loyalty to Him during the Golden Calf incident; if that is the case, then it should not be cited as a time of them going to war because it was before their elevated status.
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.
This forum is for Orthodox Jews. That is the frame of reference for discussion. Please respect that.
"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.
"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."
Perhaps it doesn't. It is true that many (most?) authorities don't consider the רמב"ם here applicable. Either they disagree outright, or they interpret this רמב"ם to limit the applicability. But a Torah scholar who takes money legitimately in accordance with these authorities is nevertheless not a שבט לוי type.
They may not enter for that reason, but of course they get financial rewards.
Yes, so therefore this oft-cited quote of the Rambam is a severe misrepresentation. Rambam is criticizing those who use the Torah in order to make money. Similar to one who marries a girl from a rich family in order to secure his own future. Very few modern-day Kollel scholars fit that description. Yes, I agree that according to Rambam it is questionable whether financial support should be granted. That halachic discussion is well-documented elsewhere.
How are they not using the Torah? How are they not getting money?
What about Rambam Hilchot Shekalim 4:4?
Thanks for the Mareh Hamakom. We will learn from there, important things related to our discussion. Because, even if we assume that Rambam is talking about financial support from people for all those who dedicate their lives to G-d, and he does decide here the obligation of financial support for some of the servants of the sanctuary, then even then we are dealing with very specific fields. In the context of the Talmidei Hahamim, we are talking about Only, those who teach the priests the laws of slaughter: "Mevakrei Mumim in Jerusalem and the scholars who teach the laws of slaughter to the priests and the laws of Kamitza and women who raise their children to red cows, all of them receive their wages from the donation of the office"
Great analysis and overview.
The מכל באי העולם is part of Rambam's universalism
@ Ezra N,
As long as you’re imagining Rambam’s cerebral possibilities, consider what Rambam might have achieved had he lived in present times. I wonder what he might have discovered about the structure of elementary sub-atomic particles or possibly engaged in the discovery of cancer cures. Brilliant minds possessed by the likes of Einstein or Feynman didi’t strive to become Gedolei Torah because they understood that it wasn’t relevant to something way more important. And I think Rambam would have traveled the same road.
Someone else might think the Rambam would have been a sports stats expert. He would have been the world's go to guru about every time a ball was flung into a net, or some shmoyger ran around a field. Why waste time figuring out the Halacha of a Shevu'as heses on less than two me'ah when a ball was kicked into a net forty seven years ago?