You have to admire the sheer hubris. You don't have an "answer" to the Maharsha? You know full well that if there was something that agreed with your weltanschauung, you would accept it wholeheartedly and say that anyone who even suggested arguing with it was an apirkores. But if it's something that doesn't sit well with you...well, there must be an "answer" somewhere and "it's not so simple."
ummm, did you read the questions? it's not as simple as you think. besides i hardly care if the maharsha means what slifkin says it does. if he's right, there' a maharsha to know about. i have no problem with that, nor a bias in any direction. i never hanged my whole ideology on magni umatzli. i based it on teshuva tefila utzedaka. but whatever brother, not sure what you're hung up about
That's just yeshivish learning style. As opposed to the more Mordenish approach that approaches every sugyoh and halochoh with an open mind, not the results must fit in with chareidism before you start.
I've finally lost patience with people who constantly troll here, not saying anything of substance, throwing out extreme insults, and moreover doing so while hiding behind pseudonyms so that they don't need to take responsibility for their words.
One addition to what you said: in both the maamarei Chazal that you cited, there is certainly no assumption (at least according to the simple pshat) that even if these statements are meant as a practical guide, that Torah would protect anyone other than the person learning it. The Gemara doesn’t ask, why did ANYONE die early in Doeg’s day; the only question was about him.
So: 1) it’s not a practical guide because it’s not a halachic gemara; 2) even if it is a practical guide, it doesn’t say what people want it to say if they read it with mefarshim like the Maharsha; and 3) even if it did say what they want it to say, and we ignore the Maharsha etc., and someone wanted to implement it practically… it’s extremely selfish. It’s basically saying, “I’ll go protect myself and leave you soldiers to die."
Many of the sources stated in the relevant post on IM indicate clearly its only the tanoim/ amoraim themselves that were protected. There are few exceptions.
Natan, if you would've posed this as an interesting question on people who you know are greater in Torah than you, you would've gotten a lot further. Instead you were snide, decisive and know-it-ally. Come on, chabibi, you're better than that
Rabbi Slifkin: Kol hakavod for banning those who engage in hate speech. It's bad enough when they use ad hominem attacks, or just have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. It's amazing your patience allowing comments that disagree with you in the spirit of open debate. Thanks for maintaining this forum
There's a part of Klal Yisrael announcing that they don't need to serve in the army because their Torah protects. That announcement should not be allowed to go unanswered.
Would you be able to find someone who could write a consistent, articulate and well-documented summary of the mainstream Hareidi view? I think that would lend itself to a higher level discussion than a lot of people snarking at each other.
Personally, I would be interested in understanding:
1- How the Hareidim justify their stance to the dati-leumi community, who are also committed to mitzvot and to Torah, but have very different priorities in terms of their relationship towards the army.
2- How they would justify their stance to the general secular community, for whom "we [Hareidim] believe that.." is a non-starter.
Finally, I will note that the very small number of Hareidi soldiers killed in the current war, versus the very high price that the dati community has already paid, is not due to the protection afforded by Torah study...except the protection provided by the law that allows them to stay far from the line of fire.
I never said it should , generating anti Chareid Hate on this blog , is certainly not a way to "Answer" , Do you honestly think that the major chareidi Rabbonim over the last 50 years were oblivious to your claims??
No shim, this is what's important now. Obviously. Nm the rise of antisemitism around the world and all of the other huge problems-the people learning "too much" Torah, that's what needs to be fixed. From God's mouth to our ears
Literally of all the things that need to be fixed right now lets pick on the a group(Whether you beleive are correct or not) who are actually trying more then most to keep the Torah.
Natan, if you would've posed this as an interesting question on people who you know are greater in Torah than you, you would've gotten a lot further. Instead you were snide, decisive and know-it-ally. Come on, chabibi, you're better than that
All these explanations miss what is going on with Ra'atan sugya. While no one is quite sure what disease Ra'atan is (Preuss thinks it's leprosy), the various Rabbis give increasingly superstitious ways of avoiding the disease which result in a greater and greater level of shunning the sufferer. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi realized one should be ministering to the ill rather than shunning them and that ministering to people the way the Torah wants you to is generally not going to be harmful. RYBL was extraordinary in that he rejected the superstitions of the era and took his job as a Rabbi seriously. This Gemara is either directly referring to or is a good parallel to leper colonies which were and are largely based on superstition.
Not to mention, even if Torah did generally protect, serving in the army would be a case of מצוה שאי אפשר לעשותה על ידי אחרים which overrides Torah study. Anyone who chose Torah study over this mitzvah would be doing an averah.
First of all, this post ignores the gemara Bava basra 8a, which states that rabbis are exempt from contributing to the building of walls, as they do not require protection, even though walls are obviously protecting from dying from enemy invasion.
This statement is not Agaddic, it is codified twice each by Rambam (hil. Talmud Torah and hil. Shechenim) and Shulchan Aruch.
I see that elsewhere you have written about this gemara. Intentionally leaving it out of this post is both disingenuous and misleading.
Also, you are surely aware that the concept of ein lemeidin min haAgaddos, first stated by the yerushalmi, is itself hardly a conclusive rule, the poskim do indeed often rule based off agaddos. Perhaps you are familiar with Rav zvi Hirsch chayyes' lengthy treatise on the subject.
I take particular exception to your rather odd claim that the charedi world does not believe that it's Torah protects.
To quote א"ז הגאון בעל התוי"ט, זי"ע, in his commentary to terumos, it is not possible to deny the evidence of our own eyes- and my own eyes have clearly seen that, sadly, charedim do indeed believe their Torah protects.
In my youth, I studied by a famed American charedi Rosh Yeshiva. The RY displayed a remarkable devotion to his daily shiur, giving his lecture even while undergoing chemo. Despite his devotion, old age eventually forced him, much to his regret, to limit the times he gave shiur to about thrice a week instead of the traditional five.
When the Israel government was considering suspending funding to yeshivos, I was shocked to hear that my now-elderly Rosh Yeshiva had made the supreme effort to not only attend a fundraising event, but to speak there, something which I knew cost him extreme effort and likely disabled him from giving his shiur for the next few days.
I could not reconcile this with my memories of the RY who had never, ever missed a shiur for anything, even chemo, and was now sacrificing shiur for fundraising.
When I asked some old friends of mine, they told me I was not the only one who was shocked. Others had asked the RY about his decision, and his response almost made me cry: He said that the matter of sustaining yeshivos in eretz yisrael isn't just about the survival of Torah, but the survival of all Jewry, and that is why he sacrificed his strength for the cause.
I am saddened by this misguided idealism, but I think it still demonstrates my point quite clearly.
In addition, perhaps you have heard that Rabbi swerdloff, a leading American RY, indeed canceled his yeshiva's bein hazmanim immediately following 10/7.
Your post exemplifies the problem of "source sheet learning", which typifies your adopted Modox community. You discover a new (to you) source, and you think "gotcha". That's quite childish. Mature talmidei chachamim dont learn from source sheet hand outs, and dont get over excited at sources cherry picked in isolation. They view the totality of the output and circumstances. When you know the proper sitz im leben of things, you dont get all excited over a single new "source".
You made a “big mistake” in your understanding of what Rav Leuchter was saying. How do I know? Because he said so explicitly: “There were people who heard this [idea, referring to a different time he said it] and made a big mistake. Leuchter just said that the ONLY things we can do are to daven and to learn. People make a mistake and understand that in the context of “us” and “them”. “Us” meaning the Yeshiva world, and “them” meaning the soldiers. So, people think that Leuchter is saying that even though the soldiers are going into Gaza, really, it’s all about “us”, with our Torah and Tefillah. Charedim think that way at times. “Really, we are the real thing!” And now Leuchter is saying it too: only two things help, Torah and Tefillah.” [from a published shiur] I don’t think it’s my place to drag him into this here so I will not copy the rest of what he said. However, whatever message he was was sharing in that Mishpacha article was not what you thought it was.
"Maharsha also points out, in the account of Rabbi Akiva learning Torah under threat of death from the Roman Empire (Berachot 61b), that Rabbi Akiva was deliberately sacrificing his life by doing so. He was not relying upon his Torah to protect him."
RNS, can you please link the citation for this?
Putting one's life at risk is not equivalent to sacrificing one's life. Perhaps his Torah did protect him, for a long time. Technically one puts themselves at risk every time they cross the street.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that no where does Rabbi Akiva imply that Torah does NOT protect- the the contrary, he says "A Jew without Torah is like a fish out of water"
If you want to voice your opinion on a topic in Torah and disagree with others fine , but to add a personal condescending remark like this....its just pretty low IMO.
I left out the quote marks. It's a copy/paste from the article's last sentence. The term "Boom" was also used in the article. My simple intention was to comment that this ending is a "boom", too.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/hareidi-hasbara
don't love the tone, but there are plenty of points there worth reading
No, there aren't.
o, my bad
i thought the point about the maharsha was good. i don't have an answer to the maharsha but it clearly not as simple as you made it out to be
You have to admire the sheer hubris. You don't have an "answer" to the Maharsha? You know full well that if there was something that agreed with your weltanschauung, you would accept it wholeheartedly and say that anyone who even suggested arguing with it was an apirkores. But if it's something that doesn't sit well with you...well, there must be an "answer" somewhere and "it's not so simple."
ummm, did you read the questions? it's not as simple as you think. besides i hardly care if the maharsha means what slifkin says it does. if he's right, there' a maharsha to know about. i have no problem with that, nor a bias in any direction. i never hanged my whole ideology on magni umatzli. i based it on teshuva tefila utzedaka. but whatever brother, not sure what you're hung up about
That's just yeshivish learning style. As opposed to the more Mordenish approach that approaches every sugyoh and halochoh with an open mind, not the results must fit in with chareidism before you start.
A yeshivish learning style that nowadays only goes one way.
mirrors have been around for a while
Intelligent.
Why not ?basically the equivalent of me just saying ''you are wrong'' without justification
natan, that was definitely not a nice response, but deserving of a ban?
it's your platform dude...
I've finally lost patience with people who constantly troll here, not saying anything of substance, throwing out extreme insults, and moreover doing so while hiding behind pseudonyms so that they don't need to take responsibility for their words.
Cant really blame you. Must not be pleasant to be proven as a fool, time and time again.
Btw, Sender Goldberg is not a pseudonym.
You have no idea whether it is or isn't.
i hear you bro
One addition to what you said: in both the maamarei Chazal that you cited, there is certainly no assumption (at least according to the simple pshat) that even if these statements are meant as a practical guide, that Torah would protect anyone other than the person learning it. The Gemara doesn’t ask, why did ANYONE die early in Doeg’s day; the only question was about him.
So: 1) it’s not a practical guide because it’s not a halachic gemara; 2) even if it is a practical guide, it doesn’t say what people want it to say if they read it with mefarshim like the Maharsha; and 3) even if it did say what they want it to say, and we ignore the Maharsha etc., and someone wanted to implement it practically… it’s extremely selfish. It’s basically saying, “I’ll go protect myself and leave you soldiers to die."
This comment deserves to be put up as a guest post
lol
True
Furthermore, we don't see yeshivot moving to the front lines to add a spiritual iron dome
Many of the sources stated in the relevant post on IM indicate clearly its only the tanoim/ amoraim themselves that were protected. There are few exceptions.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/hareidi-hasbara
Natan, if you would've posed this as an interesting question on people who you know are greater in Torah than you, you would've gotten a lot further. Instead you were snide, decisive and know-it-ally. Come on, chabibi, you're better than that
You can ask and write it up.
That the best you got?
If you have an issue with it please do share
ummm, yah...?
Rabbi Slifkin: Kol hakavod for banning those who engage in hate speech. It's bad enough when they use ad hominem attacks, or just have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. It's amazing your patience allowing comments that disagree with you in the spirit of open debate. Thanks for maintaining this forum
Why the incitement you are creating a forum in which people are literally just bashing a part of klal yisroel .
There's a part of Klal Yisrael announcing that they don't need to serve in the army because their Torah protects. That announcement should not be allowed to go unanswered.
Rabbi Slifkin-
Would you be able to find someone who could write a consistent, articulate and well-documented summary of the mainstream Hareidi view? I think that would lend itself to a higher level discussion than a lot of people snarking at each other.
Personally, I would be interested in understanding:
1- How the Hareidim justify their stance to the dati-leumi community, who are also committed to mitzvot and to Torah, but have very different priorities in terms of their relationship towards the army.
2- How they would justify their stance to the general secular community, for whom "we [Hareidim] believe that.." is a non-starter.
Finally, I will note that the very small number of Hareidi soldiers killed in the current war, versus the very high price that the dati community has already paid, is not due to the protection afforded by Torah study...except the protection provided by the law that allows them to stay far from the line of fire.
Thank you very much.
I do read Hebrew. I will take a look.
I was suggesting that a guest post here giving a coherent presentation of the Hareidi view might raise the level of discourse.
I never said it should , generating anti Chareid Hate on this blog , is certainly not a way to "Answer" , Do you honestly think that the major chareidi Rabbonim over the last 50 years were oblivious to your claims??
There's plenty of people in the charedi world who read this blog.
And the answer to your second question: Some are oblivious, and some never use the claim that "Torah protects" as an exemption from army.
So what if charedim read it ? Do you have an example one of them actually saying that this is THE reason they dont go to the Army?
Read the first paragraph.
As for other reasons, you may not want to go there. They were covered in the previous RJ article or two on the subject.
I don't recall Rav Leuchter saying it was THE reason they don't go to the Army ,I dont even see anything about not going to the Army there
I think that they eventually came and saved thousands of lives, unlike people in kollel.
No shim, this is what's important now. Obviously. Nm the rise of antisemitism around the world and all of the other huge problems-the people learning "too much" Torah, that's what needs to be fixed. From God's mouth to our ears
Literally of all the things that need to be fixed right now lets pick on the a group(Whether you beleive are correct or not) who are actually trying more then most to keep the Torah.
Yah:(
Natan, if you would've posed this as an interesting question on people who you know are greater in Torah than you, you would've gotten a lot further. Instead you were snide, decisive and know-it-ally. Come on, chabibi, you're better than that
All these explanations miss what is going on with Ra'atan sugya. While no one is quite sure what disease Ra'atan is (Preuss thinks it's leprosy), the various Rabbis give increasingly superstitious ways of avoiding the disease which result in a greater and greater level of shunning the sufferer. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi realized one should be ministering to the ill rather than shunning them and that ministering to people the way the Torah wants you to is generally not going to be harmful. RYBL was extraordinary in that he rejected the superstitions of the era and took his job as a Rabbi seriously. This Gemara is either directly referring to or is a good parallel to leper colonies which were and are largely based on superstition.
Not to mention, even if Torah did generally protect, serving in the army would be a case of מצוה שאי אפשר לעשותה על ידי אחרים which overrides Torah study. Anyone who chose Torah study over this mitzvah would be doing an averah.
you probably meant שאי אפשר, but he way you wrote it is more accurate, which answers your q:)
Yes, that's what I meant, I was tired
That's the point. The army isn't holy, it's flawed and understaffed.
Where was the protection of the holy torah?
"If only people who champion the overriding importance of Torah study would take their Torah study more seriously. " So unneccesary
If it's so simple, why would the gedolom not see it.
The Gaonim such as Rav Sherira Gaonand Rav Hai Gaon
stated that אגדות לא מחייבות.
You can accept them or not. They are just Drash. So.use common sense when learning in Aggadot.
Dear sir, you are being somewhat silly.
First of all, this post ignores the gemara Bava basra 8a, which states that rabbis are exempt from contributing to the building of walls, as they do not require protection, even though walls are obviously protecting from dying from enemy invasion.
This statement is not Agaddic, it is codified twice each by Rambam (hil. Talmud Torah and hil. Shechenim) and Shulchan Aruch.
I see that elsewhere you have written about this gemara. Intentionally leaving it out of this post is both disingenuous and misleading.
Also, you are surely aware that the concept of ein lemeidin min haAgaddos, first stated by the yerushalmi, is itself hardly a conclusive rule, the poskim do indeed often rule based off agaddos. Perhaps you are familiar with Rav zvi Hirsch chayyes' lengthy treatise on the subject.
I take particular exception to your rather odd claim that the charedi world does not believe that it's Torah protects.
To quote א"ז הגאון בעל התוי"ט, זי"ע, in his commentary to terumos, it is not possible to deny the evidence of our own eyes- and my own eyes have clearly seen that, sadly, charedim do indeed believe their Torah protects.
In my youth, I studied by a famed American charedi Rosh Yeshiva. The RY displayed a remarkable devotion to his daily shiur, giving his lecture even while undergoing chemo. Despite his devotion, old age eventually forced him, much to his regret, to limit the times he gave shiur to about thrice a week instead of the traditional five.
When the Israel government was considering suspending funding to yeshivos, I was shocked to hear that my now-elderly Rosh Yeshiva had made the supreme effort to not only attend a fundraising event, but to speak there, something which I knew cost him extreme effort and likely disabled him from giving his shiur for the next few days.
I could not reconcile this with my memories of the RY who had never, ever missed a shiur for anything, even chemo, and was now sacrificing shiur for fundraising.
When I asked some old friends of mine, they told me I was not the only one who was shocked. Others had asked the RY about his decision, and his response almost made me cry: He said that the matter of sustaining yeshivos in eretz yisrael isn't just about the survival of Torah, but the survival of all Jewry, and that is why he sacrificed his strength for the cause.
I am saddened by this misguided idealism, but I think it still demonstrates my point quite clearly.
In addition, perhaps you have heard that Rabbi swerdloff, a leading American RY, indeed canceled his yeshiva's bein hazmanim immediately following 10/7.
Your post exemplifies the problem of "source sheet learning", which typifies your adopted Modox community. You discover a new (to you) source, and you think "gotcha". That's quite childish. Mature talmidei chachamim dont learn from source sheet hand outs, and dont get over excited at sources cherry picked in isolation. They view the totality of the output and circumstances. When you know the proper sitz im leben of things, you dont get all excited over a single new "source".
You made a “big mistake” in your understanding of what Rav Leuchter was saying. How do I know? Because he said so explicitly: “There were people who heard this [idea, referring to a different time he said it] and made a big mistake. Leuchter just said that the ONLY things we can do are to daven and to learn. People make a mistake and understand that in the context of “us” and “them”. “Us” meaning the Yeshiva world, and “them” meaning the soldiers. So, people think that Leuchter is saying that even though the soldiers are going into Gaza, really, it’s all about “us”, with our Torah and Tefillah. Charedim think that way at times. “Really, we are the real thing!” And now Leuchter is saying it too: only two things help, Torah and Tefillah.” [from a published shiur] I don’t think it’s my place to drag him into this here so I will not copy the rest of what he said. However, whatever message he was was sharing in that Mishpacha article was not what you thought it was.
"Maharsha also points out, in the account of Rabbi Akiva learning Torah under threat of death from the Roman Empire (Berachot 61b), that Rabbi Akiva was deliberately sacrificing his life by doing so. He was not relying upon his Torah to protect him."
RNS, can you please link the citation for this?
Putting one's life at risk is not equivalent to sacrificing one's life. Perhaps his Torah did protect him, for a long time. Technically one puts themselves at risk every time they cross the street.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that no where does Rabbi Akiva imply that Torah does NOT protect- the the contrary, he says "A Jew without Torah is like a fish out of water"
Is Maharsho the only one who explains this Gemora? I haven't looked, but generally one brings multiple meforshim.
QUOTE: "If only people who champion the overriding importance of Torah study would take their Torah study more seriously."
-
BOOM!
If you want to voice your opinion on a topic in Torah and disagree with others fine , but to add a personal condescending remark like this....its just pretty low IMO.
You're entitled to your opinion.
I left out the quote marks. It's a copy/paste from the article's last sentence. The term "Boom" was also used in the article. My simple intention was to comment that this ending is a "boom", too.
Your mileage may vary.
I know it was from the article, and my remarks still apply.