How is this a response to the idea that Torah protects? There are many Gemaras that Torah protects. Both learning and doing. You're just trying to evade this as always, between your repulsive posts justifying the use of Nazi tropes to describe chareidim.
He did and you enthusiastically supported it. Own it. Be proud, David. Be proud of your attacks on the parasitical, bloodsucking, leeching, Jewish rat scum.
Chazal and mention many other things that can also protect, like Tefilla, Chessed, Tzedakah, Shalom. In addition, of course, to the great mitzvah of Actually Doing Something.
Again, throughout Jewish history, lack of learning is not the reason given for national catastrophes. It's always sins that involve avodah zara or bein adam lechveiro.
It's all those things also. Not being עמל בתורה is the reason given for national catastrophe in בחקתי, see Rashi there. In addition, it is the sin of being מבזה תלמידי חכמים, Shabbos 119, and not saying Birchas Hatorah, Nedarim 91. In addition to many other sins both bein adam lecmakom and bein adam lchaveiro.
In his commentary on the phrase "אם בחוקותיי תלכו," Rashi draws on midrashic interpretation rather than a straightforward, literal meaning (pshat). But what did it mean to be "laboring in Torah" in ancient times, when the Torah was the only religious text available to Jews and formal yeshivas did not yet exist? Rashi's interpretation is thus both midrashic and anachronistic, as it reflects a later understanding of Torah study that didn’t apply in those earlier times.
I'm sorry to inform you but most Torah jews would see your comment as pure heresy. So it's just totally meaningless in a discussion which assumes the divinity of the Torah and antiquity of the Oral Torah. It's like we're having a discussion about US immigration policy and you come in and say "Well have you considered that we should move the entire world population to Jupiter?"
This post is not about other sources, it's about one source and why it's not a straightforward proof-text for exempting an entire community from service. You should first explain how you read this גמרא before dismissing it and referring to others.
There are indeed many sources on Torah study. From a holistic reading of all them as integrated unit, the Charedi position emerges. But when you actually look at the sources one at a time, the Charedi position becomes more questionable. מפני מה נענש אסא? That wasn't a מלחמת מצוה. This גמרא in סנהדרין? That's Torah study which ensures correct judgement. That being the case, I think there are two possible readings of the גמרא. One, as presented here is that correct judgement was the זכות for military success. The other is that Torah study which leads to correct judgement was the זכות. In any case, the גמרא does not directly deal with exemptions or obligations to serve.
Translation. ". But when you actually distort and kvetch the sources one at a time, the Charedi position becomes more questionable. " Asa was a milchemes mitzva, as the korban ha'eida that you yourself quoted says. When this was pointed out to you...crickets.
You've lost the plot. The קרבן העדה is on the ירושלמי. I quoted "מפני מה נענש אסא". That's the בבלי, not the ירושלמי. There the מהרש"א writes it was not a מלחמת מצוה. (It's clear from the פסוקים that he ordered them to build defensive fortifications. That doesn't neatly fit in with a strict definition of מלחמת מצוה.)
There is no machlokes between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. There is a machlokes between the Korban Ha'eida and the Maharsha. And even the Maharsha only said it's a milchemes reshus to deal with the issue of חתן וכלה, the obvious inference is that he had no problem with Asa being punished for אנגריא תלמידי חכמים if it was a milchemes mitzvah. So it proves the opposite of what you want.
The מהרש"א is very difficult to understand. Because he goes against the ערוך and it's not clear why he does so, given that he very frequently cites the ערוך. I'll also note that ערוך is supported by the מסורת הש"ס, the מדרש הגדול, the פני משה, the יד יוסף, the חיד"א & the צרור הכסף. I also found the same from an anonymous גניזה from the Geonic era. Of course, there's the ירושלמי which also is consistent with the ערוך.
And finally the מהרש"א himself in the parallel גמרא in נדרים also holds like the ערוך. So is there a סתירה?
( But see the מצודת דוד (not the פירוש on נ"ך), printed on the עין יעקב who attempts to solve the סתירה.)
The point is that the מהרש"א is difficult to understand, and the inference you draw is speculative. What is clear is that אסא is punished for pressing ת"ח into service for duty that wasn't during a מלחמת מצוה. At best the מהרש"א is silent on the issue of מלחמת מצוה. And silence is not a source of inference.
Sometimes silence is a source of inference, and sometimes it's not. In this case it's a powerful inference. And the stirah in the Maharsha has nothing to do with this.
גמ' אמר ר' יוחנן רשות דרבנן כו'. ומסקנ' הש"ס בזה לפי פי' רש"י ז"ל דבעיקר הדין הכא לא נחלקו. ואין הכל יוצאין אלא במלחמ' יהושע. אבל בשאר מלחמו' אפי' למעוטי עו"ג דלא ליתו עלייהו לא יצא החתן כו'. אלא דרבנן קרו להאי נמי רשות. ונפ"מ לעוסק במצוה. ור' יהודה קרי להאי מלחמ' מצוה ופטור מן המצו'. אבל בירושלמי (פ"ח ה"י) איכא מ"ד דמחלוקת ביניהם לרבנן מלחמת מצוה. כגון מלחמת דוד. מלחמת חובה זה מלחמת יהושע. ולרבנן אפי' במלחמת מצוה הכל יוצאין אפילו חתן מחדרו. ולר' יהודה מלחמת הרשות. היינו דאזלינן עלייהו. ומלחמת מצוה דאתיין אינון עלן. וס"ל לר' יהודה דבמלחמת מצוה אין הכל יוצאין, אלא במלחמת חובה דוקא. כן נראה גירסת הירושלמי. ולכ"ע איכא ג' מיני מלחמות. רשות. מצוה. וחובה. אזלינן עלייהו רשות. אתיין אינון עלן מצוה. מלחמת יהושע חובה. ואמרי רבנן דאפילו במצוה הכל יוצאין. ור' יהודה ס"ל דאין הכל יוצאין אלא במלחמת חובה.
והרמב"ם ז"ל בפ"ה מהל' מלכים כ' דמלחמת מצוה היא מלחמת עמלק וז' עממין ולהושיע להם מצרים הבאים עליהם. ולכאורה הוא נגד מסקנא דשמעתין. דלמעוטי עו"ג דלא ליתו עלייהו הוי רשות לרבנן. ומד' הלח"מ ז"ל שם משמע דיש חילוק, כי היכי דלא ליתו עלייהו הוי רשות. אבל עזרת ישראל אם כבר באו עליהם זה ודאי מצוה היא. ומסתבר כן. אבל פשטא דשמעתין לא משמע הכי. אבל לפי דברי הירושלמי דלעיל נראה כד' הרמב"ם ז"ל, דאתיין אינון עלן הוי מלחמת מצוה לרבנן ג"כ. ובכה"ג ג"כ הכל יוצאין אפי' חתן מחדרו. אלא דמהא דאמרינן לעיל גבי אסא המלך שנענש מפני שעשה אנגריא בת"ח. והשמיע אין נקי אפי' חתן מחדרו. והרי התם היה מפני אויב דאתא עלייהו, מפני בעשא מלך ישראל. ואפ"ה שלא כדין הוי. וי"ל דהתם כבר הלך בעשא ממנו ע"י מלחמת ארם. כמבואר בקראי התם. ומשמע הכא דבמלחמת מצוה הכל יוצאין, ואפי' ת"ח צריכין ליבטל מלימודן. וא"כ יש לדקדק מהא דשבע בן בכרי דאמרינן בסנהדרין (מ"ט ע"א) דעמשא דריש אכין ורקין ואשכח לרבנן דפתחי במסכתא. והא התם הוי מלחמת מצוה משונא הבא עליהם, ואפילו ת"ח צריכין לצאת. וצ"ל דעיקר מרד שבע בן בכרי היה בכבוד מלכות. וזה לאו בכלל מלחמת מצוה הוא. ועי' בד' הרע"ב ז"ל והתוסי"ט ז"ל במתניתין.
Was this teaching addressed to every (male 😄, as one could never, never allow a female) person or to a specific subgroup? Was this advice to the judiciary?
Every person in a society must give up all means of livelihood - which includes executive functions like security- to just sit and learn Toireh? Is that the meaning of that Gemara?
Completely agree. Even in the areas where learning Torah is the literal translation, it is a means to an end of living as an עבד ה. As is well known, it is possible to be a נבל ברשות התורה.
I guess we have the old question here of whether the bracha לעסוק is the same bracha as והערב נא (as many modern siddurim have it) or if they are separate (as the Rambam has it). והערב is all about learning, and l'shma. Should you combine them, there's an implication that לעסוק means to learn l'shma. Separate, maybe not so much.
I never understood the claim that specifically constantly learning Torah is the one mitzvah that is critical to save Klal Yisrael from harm (other than the fact that it's the one mitzvah conveniently exempts its practitioners from serving in the army).
Throughout Jewish history, lack of learning is NEVER the reason given for national catastrophes or the churban! It's always sins that involve avodah zara or bein adam lechveiro . . .
The ironic thing is that jn the Har Nof kennes, one of the speakers said that it's fine for bochrim to leave yeshiva for a wedding, because simchas chosson is also a mitzva and can also protect the soldiers.
Or it could be that not (taking a break and) going to a friend's or relative's is too much to ask. And there would be many who would ignore such a decree.
Who was it who said that Spanish Jews learned *too* much and were thus able to intellectually "justify" conversion to Christianity? I'm thinking the Abarbanel, but I'm not sure.
There are clear sources in rishonim about the specific merit of torah. See rabbeinu yonah brachos pertaining to the gemara on 8a for one. And there are many more.
The context of the Gemarah is talking about limud Torah, not psak halacha.
I will also point out, Mr Slifkin, that his Gemara explicitly states that learning Torah protects from death, a concept you seem to vehemently disagree with.
Hey Dr. Slifkin, I just thought u might want to know that hyraxes are having a moment in the secular cultural spotlight. Here's a (PG) 2 min vid: youtu.be/X9Jf2Pa0Sdg?si=v-7qaKgcQL0zhbDp
Unfortunately, so true (not all, but no way to know which). Where I live in the Galil there are virtually hundreds in and around our yeshuv. I find them very cute but most people, my wife included, can't stand them. They do tend to destroy a garden if they get access to one.
"Osek" baTorah CAN mean "doing" Torahdik things such as mitzvos.
"Osek" baTorah CAN most certainly NOT mean the modern orthodox style of (a) refraining from prohibitions (mlachos on shabbos, eating non-kosher food, etc.), (b) doing habitual time bound mitzvos (when it doesn't interfere too much with life), and (c) living life doing whatever heter things I want while rarely giving a thought to what HaShem wants from me at this moment.
"Osek" baTorah means "being busy with" the Torah. You can say that I am now "osek" in a mitzvah. But (according to the definition that is not about learning) to be called one who is generally "osek" in Torah means that being involved in Torah and mitzvos is ALL that his life is about, not that he incidentally keeps mitzvos while doing anything he wants with his life.
Maybe you should have read Slifkin's previous substack post, of which this substack post was coming off of. Because the entire post was about Maccos daf yud.
Good question. Defending the country: no. Defending its citizens: possibly - it depends on the operation and the situation. In this case, fighting with this army whose supreme commanders are kofrim ba-Ikar (and therefore also baTorah) and care more about their political reputation than about other Jews, and will often put Jews in a position to be killed where the halachah prohibits (no, they do not consult with halachic authorities about any of their operations) - I don't see how that is called "osek batorah".
Irrelevant to the question as to whether this גמרא can be used as a proof-text to exempt an entire community. (And to exempt those who are not learning; and to cancel the learning of scholars in another community.)
Also, see end of first(?) perek of masechta Megilla. Leitzanus is forbidden except against avoda zara. Regarding this issue its reason, there would not does not seem to be a reason to differentiate between avoda zara, kfira (which Slifkin has clearly demonstrated), and leitzonus against Chachmey Torah of the generation (which Slifkin has also clearly demonstrated). So to call an idea of his "dumb" is not unrefined by Torah standards - if anything, it is lenient.
Very different. If you did not notice that (a) mine is referring to the idea being stated (even if that wasn't clear, it certainly is not clear that it was referring to a person), while the comment you quote is about the person, and (b) mine does not use profanity (or euphimism foa profanity), or if you happen to think those differences are irrelevant, then i can not help you.
Also, see end of first(?) perek of masechta Megilla. Leitzanus is forbidden except against avoda zara. Regarding this issue its reason, there would not does not seem to be a reason to differentiate between avoda zara, kfira (which Slifkin has clearly demonstrated), and leitzonus against Chachmey Torah of the generation (which Slifkin has also clearly demonstrated). So to call an idea of his "dumb" is not unrefined by Torah standards - if anything, it is lenient.
How is this a response to the idea that Torah protects? There are many Gemaras that Torah protects. Both learning and doing. You're just trying to evade this as always, between your repulsive posts justifying the use of Nazi tropes to describe chareidim.
He did no such thing. Like the worst anti-Semites today, you are gaslighting non-stop.
He's not gaslighting. Gaslighting involves manipulating people into questioning their own sanity.
He's just changing the topic.
You're confusing Charles Boyer's role in Gaslight with his role in Algiers.
He did and you enthusiastically supported it. Own it. Be proud, David. Be proud of your attacks on the parasitical, bloodsucking, leeching, Jewish rat scum.
Chazal and mention many other things that can also protect, like Tefilla, Chessed, Tzedakah, Shalom. In addition, of course, to the great mitzvah of Actually Doing Something.
Again, throughout Jewish history, lack of learning is not the reason given for national catastrophes. It's always sins that involve avodah zara or bein adam lechveiro.
It's all those things also. Not being עמל בתורה is the reason given for national catastrophe in בחקתי, see Rashi there. In addition, it is the sin of being מבזה תלמידי חכמים, Shabbos 119, and not saying Birchas Hatorah, Nedarim 91. In addition to many other sins both bein adam lecmakom and bein adam lchaveiro.
In his commentary on the phrase "אם בחוקותיי תלכו," Rashi draws on midrashic interpretation rather than a straightforward, literal meaning (pshat). But what did it mean to be "laboring in Torah" in ancient times, when the Torah was the only religious text available to Jews and formal yeshivas did not yet exist? Rashi's interpretation is thus both midrashic and anachronistic, as it reflects a later understanding of Torah study that didn’t apply in those earlier times.
I'm sorry to inform you but most Torah jews would see your comment as pure heresy. So it's just totally meaningless in a discussion which assumes the divinity of the Torah and antiquity of the Oral Torah. It's like we're having a discussion about US immigration policy and you come in and say "Well have you considered that we should move the entire world population to Jupiter?"
https://jewishbelief.com/did-rashi-come-down-with-moses-at-sinai/
Perhaps because Rashi was in the galus, whereas the former were in Israel?
Thank you for this reminder of the Birchas.
This post is not about other sources, it's about one source and why it's not a straightforward proof-text for exempting an entire community from service. You should first explain how you read this גמרא before dismissing it and referring to others.
There are indeed many sources on Torah study. From a holistic reading of all them as integrated unit, the Charedi position emerges. But when you actually look at the sources one at a time, the Charedi position becomes more questionable. מפני מה נענש אסא? That wasn't a מלחמת מצוה. This גמרא in סנהדרין? That's Torah study which ensures correct judgement. That being the case, I think there are two possible readings of the גמרא. One, as presented here is that correct judgement was the זכות for military success. The other is that Torah study which leads to correct judgement was the זכות. In any case, the גמרא does not directly deal with exemptions or obligations to serve.
Translation. ". But when you actually distort and kvetch the sources one at a time, the Charedi position becomes more questionable. " Asa was a milchemes mitzva, as the korban ha'eida that you yourself quoted says. When this was pointed out to you...crickets.
You've lost the plot. The קרבן העדה is on the ירושלמי. I quoted "מפני מה נענש אסא". That's the בבלי, not the ירושלמי. There the מהרש"א writes it was not a מלחמת מצוה. (It's clear from the פסוקים that he ordered them to build defensive fortifications. That doesn't neatly fit in with a strict definition of מלחמת מצוה.)
There is no machlokes between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. There is a machlokes between the Korban Ha'eida and the Maharsha. And even the Maharsha only said it's a milchemes reshus to deal with the issue of חתן וכלה, the obvious inference is that he had no problem with Asa being punished for אנגריא תלמידי חכמים if it was a milchemes mitzvah. So it proves the opposite of what you want.
" the obvious inference..."
Inference.
"So it proves"
Inference is not a proof.
The מהרש"א is very difficult to understand. Because he goes against the ערוך and it's not clear why he does so, given that he very frequently cites the ערוך. I'll also note that ערוך is supported by the מסורת הש"ס, the מדרש הגדול, the פני משה, the יד יוסף, the חיד"א & the צרור הכסף. I also found the same from an anonymous גניזה from the Geonic era. Of course, there's the ירושלמי which also is consistent with the ערוך.
And finally the מהרש"א himself in the parallel גמרא in נדרים also holds like the ערוך. So is there a סתירה?
( But see the מצודת דוד (not the פירוש on נ"ך), printed on the עין יעקב who attempts to solve the סתירה.)
The point is that the מהרש"א is difficult to understand, and the inference you draw is speculative. What is clear is that אסא is punished for pressing ת"ח into service for duty that wasn't during a מלחמת מצוה. At best the מהרש"א is silent on the issue of מלחמת מצוה. And silence is not a source of inference.
Sometimes silence is a source of inference, and sometimes it's not. In this case it's a powerful inference. And the stirah in the Maharsha has nothing to do with this.
Here's another good source:
קרן אורה מסכת סוטה דף מד עמוד ב
גמ' אמר ר' יוחנן רשות דרבנן כו'. ומסקנ' הש"ס בזה לפי פי' רש"י ז"ל דבעיקר הדין הכא לא נחלקו. ואין הכל יוצאין אלא במלחמ' יהושע. אבל בשאר מלחמו' אפי' למעוטי עו"ג דלא ליתו עלייהו לא יצא החתן כו'. אלא דרבנן קרו להאי נמי רשות. ונפ"מ לעוסק במצוה. ור' יהודה קרי להאי מלחמ' מצוה ופטור מן המצו'. אבל בירושלמי (פ"ח ה"י) איכא מ"ד דמחלוקת ביניהם לרבנן מלחמת מצוה. כגון מלחמת דוד. מלחמת חובה זה מלחמת יהושע. ולרבנן אפי' במלחמת מצוה הכל יוצאין אפילו חתן מחדרו. ולר' יהודה מלחמת הרשות. היינו דאזלינן עלייהו. ומלחמת מצוה דאתיין אינון עלן. וס"ל לר' יהודה דבמלחמת מצוה אין הכל יוצאין, אלא במלחמת חובה דוקא. כן נראה גירסת הירושלמי. ולכ"ע איכא ג' מיני מלחמות. רשות. מצוה. וחובה. אזלינן עלייהו רשות. אתיין אינון עלן מצוה. מלחמת יהושע חובה. ואמרי רבנן דאפילו במצוה הכל יוצאין. ור' יהודה ס"ל דאין הכל יוצאין אלא במלחמת חובה.
והרמב"ם ז"ל בפ"ה מהל' מלכים כ' דמלחמת מצוה היא מלחמת עמלק וז' עממין ולהושיע להם מצרים הבאים עליהם. ולכאורה הוא נגד מסקנא דשמעתין. דלמעוטי עו"ג דלא ליתו עלייהו הוי רשות לרבנן. ומד' הלח"מ ז"ל שם משמע דיש חילוק, כי היכי דלא ליתו עלייהו הוי רשות. אבל עזרת ישראל אם כבר באו עליהם זה ודאי מצוה היא. ומסתבר כן. אבל פשטא דשמעתין לא משמע הכי. אבל לפי דברי הירושלמי דלעיל נראה כד' הרמב"ם ז"ל, דאתיין אינון עלן הוי מלחמת מצוה לרבנן ג"כ. ובכה"ג ג"כ הכל יוצאין אפי' חתן מחדרו. אלא דמהא דאמרינן לעיל גבי אסא המלך שנענש מפני שעשה אנגריא בת"ח. והשמיע אין נקי אפי' חתן מחדרו. והרי התם היה מפני אויב דאתא עלייהו, מפני בעשא מלך ישראל. ואפ"ה שלא כדין הוי. וי"ל דהתם כבר הלך בעשא ממנו ע"י מלחמת ארם. כמבואר בקראי התם. ומשמע הכא דבמלחמת מצוה הכל יוצאין, ואפי' ת"ח צריכין ליבטל מלימודן. וא"כ יש לדקדק מהא דשבע בן בכרי דאמרינן בסנהדרין (מ"ט ע"א) דעמשא דריש אכין ורקין ואשכח לרבנן דפתחי במסכתא. והא התם הוי מלחמת מצוה משונא הבא עליהם, ואפילו ת"ח צריכין לצאת. וצ"ל דעיקר מרד שבע בן בכרי היה בכבוד מלכות. וזה לאו בכלל מלחמת מצוה הוא. ועי' בד' הרע"ב ז"ל והתוסי"ט ז"ל במתניתין.
Was this teaching addressed to every (male 😄, as one could never, never allow a female) person or to a specific subgroup? Was this advice to the judiciary?
Every person in a society must give up all means of livelihood - which includes executive functions like security- to just sit and learn Toireh? Is that the meaning of that Gemara?
Completely agree. Even in the areas where learning Torah is the literal translation, it is a means to an end of living as an עבד ה. As is well known, it is possible to be a נבל ברשות התורה.
I guess we have the old question here of whether the bracha לעסוק is the same bracha as והערב נא (as many modern siddurim have it) or if they are separate (as the Rambam has it). והערב is all about learning, and l'shma. Should you combine them, there's an implication that לעסוק means to learn l'shma. Separate, maybe not so much.
"there's an implication that לעסוק means to learn l'shma. "
Now you have to explain everyone's position on what לשמה means.
How do you learn without listening? And once one has learned, as in case of a Bar Mitzvah, one is expected to perform?
Even if you don't the bracha is for learning torah
Or perhaps it isn't. :-)
The gemara and poskim are good enough for me :-)
I never understood the claim that specifically constantly learning Torah is the one mitzvah that is critical to save Klal Yisrael from harm (other than the fact that it's the one mitzvah conveniently exempts its practitioners from serving in the army).
Throughout Jewish history, lack of learning is NEVER the reason given for national catastrophes or the churban! It's always sins that involve avodah zara or bein adam lechveiro . . .
The ironic thing is that jn the Har Nof kennes, one of the speakers said that it's fine for bochrim to leave yeshiva for a wedding, because simchas chosson is also a mitzva and can also protect the soldiers.
Or it could be that not (taking a break and) going to a friend's or relative's is too much to ask. And there would be many who would ignore such a decree.
Yes but that's not what he said.
Or learning without a bracha, which implies learning without absorbing the lessons.
The chasid Ya'avetz blamed the spanish inquisition on the lack of Torah learning in Spain.
Who was it who said that Spanish Jews learned *too* much and were thus able to intellectually "justify" conversion to Christianity? I'm thinking the Abarbanel, but I'm not sure.
What is your point? That krum sevaras can lead to problems? I agree with that too.
Someone who was prejudiced against ספרדים?
There are clear sources in rishonim about the specific merit of torah. See rabbeinu yonah brachos pertaining to the gemara on 8a for one. And there are many more.
The context of the Gemarah is talking about limud Torah, not psak halacha.
I will also point out, Mr Slifkin, that his Gemara explicitly states that learning Torah protects from death, a concept you seem to vehemently disagree with.
Hey Dr. Slifkin, I just thought u might want to know that hyraxes are having a moment in the secular cultural spotlight. Here's a (PG) 2 min vid: youtu.be/X9Jf2Pa0Sdg?si=v-7qaKgcQL0zhbDp
Just beware that they are wild animals, as a friend's cat discovered to her detriment.
They carry fleas that cause Leishmaniasis.
Unfortunately, so true (not all, but no way to know which). Where I live in the Galil there are virtually hundreds in and around our yeshuv. I find them very cute but most people, my wife included, can't stand them. They do tend to destroy a garden if they get access to one.
Dumb. You're fishing for perushim.
"Osek" baTorah CAN mean learning Torah.
"Osek" baTorah CAN mean "doing" Torahdik things such as mitzvos.
"Osek" baTorah CAN most certainly NOT mean the modern orthodox style of (a) refraining from prohibitions (mlachos on shabbos, eating non-kosher food, etc.), (b) doing habitual time bound mitzvos (when it doesn't interfere too much with life), and (c) living life doing whatever heter things I want while rarely giving a thought to what HaShem wants from me at this moment.
"Osek" baTorah means "being busy with" the Torah. You can say that I am now "osek" in a mitzvah. But (according to the definition that is not about learning) to be called one who is generally "osek" in Torah means that being involved in Torah and mitzvos is ALL that his life is about, not that he incidentally keeps mitzvos while doing anything he wants with his life.
It's not "fishing for perushim," it's an explicit Gemara:
ואילמלא יואב לא עסק דוד בתורה דכתיב (שמואל ב ח, טו) ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה לכל עמו
You are ignoring the context of the statement of the Gemara in Makkos. It is talking about Limud Torah.
The post is about the גמרא in סנהדרין. Does the גמרא in מכות illuminate the גמרא in סנהדרין? If not, then it's not relevant to this post.
Maybe you should have read Slifkin's previous substack post, of which this substack post was coming off of. Because the entire post was about Maccos daf yud.
See Maharsha
Mr Gdalya-
Is a Hesder soldier not Osek baTorah when he's risking life and limb to defend the country and its citizens?
And also, I would prefer that he continue learning.
Good question. Defending the country: no. Defending its citizens: possibly - it depends on the operation and the situation. In this case, fighting with this army whose supreme commanders are kofrim ba-Ikar (and therefore also baTorah) and care more about their political reputation than about other Jews, and will often put Jews in a position to be killed where the halachah prohibits (no, they do not consult with halachic authorities about any of their operations) - I don't see how that is called "osek batorah".
Yes.
בחרבי ובקשתי - בראשית מח:כב
See אונקלוס, רש"י and משכיל לדוד
יעקב attributed his military success to weapons, תפילה and תורה.
This is a better answer than mine.
""Osek" baTorah CAN most certainly NOT mean the"
Irrelevant to the question as to whether this גמרא can be used as a proof-text to exempt an entire community. (And to exempt those who are not learning; and to cancel the learning of scholars in another community.)
A ben torah would never begin a post with the word "Dumb."
Right up there with the "ben Torah" who calls another observant Jew dog feces. You can really see how their years of learning have refined them. 🤣
Also, see end of first(?) perek of masechta Megilla. Leitzanus is forbidden except against avoda zara. Regarding this issue its reason, there would not does not seem to be a reason to differentiate between avoda zara, kfira (which Slifkin has clearly demonstrated), and leitzonus against Chachmey Torah of the generation (which Slifkin has also clearly demonstrated). So to call an idea of his "dumb" is not unrefined by Torah standards - if anything, it is lenient.
Very different. If you did not notice that (a) mine is referring to the idea being stated (even if that wasn't clear, it certainly is not clear that it was referring to a person), while the comment you quote is about the person, and (b) mine does not use profanity (or euphimism foa profanity), or if you happen to think those differences are irrelevant, then i can not help you.
Also, see end of first(?) perek of masechta Megilla. Leitzanus is forbidden except against avoda zara. Regarding this issue its reason, there would not does not seem to be a reason to differentiate between avoda zara, kfira (which Slifkin has clearly demonstrated), and leitzonus against Chachmey Torah of the generation (which Slifkin has also clearly demonstrated). So to call an idea of his "dumb" is not unrefined by Torah standards - if anything, it is lenient.
Is the problem the use of the word, or that the comment starts with it? Either way, you are wrong.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/is-torah-study-a-part-of-the-war/comment/76792905