Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 087

Wednesday, December 23 1998

• RYE
• Bas Kol and Halachah
• Kollels as Research Engines
• Re: ruach hakodesh
• Re: RYE & RYE according to REC & RDE
• RYEmden and Sabbateanism
• Re: Bas Kol
• Re: RYE & RYE "Final note"
• Re: ruach hakodesh
• Re: Bas Kol and Halachah
• Re: Bas Kol and Halachah
• Rav Kook on the RYE/RYE controversy
• Re: Bas Kol
• Utopia vs Golus
• The Kollel issue

OK, this is the word I received from the one person on the list that I
thought might be knowledgable enough to speak "tzum zach" (name erased to
protect anonymity). No help! 

> Sorry.  I know that the dispute was about the text of some amulets that
> Rabbi Eibschitz wrote, but I've never seen the texts so I can't evaluate
> Rabbi Emden's complaints.  I believe that Rabbi Emden published them at
> some point, so you may be able to find them in the library.
 
> On the other hand, the fact that Rabbi Eibschitz's son was an
> acknowledged Sabbatean does lend some support to Rabbi Emden.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

A quick summary of the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry on "Bas Kol", the paragraph
about its impact on halachah:

In Eiruvin 13b, the bas kol is relied upon to give precedence to Beis Hillel.
However, we side with R' Yehoshua and the Chachamim over R' Eliezer and a
Bas Kol. (BTW, according to R' Nissim Gaon, "lo bashamayim hi" is a
consequence of "Toras Hashem temimah". Temimus implies that no further input
is needed.)

1- Rav Nissim Gaon (B'rachos 19a), Yeish Omrim I: The bas kol said "halachah
k'moso b'chol makom". As a general rule, the halachah is like R' Eliezer,
but not here. This gives halachic power to BK.

2- Ibid, Yeish Omrim II: The bas kol was only a test for the chachamim. Again,
normally BK would have halachic power.

3- Tosfos (Eiruvin 6b) I: The bas kol was only for the kavod of R' Eliezer,
who called down the opinion of Shamayim.

4- Tosfos II: There is a difference between whether the bas kol runs counter
to divrei Torah, or in accordance with it. (This was the opinion I tried to
paraphrase earlier.) Bas Kol can confirm p'sak, but not run counter to normal
halachic process. It is unclear what would be the rule if divrei Torah were
silent on the topic -- that the BK spoke neither in confirmation nor in denial
of normal halachic process.

My understanding of this shitah is actually confirmed by Daniel Eidensohn's
quotes. E.g. (from Tosfos ibid 14a, Daniel's translation) "but the Bas Kol of
Beis Hillel we posken like it because Beis Hillel was the majority while Beis
Shammai was sharper...." IOW, we follow the BK because it is in accordance with
"acharei rabim" and does not add anything new.

5- Or Samei'ach (Yesodei HaTorah 9:4, already presented in Daniel's post):
There is a distinction between whether the BK is clarifying a particular
halachah and whether it speaks of a person's p'sak. In the first case, BK is
certainly not followed. (cf Temurah 16:1, where Yehushua refuses to retreave
lost halachos via nevuah.) In the second, we do follow Beis Hillel, as per
the BK. (Although R' Y'hoshua would disagree about this use of BK as well.)

My 2c: This relates to the fact that BK is listened to WRT determining m'tzius.
The Or Samei'ach is perhaps suggesting that the BK WRT BH is about the m'tzius
of BH, not halachah directly, and is therefore believed.

I'm not sure how Daniel understands the OS and Tosfos to be describing
compatable shitos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6014 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 23-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Dear List,

EVERYONE agrees there must be kollelim.  The question is how far to take it?  
Should it be the purview of the elite or open to all?

I find one criticism re: Kollels in particular, to be useful;  that is much of 
their learning is unfocused.  While Kollel members are encouraged in hasmodo, 
they are not encouraged to complete projects.  Once a friend pointed out to me 
a certain large Besi Medrash and said: "You see the hundreds of people learning 
here?  I'll bet not one has finished the Mishna Bruro, or a Minchas Chinuch or 
a any sefer ploni from cover to cover."

It has been suggested that Kollel people could engage in researching and 
publishing crosss references and footnotes to such seforim as the Tur and the 
Yad.  I think these kind of goal-oriented projects would make even the Kollel 
critics sit up and take notice.  Furthermore, the discipline it takes to start 
and finish a project would better enable Kollel alumni to work in the world 
outside of Kollel.


Visualize harnessing full time Kolle members in researching and publishing the 
following types of seforim:
1) Discuss every maclokess between MB and Aruch haShulchan or between MB and 
Igros Moshe. 
2) Analyze every time the SA did not follow the rov of his Beis Din (I'm sure 
Micha would buy that Sefer <smile>!)
3) Discuss contradictions between Meimros of Rav Yochanan found in the TB and 
the TY.

You get the idea.  Kollels have the manpower to pull off some of these research 
type projects, and the output would garner them greater respect.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe 

<<
Their reason may be explained
as follows:The Holy Spirit shined forth in the house of study of the author of
the
Shulchan Aruch and the acknowledged decisors according to whose rulings all of
the
house of Israel conducted themselves for many generations. Accordingly it is
incumbent upon us to continue in their path, even if we now find manuscripts
of
some early-day authorities whose path is not the same..."
>>

And why not say that the "Holy Spirit"  ( I am using quotes because it is a
term you used, and not one that I can define in any manner whatsoever ) now
shines on this newfound manuscript.  Otherwise, why did it come to light at
all, and not remain forever forgotten.

As I have written earlier, about the issue of To'eh bid'var mishna, the reason
the SA and other works are not argued on is that they have been accepted by
the vast majority of Klal Yisrael, and once a work has attain widespread
acceptance it rises in status to d'var mishna.  It has nothing to do with
Ruach haKodesh.

Rambam defines Ruach haKodesh as inspiration, the first of your definitions.
I do not remember him giving the 2nd definition, though, and in his definition
I do not think he limits it to only areas of holy endeavor.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

I understood R. Clark's "conspiracy theory" to not be a cover-up by present
day leaders, but rather by those of the generation in which the controversy
occurred.  Today's leaders are not actively involved in a cover-up, as they
have just as little information on the subject matter as does the general
population.  I think what current leadership is doing is ignoring the whole
issue, and lo ra'inu ayno r'aya, not seeing a statement is not the same as a
negative statement.  The leaders are not saying that they have decided that
one side was right or wrong, they are saying nothing on the issue, avoiding it
altogether.  As such, R. Clark feels that we should try and work out for
ourselves a resolution to a centuries old dispute.  The silence of the leaders
does not, in any way, argue against this.

What does, however, argue against this, is the reasonable expectation that we
will actually come up with some startling new piece of evidence that has not
been found to date.  We will not come to a resolution of the dispute involving
the RYEs.  What we can gain, though, is an understanding of how and when one
may publicly cast aspersions on another's character.  This is both important
and timely ( as has been raised concerning the extreme m'shichists of Chabad
).  

[As an aside, concerning people who wear t'fillin and are otherwise outwardly
frum, my father commented that the Mishna states that if a shaliach tzibur
stumbles on Birchas HaMinim, he is immediately removed, even though that
person is obviously wearing talis and t'filin and is in fact leading a minyan,
giving all outward impressions of being frum.  Yet, if we see even the
SLIGHTEST hint of k'fira, a stutter or hesitation in Birchas haMinim, that
person is removed.  This should show us the level of vigilance that is needed
to protect our faith from antithetical beliefs by outwardly observant people.
I think it is a shame that leaders of most branches of Orthodoxy have remained
silent, and I do not take that silence as any indication other than lack of
interest in areas outside their field of view, and they do not see this as a
danger to themselves and therefore do not speak out about the dangers to the
general frum and not-frum world.  I base this last criticism not only on this
one issue but on others where I have personally approached Roshei Yeshiva and
been told they will not make public statements, as it does not involve their
people].

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

It should be noted that however you regard R. Emden's attacks on
RYEibeschutz, it appears to be universally recognized that Sabbateanism died
as a direct result. If it were not for R. Y. Emden's attacks, we might still
be dealing with a Sabbatean sect within Judaism. 

Therefore, through the lens of history, we are far better off today as a
result of this machlokes. Perhaps there will be an equivalent gadol who will
address the Lubavitch threat in the same way.

Arnie Lustiger

<<
In sum, we never follow the Bas Kol to override an established principle in
Halacha i.e., following a minority against the majority. However, in the case
of
Beis Hillel we didn't know if the majority can overrule a minority of wiser
people. The Bas Kol established that in fact majority applies here also.[this
is
also the interpretation of Encyclopedia Talmudis]. The Bas Kol poskened
halacha
that we would not have been able to answer without it.
>>

But why can't it be explained that R. Eliezer's bas kol was teaching us that
the sharper minority (in this case a minority of one) overrides the majority?
And what we now have is a contradiction of bas kols!  Your argument that bas
kol cannot override halachic principle falls if it is the very same medium
that teaches contradictory principles.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
One final note. It might  seem to some of you -  as  silent observers of the
serious and sometimes heated exchange between Rabbi Clark and myself - that
not
too many others care one way or the other
>>

This I think is one of the key areas of disagreement between our main
combatants.  Does silence mean anything?  Is it sh'tika k'hoda'ah or lo ra'inu
ayno r'aya?  RDE feels the former, REC the latter.  I tend to agree with REC
on this issue.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
> Their reason may be explained as follows:The Holy Spirit shined forth in the
> house of study of the author of the Shulchan Aruch and the acknowledged decisors
> according to whose rulings all of
> the house of Israel conducted themselves for many generations. Accordingly it is
>
> incumbent upon us to continue in their path, even if we now find manuscripts
> of some early-day authorities whose path is not the same..."
> >>
> And why not say that the "Holy Spirit"  ( I am using quotes because it is a
> term you used, and not one that I can define in any manner whatsoever ) now
> shines on this newfound manuscript.  Otherwise, why did it come to light at
> all, and not remain forever forgotten.

Why should the finding of a manuscript necessitate Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit was
the term used in Tradition magazine)?. Finding something doesn't demonstrate it is
special. All sorts of things are found. However, being accepted by klall Yisroel
does indicate that it is something special..

> As I have written earlier, about the issue of To'eh bid'var mishna, the reason
> the SA and other works are not argued on is that they have been accepted by
> the vast majority of Klal Yisrael, and once a work has attain widespread
> acceptance it rises in status to d'var mishna.  It has nothing to do with
> Ruach haKodesh.

If I understand you properly your are asserting there is nothing gained by the
explanation of Rav Yonason Eybeshuetz and Rav Sternbuch. You feel that the same
halachic status is produced by the mechanism of d'var mishna and furthermore you
know that Ruach HaKodesh is not involved.
1) My original posting was primarily  to show that the above use of Ruach HaKodesh
was not a violation of lo bashamayim and I  agree with you  that it is not one of
the foundations of faith to utilize their explanation. 2) Your explanation,
however, only explains what to do with halachic works  once they are accepted,  it
doesn't indicate what there is about them that leads to their acceptance. 3)
Finally even if you don't "need" the factor of Ruach HaKodesh - I don't share your
confidence that  "it has nothing to do with Ruach HaKodesh".

                                      Daniel Eidensohn

Micha Berger wrote:

> 4- Tosfos II: There is a difference between whether the bas kol runs counter
> to divrei Torah, or in accordance with it. (This was the opinion I tried to
> paraphrase earlier.) Bas Kol can confirm p'sak, but not run counter to normal
> halachic process. ...
>
> My understanding of this shitah is actually confirmed by Daniel Eidensohn's
> quotes. E.g. (from Tosfos ibid 14a, Daniel's translation) "but the Bas Kol of
> Beis Hillel we posken like it because Beis Hillel was the majority while Beis
> Shammai was sharper...."

> IOW, we follow the BK because it is in accordance with
> "acharei rabim" and does not add anything new.
>

The Bas Kol was not followed *because* it was echoing the majority. Tosfos says
that it was followed *because* it did not violate any previously known rule. Thus a
Bas Kol is allowed to be mechadeish - as long as it does not uproot the old.
However, when the Bas Kol sided with Rabbi Eliezar, Tosfos insists that it was not
intended for halacha, because this would have uprooted the principle of majority
rule. Therefore it must have come for a non halachic mission - to show kavod.

I think our point of disagreement is what is the significance of being told that
Beis Shammai was smarter. You seem to be saying this was not a real question but
rather was a minor uncertainty. They could simply have ignored it - without the aid
of the Bas Kol. The Bas Kol only came to reassure them that the rule of following
the majority was simply what they had known all along. They poskened and the Bas
Kol said "Me Too".  The gemora indicates however, without the Bas Kol there were
those who would have followed the majority (Beis Hillel) and there are those who
would follow Beis Shammai (Smarter).  Thus we would have had no coherent principle
that Beis Hillel wins over Beis Shammai. That coherent principle is  something new.
Furthermore, ignoring the smarter minority is not so obvious. The Maharsha points
out there was a possible drasha to invalidate majority rule when faced with smart
people. Furthermore, the  Meiri  states that we learn from this gemora that the
general rule is that  majority rule is invalidated by a smart minority.

In sum, you insist that nothing was actually learned from the Bas Kol. It merely
reinforced what they would have paskened anyway.  The gemora and Tosfos, however,
state that there was a genuine problem Does majority rule apply with a smart
minority? The Bas Kol was the authority that answered the question. We know that it
was meant as an authoritative psak because it did not uproot previously established
rules. If it had gone against an unquestioned rule - it would have been known to be
coming for a non-halachic reason (e.g., Kavod). The answer could not have been
ascertained without the Bas Kol. When a doubt arises in the nature of the decision
making process itself, those questionable procedures themselves can not answer the
question. Bottom line - was the Bas Kol really needed?


                                  Daniel Eidensohn

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:
: You seem to be saying this was not a real question but rather was a minor
: uncertainty. They could simply have ignored it - without the aid of the Bas
: Kol. The Bas Kol only came to reassure them that the rule of following the
: majority was simply what they had known all along.

My understanding is not that they "could simply have ignored it", but that
they /should/ simply have ignored it. Because they didn't, and let the
diversity of p'sak continue, a bas kol came to finally close the case.

As Eliyahu Teitz pointed out, if it were merely because they didn't know the
rule of acharei rabim even when the opposition were wise, R' Eliezer's nissim
and bas kol would have proven the opposite point, with equal validity.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6014 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 23-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I just came across the SHIVCHEI Ha'RAIAH by Chaim Lifshitz, a talmid of
Rav Kook who relates the story when someone asked Rav Kook if either
RYE or RYE were correct or wrong. Rav Kook indicated that: "kol divrei
mitnagdav ha'merubin [referring to R. Yehonatan E.] ein af shemetz ketantan
o eizeh revav she'bekocho l'hatil tzel shel avak ...". [The question also
dealt with the letter of the Pnei Yehoshua against R.Yehonatan E.]. It
seemed that as a young talmid (in his early teens), R. Yehonatan  learned
kabbalah and visited the home of a certain notorious follower of Shabtai
Zvi by the name of Leib of Prosnitz who had some books on kabbalah. Quite
innicently, R. Yehonatan told of his visit to his fellow talmidim in the
yeshiva. The news spread. It was only many years later when R. Yehonatan
was the Rav of the community that this evil lashon hara was told to people
in his community, where it also told to R. Yaakov Emden.

R. Yehonatan was totally innocent of any wrongdoing (he had gone to the house
of this Leib to see how the followers of SZ mistreated kabbalah) and R. Emden
was fed lashon hara by certain members of the community who wanted to stir
up trouble.

Josh

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
> In sum, we never follow the Bas Kol to override an established principle in
> Halacha i.e., following a minority against the majority. However, in the case
> of Beis Hillel we didn't know if the majority can overrule a minority of wiser
> people. The Bas Kol established that in fact majority applies here also.[this
> is also the interpretation of Encyclopedia Talmudis]. The Bas Kol poskened
> halacha that we would not have been able to answer without it.
> >>
>
> But why can't it be explained that R. Eliezer's bas kol was teaching us that
> the sharper minority (in this case a minority of one) overrides the majority?
> And what we now have is a contradiction of bas kols!  Your argument that bas
> kol cannot override halachic principle falls if it is the very same medium
> that teaches contradictory principles.

It isn't my answer - it is Tosfos. He thinks it better to assume conceptual
consistency amongst Bas Kols and that in fact the same medium is not teaching
contradictory principles.

                                             Daniel Eidensohn.

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> .... We will not come to a resolution of the dispute involving
> the RYEs.  What we can gain, though, is an understanding of how and when one
> may publicly cast aspersions on another's character.  This is both important
> and timely ( as has been raised concerning the extreme m'shichists of Chabad).

I don't know why you think more historical research will provide you a superior
answer than asking a gadol? Disputes have never been a stranger to Jews. There is
no lack of historical information on how disputes have been handled, can be
handled or should be handled.. Rav Berel Wein notes in the name of Rav Kook, that
the dispute between Rav Yonason and Rav Yaakov would have been resolved in time
just by the two of them - except others mixed in. Sometimes the most powerful
technique - is to stay out of disputes and public confrontations. To let things
work out on their own.

> I think it is a shame that leaders of most branches of Orthodoxy have remained
> silent, and I do not take that silence as any indication other than lack of
> interest in areas outside their field of view, and they do not see this as a
> danger to themselves and therefore do not speak out about the dangers to the
> general frum and not-frum world.  I base this last criticism not only on this
> one issue but on others where I have personally approached Roshei Yeshiva and
> been told they will not make public statements, as it does not involve their
> people].

My experience has been different. I have found that public silence of major
figures is not an indication of lack of concern, or awareness, or knowledge of the
situation or knowledge of the appropriate halacha. Silence is usually an
indication that public confrontation will probably make the situation worse. This
is true also in psychotherapy. Not every issue can be resolved in a nice neat way.
Sometimes the wise approach is to minimize harm rather than going for the big win.
A number of years ago I spoke to Rav Moshe Halberstam about writing a major work
on  the dispute between the chassidm and misnagdim. He said, "let me give you some
advise. After many years we are finally learning to live together in peace. Don't
stir up old wounds."  Rav Yaakov Weinberg of Ner Yisroel gave me the same advice.
He said simply "I hold as a general rule that there is no issue that can't be
discussed. All talmidim at Ner Yisroel are encouraged to get answers to their
questions. Somethings, however, do not  benefit from public discussion". They and
others know very well what is going on, they care very much - but we live in an
imperfect world and must make the best of it.

                                             Daniel Eidensohn

mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:


>  This is a rather amazing statement.  First, it assumes the point that 
>I am not willing to grant- that we can predict who
> will be a gadol beyisroel , apparently based solely on intellect.  
>This is absurd - history is replete with great minds who
> did not become gedolim and gedolim who were clearly not the greatest 
>minds of their generation.  Secondly, it is simply
> false - it has repeatedly been shown that even with significant and 
>long-standing personal contacts prediction is poor.

My assertion that Roshei Kollel, Roshei Yeshiva, and Rebbeim could 
rather easily size up the bochurim and avreichim under his jurisdiction 
is pretty much a given.  If you are suggesting that a Rosh Kollel 
doesn't know how his avreichim are learning then why bother having a 
rosh kollel at all.  Just throw the avreichim in any beis hamedrash 
without any guidance and let them learn on their own.  Isn't it the 
obligation of a Rosh Kollel to guide the avreichim in their learning?  
Must he not, therefore, know where they are holding in order to guide 
them properly?  I have never said we can predict who will be the next 
Gadol. Nor did I say that Pure intelligence is the measuring stick of 
Gadlus.  It does take a certain degree of brilliance AND hasmadah AND 
charcter develpoment to get "into the Game". It should be the obligation 
of these Roshei Yeshiva to guide certain of these individuals into a 
life of learning (I'm sure if you ask any one of them privately they 
would tell you who of their group has a chance to make it and who 
doesn't) and others into a life of parnassah by urging them to GO TO 
COLLEGE or the like while they yet are learning in a yeshiva beis 
hamedrash (ala Ner Israel, HTC or YU).  This is Not being none on a wide 
enough scale.

 
>Mr. Maryles once again asserts without evidence that Torah is 
>different.  He confounds academic competence, which of course can be
> assessed, and future gadlus,a far more difficult and complex state.  
>Third, the secular world has invested literally millions of dollars
> in efforts to enhance prediction of much grosser outcomes than gadlus 
>without success - merely to repetitively assert that
> we can do better is simply to repeat dubious arguments.

Indeed predictions based on our present standardized tests ARE poor as 
can be seen by the reliabilty quotients of the tests.  These are 
objective tests.  On the other hand The Roshei Yeshiva/kollel are human 
beings of extremely high caliber who are totally immersed in the welfare 
and progress of their students.

>  Did I assert that all Jews should be in Kolel?  Does anybody?
> Is Mr. Maryles so ignorant of reality that he does not know that in 
>all the Kolelim in America there are >fewer than one thousand long term 
>learners? 

I find it difficult to beleive that the number is that small.  Certainly 
In Eretz Israel the number is far greater.  I have a cousin who is a 
member of the Chazon Ish Kollel.  He is about 45, has 7 or eight 
children and is only now starting to think about parnassah as his oldest 
daughter is of marraigable age.  There are many other avreichim in his 
kollel about the same age.


> those who are unwilling to have a scholar in Torah prepare himself 
>till he is 30 are saying that they either >place no value on Torah 
>study or that they are incapable of grasping the demands of its 
>mastery;  Mr. Maryles >nowhere comments that it is unacceptable that we 
>permit people to spend 13 years after college studying to be 
>neurosurgeons.

I Place a very high value on learning full time and encourge my own son 
to do so. I only wish that I had that type of ability.  It requires a 
lifetime of dedication to be able to acheive great heights in learning 
Torah. My problem is with those who are not capable of reaching great 
heights and are left to fend for themselves instead of getting guidance.

You have not addresed my question as to:

> At what age  we
> >determine that someone should go do something besides learn FULL 
>TIME?
> >30?  40?  Never? (maybe he's a late bloomer)  Where are you going to 
>get
> >your Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Autombile Mechanics, and other
> >professionals or craftsman that a Torah nation requires to survive?

and

>Do You want this type (leftovers from kollel) of Doctor to
> >operate on you or a loved one, if, G-D forbid, you needed a intricate
> >life saving operation? 




> 
> A Torah nation does not need lawyers to survive - most students of our 
>political structure in the US feel that society would do much better 
>with many fewer law
> 27 years on the faculty of a medical school and I can assure Mr. 
>Maryles that many fine physicians are persons of average
> or moderately above-average intellect.

I see you were able to size up  YOUR (former) medical students 
relatively easily.

> 
> As to my having a Ph.D. I hardly see that this is relevant to the 
>discussion. 

I did not intend to denigrate your possesion of a PH.D.  On the 
contrary, I honor you.  The point I was trying to make was that in the 
yeshiva world this is not honored enough. I, too, agree that it is noble 
to be a talmid chacham and to be a gadol is of the highest order of 
magnitude.  But one CAN be a talmud chacham AND be a psychologist.  It 
is a lot more difficult to be a Gadol Hador and be a psychologist.  
(Unless you're the Rambam or the Ramban)

 I did indeed intend in my >youth to be a magid shiur
> but found several difficulties in my way, including a sense of myself as likely to find difficulty with the >financial sacrifices that such a 
choice entailed and a strong belief that the ideal life was one in which 
one >was at least able to earn a living if one had to.  I therefore 
chose to enter a profession that was of >considerable importance to the 
Torah community while at the same time continuing learning at the 
yeshiva.  If >you ask do I  sometimes regret my choice, the answer is 
that I do but  that I do but that is still immaterial >to our 
discussion.  Certainly in the US there is no lack of accountants or 
businessmen but a serious lack of >klei kodesh.  And yes, I do believe 
it is more noble to be a talmid chochom than a psychologist; it has been 
>my consistent observation that those who ask such questions have great difficulty appreciating the nobility >of talmidei chachomim and Hashem's 
preference for them over the rest of us. That, however, is a 
psychological >rather than a theological issue.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> >Finally, I would just like to add that if we were to follow the
> >approach you suggest to learning (i.e. everybody learn toward Gadlus
> >until we get some gedolim) then lets theoretically do the same in the
> >field of medicine.  This way (so your argument would suggest) we would
> >get the best Doctors.  Everybody just go to medical school until we get
> >the best doctors. Then the leftovers will go into some other field.
> >
> >Or, how about this idea:  Everybody just sit in Kollel untill we get
> >gedolim.  Then the leftovers go to medical school until we get the best
> >(of the rest) doctors.  Then those leftovers... Do you see the fallacy
> >in your argument?
> >
> Another of your repeated straw men.  No one suggests that everyone should learn toward gadlus. 

I suggest it. Everyone who is invloved in serious learning should learn 
as though he will become thje next gadol hador. Not everyone will 
succeed but that that doesn not relieve him of the obligation to do the 
very best he can.  It's called "Torah L'Shmah".

 In the US
> serious learning does not begin for most people until the age of 17 or 18 and it is obviously not possible for
> anyone who cares about learning to get a sense of his intellectual and characterological status in learning until
> he does it for at least a few years.  At that point the majority of men in our community decide to learn for a few
> years after marriage and then enter the outside world; a relatively small proportion decide to continue. 

Again everything is left to one's individual assesment of one's own 
ability and chance for success.  The typical avreich is too 
indoctrinated and subjected to peer pressure to be able to prepare 
himself properly for a decent parnassah.  Too much is left to chance.  

 Yes, I do believe
> that we should encourage them to continue, whether or not they will become gedolim. (You seem to be unable to let go
> of that theme - when do you plan to propose the closing of all graduate schools since they don't produce Nobel winners?).

I do not advocate closing medical schools OR kollelim. 

Kollelim produce more than just gedolim. As I have stated in the past, 
learning in a kollel to an end other than Gadlus is acceptable as long 
as it is preparation for some other form of avodas Hashem such as 
teaching Torah in a high school or elementry school.  Or as in the 
example of community Kollelim, where the Kollel provides an opportunity 
for Baalei Battim to learn with high calibre talmidei chachamim.  I 
support that wholehweartedly. 

What I don't support is the lack of guidance to those who perhaps have 
strengths in other areas of endeavor but, through peer pressure and 
indoctrination, continue to learn in kollelim negating their innate 
talents in other feilds, thus, not able to fulfil their ultimate 
potential.  

HM

P.S. No apology needed.  I enjoy the debate and hope to come to Emes 
thru it.

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]