Gourmet Shark Food

Guest post by @happygoluckypersonage

The following post was written by my dear anonymous friend,

happygoluckypersonage

, in response to Natan’s latest two posts.

The Values and Context of Chazal

In countless places, Chazal express the highest value as Limud Hatorah. They place it as higher than other mitzvos¹, and certainly much higher than material wealth. In several places they praise people who live in poverty to toil in Torah², as long as they have some sort of income to live on. This, not Natan's secular value system, is the context in which Chazal made their statements.

The Basic Halacha as Brought in the Sources

The lenient opinion, as brought in the Ramah and Beis Yosef from Rabbi Shimon Duran, is that teachers and students of Torah are allowed to take money for learning. It is a middas chassidus (saintly practice) to refrain from this, and try to get by on one's own career, but it is not required. The fact that there are strong sources to permit taking money for learning Torah, and those sources don't attach additional conditions, is reason enough to allow the kollel system. The vast majority of people in kollel are not begging for charity, but live a life of simplicity for the sake of the Torah. Overall, the kollel system, with all its faults, fulfills the values of Chazal beautifully.

Natan's "Analysis"

That is all according to the traditional method of halachic analysis. However, Natan's secular academic "analysis", as brought in RJ, is more complicated... but not in a good way.

Natan attaches great importance to the biographical details of Rabbi Duran's life. Did Rabbi Duran himself take money for teaching or learning? Did he himself learn in kollel? Apparently, Natan believes that such biographical details would supersede what Rabbi Duran writes explicitly in his halachic work. It would be as if a lawyer would argue for ignoring an important Supreme Court precedent, based on some details of Justice Scalia's life.

Natan spends a great deal of space on what the source's "focus" is on, which he thinks is exclusively "elite scholars". To him, this "focus" carries considerably more weight than what the sources state explicitly, that is, to allow even non-elite scholars³. One can imagine a similar analysis of the United States Constitution that concludes that there is no right to free speech, since that is not the Constitution's "focus".

But the argument that Natan finds most compelling is his personal opinion of what the sources ought to rule. Since in his personal opinion, the sources ought to rule that widespread kollel is prohibited, Natan asserts that the sources must understand that way as well. This is despite the fact that there is zero support for such an idea in the texts themself. Natan must imagine himself as a creative halachic genius with the ability to bend the text of the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch to his will, and indeed he has even strongly implied that he understands the topic better than Rabbi Moshe Feinstein.

Is This an "Analysis"?

So the question is not if Natan is right or not. The question is not even which are the most egregious errors he made, as pointed out in the comments section. Really, the question is, can this be called a halachic analysis at all? Is something an "analysis" if the one who is performing it is not analyzing anything, is not engaging with the text at all, but merely fabricating new rules at his whim and trying to force it into the text? Does this...thing...even merit a refutation?

So, if this thing is not halacha, if it is not an analysis, what is it? Perhaps it is the strangest new creature in Natan's museum, freshly killed, waiting to be stuffed by the taxidermist.

Shark Food

Upon getting thoroughly eviscerated in the comments to his “analysis”, Natan wrote a follow-up post, where he pouts and sulks about his “vicious” opponents, whom he compares to sharks. But given his penchant for writing about topics that he is totally unfamiliar with, and biting off more than he can chew, while flaunting his irrelevant academic credentials, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Natan has turned himself into gourmet shark food.

1.  Pe’ah 1:1

אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּמֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כֻּלָּם:

The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the torah is more valuable than them all.

Yerushalmi, Pe’ah 1:1

וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה וְרִבִּי חִייָא דִּכְפַר תְּחוּמִין חַד אָמַר אֲפִילוּ כָּל־הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֲפִילוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְחַד אָמַר אֲפִילוּ כָּל־מִצְוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁל הַתּוֹרָה אֵינָן שָׁווֹת לְדָבָר אֶחָד מִן הַתּוֹרָה. רִבִי תַּנְחוּמָא וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִמְרָא חַד אָמַר כְּהָדָא. וְחַד אָמַר כְּהָדָא. רִבִּי אַבָּא אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מָרִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר וְכָל־חֲפָצִים לֹא יִשְׁווּ בָהּ. וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אִוֹמֵר וְכָל־חֲפָצֶיךָ לֹא יִשְׁווּ בָהּ. חֲפָצִים אֵילּוּ אֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת. חֲפָצֶיךָ אֵילּי דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. דִּכְתִיב כִּי בְּאֵלֶּה חָפַצְתִּי נְאֻם ה.

 “And Torah study.” Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin One said that the entire world is not worth even one saying of the Torah. The other said that even all commandments of the Torah are not worth even one saying of the Torah Rebbi Tanḥuma and Rebbi Yose ben Zimra, one said like the first and one said like the second. Rebbi Abba, father of Rebbi Abba bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One verse says (Prov. 8:11) “all desirables do not equal it;” the other verse says (Prov. 3:15) “your desirables do not equal it.” “Desirables” are gems and pearls, “your desirables” are the words of the Torah, for it is written (Jer. 9:23): “For these I desire - saying of the Eternal.

Rambam Talmud Torah, 3:3

אֵין לְךָ מִצְוָה בְּכָל הַמִּצְוֹת כֻּלָּן שֶׁהִיא שְׁקוּלָה כְּנֶגֶד תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת כֻּלָּן שֶׁהַתַּלְמוּד מֵבִיא לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. לְפִיכָךְ הַתַּלְמוּד קוֹדֵם לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְּכָל מָקוֹם: 

None of the other mitzvot can be equated to the study of Torah. Rather, the study of Torah can be equated to all the mitzvot because study leads to deed. Therefore, study takes precedence over deed in all cases.4

2.  Avos, 6:4

כַּךְ הִיא דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, פַּת בְּמֶלַח תֹּאכַל, וּמַיִם בִּמְשׂוּרָה תִשְׁתֶּה, וְעַל הָאָרֶץ תִּישַׁן, וְחַיֵּי צַעַר תִּחְיֶה, וּבַתּוֹרָה אַתָּה עָמֵל, אִם אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה כֵן, (תהלים קכח) אַשְׁרֶיךָ וְטוֹב לָךְ. אַשְׁרֶיךָ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְטוֹב לָךְ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא:

Such is the way [of a life] of Torah: you shall eat bread with salt, and rationed water shall you drink; you shall sleep on the ground, your life will be one of privation, and in Torah shall you labor. If you do this, “Happy shall you be and it shall be good for you” (Psalms 128:2): “Happy shall you be” in this world, “and it shall be good for you” in the world to come.

Berachos, 63b

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״הַסְכֵּת וּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל״ — כַּתְּתוּ עַצְמְכֶם עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. כִּדְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁמֵּמִית עַצְמוֹ עָלֶיהָ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל״.

The Gemara offers an alternative explanation of this verse: “Keep silence [hasket] and hear, Israel”; break [kattetu] yourselves over words of the Torah. This is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: From where is it derived that matters of Torah are only retained by one who kills himself over it? As it is stated: “This is the Torah: When one dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14); true Torah study demands the total devotion of one who is willing to dedicate his life in the tent of Torah.

אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי מִיץ חָלָב יוֹצִיא חֶמְאָה וּמִיץ אַף יוֹצִיא דָם וּמִיץ אַפַּיִם יוֹצִיא רִיב״? בְּמִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא חֶמְאָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה — בְּמִי שֶׁמֵּקִיא חָלָב שֶׁיָּנַק מִשְׁדֵּי אִמּוֹ עָלֶיהָ. 

In the school of Rabbi Yannai they said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the churning of milk brings forth curd, and the wringing of the nose [af] brings forth blood, so the forcing of wrath [appayim] brings forth strife” (Proverbs 30:33)? With regard to the beginning of the verse: For the churning of milk brings forth curd; in whom do you find the cream of Torah? With one who spits out the milk that he nursed from his mother’s breasts over it; one who struggles with all his might to study Torah.

Nedarim, 81a

הִזָּהֲרוּ בִּבְנֵי עֲנִיִּים, שֶׁמֵּהֶן תֵּצֵא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִזַּל מַיִם מִדַּלָּיו״, שֶׁמֵּהֶן תֵּצֵא תּוֹרָה.

Be careful with regard to the education of the sons of paupers, as it is from them that the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches [midalyav]” (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones [midalim] among him, as it is from them that the Torah, which may be compared to water, will issue forth.

Sanhedrin, 20a

דבר אחר שקר החן זה דורו של משה ויהושע והבל היופי זה דורו של חזקיה יראת ה' היא תתהלל זה דורו של ר' יהודה ברבי אילעאי אמרו עליו על רבי יהודה ברבי אילעאי שהיו ששה תלמידים מתכסין בטלית אחת ועוסקין בתורה

Alternatively: “Grace is deceitful”; this is a reference to the generation of Moses and Joshua. “And beauty is vain”; this is a reference to the generation of Hezekiah. “Who fears the Lord, she shall be praised”; this is a reference to the generation of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, who lived after the decrees of Hadrian, when the people were impoverished and oppressed. It was said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, that six of his students would cover themselves with one garment, due to their poverty, and nevertheless they would engage in Torah study. 

Sanhedrin, 111a

חזייה דהוה קא חייף רישיה וסליק ויתיב קמיה דרב א"ל (איוב כח, יג) ולא תמצא בארץ החיים א"ל מילט קא לייטת לי א"ל קרא קאמינא לא תמצא תורה במי שמחיה עצמו עליה

The Gemara relates thatRavsaw thatRav Kahanawas washing the hair on his head and then arose and sat beforeRav.Ravsaid toRav Kahana: “Nor shall it be found in the land of the living [haḥayyim]” (Job 28:13).Rav Kahana thought thatRav addressed that verse to him and he said toRav: Are you cursing me?Ravsaid to him: It is a verse that I am saying to remind you that Torah will not be found in one who sustains [meḥayye] himself in an indulgent manner in its study; rather, Torah is acquired through suffering and difficulty.

3.  Responsa Tashbetz, 148

ואחר אשר השיכותי מעל החכמים הראשונים והאחרונים ז"ל את תלונו' בני ישראל הרב הגדול הרמב"ם ז"ל והנמשכים אחריו ז"ל אכתו' קצרו של דבר כפי העולה בידינו ממקומו' מפוזרי' בתלמוד הצבור חייבים לגדל משלהם מי שהוא חשוב בדורו כר' אמי בדורו וגם החכם עצמו נוטל מעצמו הראוי לו לגדולתו כדמוכחא ההיא דפ' הזרוע (חולין קל"ד ע"ב) ואם הוא חכם ששואלין אותו דבר הלכה בכולה תלמודא ואומ' ראוי למנותו פרנס על כל ישראל וריש מתיבתא וכל ישראל חייבים לגדלו ואם שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו דבר הלכה ואומר ראוי למנותו פרנס בעירו והם מגדלין אותו ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (שבת קי"ד ע"א.

Bolded text translation: “If he is a scholar who can answer any halachic question in ONE tractate of Talmud, he should be appointed a leadership role over his city, and his city should enrich him. If he has not yet reached that level, but has no other business but learning Torah, his city is required to support him.”

Apparently, Natan “read” this as if to mean that the student only qualifies if he will definitely end up in the most elite category. Readers can see the obvious distortion themselves.