[Avodah] Avodah

[Micha Berger]

From: Yosef Skolnick <yskolnick at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:22:30 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Dowries for marriage

SA Even Haezer Siman 2 Seif 1 Ramah (the whole thing) and Chelkat michokek to answer the stirah.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14398&st=&pgnum=12

Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:
> RSZN: but there undoubtedly is more economic blackmail than before [ no $ , no shidduch]

> Depends how you define "before" - dowries have been around for millennia.

And poskim and baalei mussar seem to have had no problem at all with them. One finds no condemnation of the bochur who places a high price on himself before agreeing to a shiduch. What one does find, interestingly, is condemnation of the bochur who, having agreed to a shiduch, breaks it off because the father-in-law is no longer able to meet the commitment he made in good faith.
____________________________________________________________________________
From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopinsky at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:29:39 -0700
Subject: [Avodah] Taking Responsibility

Here is a dvar torah I wrote on this week's Parsha. I had initially wanted to write about the responsibility that the nation had to prevent the Mekalel but looking through some sources, I ended up with the exact opposite conclusion.

At the end of this week’s Parsha we come across an interesting story. A man, born to a Jewish mother (from the Tribe of Dan) and an Egyptian father, gets into an argument with one of the other Jews. In the course of the disagreement he pronounces the name of Hashem and curses Him. The people bring the man to Moshe and place him in jail while Moshe asks Hashem for advice. God instructs them to take the man out of the camp, to have the people who heard him curse Hashem place their hands on his head and then stone him to death.

The Midrash, filling in some gaps in the story, tells us that the argument was about whether this man was entitled to place his tent with the rest of the Tribe of Dan, since tribal association is patrilineal. The Dan-ites didn’t want this man camping with them, and are backed by Moshe, who rules that the Dan-ites have the right to not allow him in their camp. The man leaves Moshe in frustration, continues his fight with someone else in the camp, and ultimately curses God.

This Midrash is quite hard to understand. Even if Dan wasn’t obligated count the blasphemer as a member of their tribe, wouldn’t it still have been a good gesture to allow him to stay there? He didn’t really have anywhere else to go, as he surely didn’t belong to any of the other tribes!

Further, even if he wasn’t a particularly nice person and they were justified in not wanting him around, why did the Jew allow the blasphemer to pick a fight with him? It was surely possible for them to handle this situation without getting drawn into one-on-one quarrels with him, and the man’s temper would not have flared to the point of cursing Hashem. There seems, however, to be no criticism levied against Dan or the man who argued with the blasphemer.

Rashi (citing a different Midrash) makes a very insightful comment when analyzing the punishment given. What is the point of having the people who witnessed the event place their hands on the blasphemer’s head? We don’t see this action in other places that stoning is discussed. Rashi says that they placed their hands on his head to tell him “דמך בראשך ואין אנו נענשים במיתתך שאתה גרמת לך” (“Your blood is on your own head! We are not to be punished for your death, for you brought this upon yourself!”).

The lesson here is clear. This is man who comes from a broken family, who was pushed around by the people he considered the members of his Tribe and was provoked further by another individual. Yet ultimately he alone is responsible for his actions and must take full responsibility for them.

How many times do we blame our circumstances for mistakes we make? http://mydvar.com/2010/04/taking-responsibility/
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:56:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 2 fridgies

From: Danny Schoemann <doniels at gmail.com>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless one puts cheese on top of meat - highly unlikely- there is not much of a problem with a fridge.

> That's not what the Remo in YD 95:6 seems to say.

> SA 95:6: One may place a jug of milk next to one of meat inside a box. Remo: And there are those who are stringent Lechatchila, and it's good to be stringent Lechactchila in a when possible.

> R' Zev Sero commented:
>> But that's "next to"; do you not have separate shelves in the fridge for milchigs and fleishigs?

> No we don't; never occurred to me that it was needed - and I've never seen anybody do it. Is that your custom?

I wouldn't be surprised.

R' Yosef Wikler of "Kashrus Magazine" advised, when we learned that halacha, that one should be stringent and, if putting a pot into the fridge, that one put a paper towel under it, so it's not strictly speaking "on the same shelf as" the kli with the other substance in it. Like why we use placemats, so I could be eating a cheese sandwich, and you could be eating a meat sandwich, and they're not "oleh al hashulchan" together.

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed when they are in one box again unlikely. A fridge is not a box.

> That may be even worse, since in 95:5 even the SA forbids putting meat next to milk. In a box it's "safer" since you'll be more careful, so the SA is more lenient.

In 95:5, the SA isn't talking about meat and milk, he's talking about (HGH: open) containers: 1) salt fish boiled in milk, and 2) salt or vinegar.

So there's a real chance of spillage, and of making the salt milchig. Not talking about meat/milk in the fridge, where they're presumably covered. As Shach and Taz both comment, the Mechaber's point is about the salt vs. vinegar in the second container, in salt the fish/milk are not batel, because it's dry, while in vinegar, the milk would be batel in 60, if there was 60 against the fish that fell in.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 12:05:04 -0400
From: Zvi Lampel <zvilampel at gmail.com>
Subject: [Avodah] Translating the word Inyan

Translating the word Inyan

I've often been frustrated trying to translate the word "inyan" into English. The usual translations, "matter" or "subject" or even "concern" often sound stiff in English and do not get across the real Hebrew meaning and feel. It just hit me this past Shabbos that the English equivalent is often the word, "point." "The inyan is...," translates: "the point is..." "There is an inyan to do such-and-such," translates, "There is a point to do such-and-such." Then again, sometimes the best translation is simply the word, "thing." "There is no such inyan" translates, "There is no such thing." "There is an inyan of darkei shalom" translates, "There is a thing about living in harmony." "That's another inyan" translates, "That is something else (or: another story)" I just thought I'd make of note of this, for those like me interested in such inyanim---or those interested in such things.
____________________________________________________________________________
From: T613K at aol.com
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 01:59:10 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 2 fridgies

From: Danny Schoemann <doniels at gmail.com>
> But that's "next to"; do you not have separate shelves in the fridge for milchigs and fleishigs?

No we don't; never occurred to me that it was needed -- and I've never seen anybody do it. Is that your custom?

But maybe it's a good idea. However, the milk could still spill onto the meat below (or vice versa) which seems to be more than "a problem" -- it may be actually forbidden to live with this constant possibility.

I actually once had a situation where milk leaked from a container on one shelf onto chicken in a pan on the shelf below it. Ever since then I have taken two precautions that I recommend to everyone: One, I keep the milk in the door or if there isn't room, I make sure there is nothing on the shelf under the milk that could pose a problem. If necessary I put a plastic plate or a towel under the milk bottle in case it leaks. Two, I never leave anything in the fridge uncovered or too-loosely covered.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 21:48:52 -0400
From: "Henry Topas" <HTopas at rosdev.com>
Subject: [Avodah] Business Halacha - Auto Lease

Shavua Tov,

Case:

Reuven leases a car from Shimon's leasing company.

The lease stipulates that upon the end of the lease term, the vehicle must have a value of $30,000.

The lease does not state by what standard such value is to be ascertained, whether by wholesale, retail, blue book or any other guidance.

The lease is now over and Shimon claims that the vehicle is now only worth $20,000. Reuven brings multiple classified ads showing that the same vehicle in the same condition now sells in private transactions for the stipulated $30,000.

The parties agree to go to a din Torah.

I wish to assist Reuven's to'ayn. Can any of the chevreh direct me to the proper p'sakim or sh'uts which may help him?

Thank you,
Cantor Henry Topas

PS: I am trying to help our R' Micha Berger in his comments a few weeks back that there is less than an ideal level of participation! On the other hand, watching and reading the participation of our more active members is inspiring and IMHO, if the Shas were to be recreated in these times, it would read very much like Avodah. Gutteh Voch.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 08:30:46 -0400
From: Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Levine at stevens.edu>
Subject: [Avodah] Yissachar/Zevulun

I had always thought that Yissachar devoted all of his time to learning while being supported by Zevulun. However, this does not seem to be correct in light of the commentary of Rabbi Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on the Pasuk "He saw that leisure is the good thing, and that the land is suited for it; so he bent his shoulder to bear and became one who pays the tribute imposed by landwork." (Bereishis 49:15) Rav Hirsch writes

Yissachar is happy to work, but only to the extent and in such a way that the work is of value to the Jewish people. While Yehudah is the tribe of rulers and Zevulun the tribe of traders, Yissachar represents the true nucleus of the Jewish people: the Jewish farmer. He does not work so as to labor without letup and accumulate wealth. The Jewish man of the people does not subjugate himself to his work; he works in order to gain menucha He leaves it to Zevulun to earn millions with his products; as for himself, he prefers to stay at home. He regards the leisure he earned by his own labors as his greatest asset and most prized possession. For leisure enables a person to stand tall and to find himself.

Yissachar therefore lowers his shoulder to bear burdens, leaving the ruler's scepter to Yehudah and the merchantman's flag to Zevulun. Neither military glory nor business profit attract him. He knows other conquests, other treasures, which can be won and retained only in hours of leisure .

Thus, it was the tribe of Yissachar that became the guardian of the nation's spiritual treasures.

Knowledge of Torah and its practical application to current circumstances are not attained by one who immerses himself in business. Rather, they are attained by one who, in his hours of leisure, frees his mind of all else, of whom it can be said that Vayar menucha ki tov , he regards leisure as the true profit to be obtained from work; thus Oseh Torahso keva oo'malachto aroi , he regards Torah study as the main goal, and work as merely an incidental means.

 From these comments of Rav Hirsch it is clear that Yissachar limited the time he spent working and devoted his leisure time to Torah study. But, Yissachar did indeed devote some time to working. Thus, a true Yissachar-Zevulun relationship would seem to me to be one in which Yissachar devotes some hours to working and the rest of his time to Torah study, while Zevulun makes this lifestyle possible through his financial assistance.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:54:15 -0400
From: "Beth & David Cohen" <bdcohen613 at gmail.com>
Subject: [Avodah] More on what constitutes chilul hashem

R Zev Sero wrote:
> But in most countries the average person breaks the law himself as often as he finds convenient, and certainly doesn't look down on others just for doing things that are illegal.

There is a distinction. This theoretical average non-Jew acknowledges that he is breaking the law, just that he thinks (hopes) that he will not get caught. And if he does get caught, he acknowledges that in theory the government has the "right" to sanction him.

The theoretical average frum Jew, otoh, thinks that the law itself has no application to him, that he is permitted to disregard it with impunity and any attempt by the State to impose a penalty is per se unjust. IMHO, the attitudinal difference is what causes the chilul Hashem.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 22:55:45 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin at juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 2 fridgies

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:56:43 -0400 (EDT) "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker at panix.com> writes:
> R' Yosef Wikler of "Kashrus Magazine" advised, when we learned that halacha, that one should be stringent and, if putting a pot into the fridge, that one put a paper towel under it, so it's not strictly speaking "on the same shelf as" the kli with the other substance in it.

That's not the reason; the placemats are only required when eating, not even when preparing food. The reason is in case the pot is hot, and there happens to be a milk spill right where you put it down, the meat pot will absorb the milk. This was not a stringency; it's good advice. Rabbi Yisroel Reisman said the same thing when learning basar bechalav.
____________________________________________________________________________
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgluck at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 21:34:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yissachar/Zevulun

R' YL:
> From these comments of Rav Hirsch it is clear that Yissachar limited the time he spent working and devoted his leisure time to Torah study. But, Yissachar did indeed devote some time to working.  Thus, a true Yissachar-Zevulun relationship would seem to me to be one in which Yissachar devotes some hours to working and the rest of his time to Torah study, while Zevulun makes this lifestyle possible through his financial assistance.

Actually, looking at Targum teaches us that a true Yissochor-Zevulun relationship is one where Yissochor is well versed in the art of war. And Sforno says that Yissochor was not prepared for war. And Ibn Ezra and Radak say that they would pay to get out of war. And Rashbam teaches us that a true Yissochor-Zevulun relationship requires that Yissochor be wealthy. And Rashi says that a true Yissochor-Zevulun relationship included that Yissochor bore the yoke of Torah by day and night!
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 22:19:17 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] More on what constitutes chilul hashem

Beth & David Cohen wrote:
> R Zev Sero wrote:
>> "But in most countries the average person breaks the law himself as often as he finds convenient, and certainly doesn't look down on others just for doing things that are illegal.":

> There is a distinction. This theoretical average non-Jew acknowledges that he is breaking the law, just that he thinks (hopes) that he will not get caught. And if he does get caught, he acknowledges that in theory the government has the "right" to sanction him.

Nevertheless, he doesn't think he has done anything wrong. He hopes to get away with it, and if he is caught he curses his luck. It follows that he does not look down on someone else who breaks the law; if the person gets away with it then he is happy for him, and if he is caught then he commiserates.

> The theoretical average frum Jew, otoh, thinks that the law itself has
> no application to him, that he is permitted to disregard it with
> impunity and any attempt by the State to impose a penalty is per se unjust.
> IMHO, the attitudinal difference is what causes the chilul Hashem.

Assuming this attitudinal difference really exists, how does the non-Jew know about it?
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 22:18:35 -0400
From: "Prof. Levine" <llevine at stevens.edu>
Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress

Verse 24 of the third Perek of Yeshayahu says And instead of perfume, there will be rot, and instead of the girdle, wound; and instead of embossed jewelry, there will be baldness. And instead of celebratory sash, a girdle of sackcloth. For all this will be in place of beauty. Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L, in the sefer Rav Schwab on Yeshayahu writes in his commentary on this Pasuk

In general, from Yeshayahu's rebuke of Jewish women's flaunting of their clothing, jewelry, and beauty enhancements, it is quite clear that such mode of behavior is highly unbecoming a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should present herself not merely as a "woman," but rather, as a human being with a tzelem Elokim, who belongs to the Jewish nation, and is possessed of a neshamah that is holy - who happens to be a woman. To emphasize the other aspects of the person means that one forgets the main idea of what it means to be a tzelem Elokim.

Unfortunately, in our times, showy dressing, and cosmetic and beauty enhancement have become normal and acceptable behavior. Even very "frum" girls and women dress and beautify themselves in a way that is designed to attract attention to themselves as women. This is a non-Jewish practice; it is a new phenomenon that was unheard of in religious circles in Europe - certainly not in my time there. Unfortunately, though, it is very difficult to change this now because it has taken root in our culture, and certainly if it is done in moderation and in good taste, it is difficult to criticize.

Once a Jewish woman is aware of her greatness, of her holiness, of what she really is, she does not emphasize and flaunt her femininity. Although we have many references to women's beauty in the Torah in connection with the Matriarchs, Sara, Rivka, and Rachel, such beauty always corresponded to and complemented their inner beauty.
____________________________________________________________________________
From: "kennethgmiller at juno.com" <kennethgmiller at juno.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 11:43:16 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Business Halacha - Auto Lease

Cantor Henry Topas brought a case:
> Reuven leases a car from Shimon's leasing company. The lease stipulates that upon the end of the lease term, the vehicle must have a value of $30,000.

You seem to be interpreting this to mean that when the lease ends, and Reuven returns that car to Shimon, he will be required to make sure that it is worth $30,000 at that time.

That's not how I understand auto leases to work. Rather, at the time of lease origination, a value is stipulated in advance, and when the lease ends, Reuven has the exclusive option of returning the car or paying the $30,000, regardless of what anyone thinks the car is actually worth.

Moreover, I don't know if a lease CAN work the way the OP suggests. Reuven has no control over market forces. There's no way he can promise, years in advance, how the market will value his car a few years down the line. He can promise that the car will not have more than a normal amount of wear-and-tear. But he cannot control whether this car will turn out to have some sort of defect which causes the value to tumble, such as in many of today's Toyota. Nor can he control gasoline prices, which caused gas-guzzlers to tumble a few years back.

So here's the question as I see it: Shimon can agree that when the lease is up, Reuven will have the option of returning the car or paying $30,000 in lieu of that car. But does halacha (or civil law) allow Reuven to obligate himself to $30,000, payable either in full or by returning the car plus an amount of money to be determined at that date? --- Well, now that I've phrased it in those terms, I suppose it can indeed work like that. But I don't think it is actually done in that way, because the leasing company is much more able to take the gamble than the consumer is.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:32:52 +0300
From: Ilana Sober Elzufon <ilanasober at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Taking Responsibility

RLK:
> I had initially wanted to write about the responsibility that the nation had to prevent the Mekalel but looking through some sources, I ended up with the exact opposite conclusion.....This is man who comes from a broken family, who was pushed around by the people he considered the members of his Tribe and was provoked further by another individual. Yet ultimately he alone is responsible for his actions and must take full responsibility for them.

I'm not sure the two conclusions are mutually exclusive. Yes, the mekallel is clearly responsible for his own actions, to the point of being chayav mitah, and cannot claim leniency because he was provoked. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't provoked!

Rashi, following the midrash, says that he was mitgayer. Not clear what the halachic significance of this is - possibilities among the mefarshim include that matrilineal descent did not kick in until after Matan Torah, or that he chose to identify with his mother's people rather than his father's. It may also hint that he has in some ways the status of a ger. Like the ger, he has no tribal affiliation, and when they come into Eretz K'naan, no nachalah.

Having chosen to be part of the Jewish people - he finds himself rejected. He has, literally, nowhere to pitch his tent. And it's not that the men of Dan are unreasonably bigoted - their position is upheld in beit din. One can imagine the despair and disillusionment that would provoke him to blasphemy.

The Torah is not always "fair." For example, as we saw earlier in the parsha, a kohen with a physical disability, acquired through no fault of his own, is excluded from service in the Beit Hamikdash. And a mamzer cannot marry almost anyone - because of a sin committed by his parents before he was born. (The midrash states that the mekallel's mother, Shlomit, was a married woman who was raped by an Egyptian overseer. While halachically he is not a mamzer - because his father was not Jewish - the midrash does say that he is similar to a mamzer. Perhaps another hint that this is a person born a severe halachic disadvantage.)

Of course, no matter how great the difficulty, the Torah clearly limits "free expression." As we see in the book of Job, one can cry and one can question. As we see in the stories of Bnot Tzlofchad and Pesach Sheni - one can even approach Moshe Rabbeinu and complain that the Torah isn't fair. (It's interesting that both in those stories and in this one, a specific she'elah is asked of HKBH.) But blasphemy, even when amply provoked, carries the death penalty. As RLK points out, the mekallel is 100% responsible for his actions.

But does that mean that we shouldn't understand the pain of those who feel excluded - by the Torah - from the privileges of membership in the Jewish community? The ger, and his descendents, have no nachalah in Eretz Yisrael. Yet in many places - including the continuation of this parsha - the Torah emphasizes that the "ger and the ezrach" are equally part of the Jewish people. The Torah commands us - clearly, specifically, and repeatedly - not to cause the ger pain, to include him in our celebrations, and to love him like ourselves. It seems to me that when b'nei Dan asked the mekallel "what are you doing here" - knowing full well he had no other place to go - they were at least coming close to ona'at devarim?
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 09:40:48 -0400
From: Yitzchak Schaffer <yitzchak.schaffer at gmx.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress

On 5/2/2010 22:18, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Unfortunately, in our times, showy dressing, and cosmetic and beauty enhancement have become normal and acceptable behavior.
...
> Unfortunately,
> though, it is very difficult to change this now because it has taken root in our culture, and certainly if it is done in moderation and in good taste, it is difficult to criticize.
...

I found this essay frustratingly hard to understand. Although it touches on a worthy concept, it seems to fall short of properly delineating it. It's my understanding that a woman is also meant not to look like a frump, but one could come away from this R' Schwab with that impression. What is considered "showy dressing, and cosmetic and beauty enhancement" that is wrong, as opposed to that which is right? Is "in moderation" right or wrong? If it's wrong, how is it "difficult to criticize?" This essay seems to do just that, placing "in moderation" under the category of "unfortunately;" "difficult" to criticize, but something R' Schwab would like to criticize.

Anybody know from personal experience how R' Schwab would have had women present themselves?
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 21:42:49 +1000
From: Meir Rabi <meirabi at gmail.com>
Subject: [Avodah] Baking Matza Until it is Hard

Further to my initiative to produce soft matza:
I believe there is no mention of baking Matza until it is hard in the Mishneh Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan or the Sh Oruch HaRav.

It is not even mentioned as a custom or as a passing comment.

Am I mistaken?
____________________________________________________________________________
From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopinsky at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:33:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Taking Responsibility

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Ilana Sober Elzufon <ilanasober at gmail.com>wrote:
> Rashi, following the midrash, says that he was mitgayer.

Interesting, I hadn't thought through the Ger aspect.

Even though he was a Ger, and we are continually instructed not to mistreat the Gerim "Ki Gerim Heyitem", he was still fully faulted for what happened. Doesn't this make my argument even stronger? When I was looking I didn't see any meforshim who commented that Dan were wrong for provoking him either, which sort of surprised me.

Taking another approach, do we know if this man was actually enslaved in Egypt? Maybe, since his father was Egyptian, he was excluded. In this case, maybe the reasons to be nice to him in particular are minimized.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] 2 fridgies

I had said:
> R' Yosef Wikler of "Kashrus Magazine" advised, when we learned that halacha, that one should be stringent and, if putting a pot into the fridge, that one put a paper towel under it, so it's not strictly speaking "on the same shelf as" the kli with the other substance in it. Like why we use placemats...

RGD corrects me, reminding me that R' Wikler actually advised this because, as RnTK says, there could be milk on the shelf, and the paper towel prevents the milk from being absorbed in the (hot) pot, which would be a real problem.

Personally, we try to avoid putting hot pots into the fridge, so as not to overburden the motor trying to cool them.
____________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 12:34:21 -0400
From: Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Levine at stevens.edu>
Subject: [Avodah] More on a Yissachar/Zevulun Partnership

Dr. Yehudah (Leo) Levi has a section in his book Torah Study, A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues titled The Partnership of Issachar and Zevulun> Most of this section is available on the Internet at google books. I have posted the entire section at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/levi_yissachar_zev.pdf

Professor Levi points out that "None of the principal early halakhic authorities (Rif, Rambam, Rosh) cites such an arrangement as permissible; neither was it included in Shulchan Arukh.

He also writes

On the other hand, Shulchan Arukh HaRav rules: "One may not free himself from his own study obligation by supporting a wiser, more understanding man, if it is only his working on the man's behalf that is preventing his own learning." "But if it is his lack of mental capacity that prevents him from learning [Talmud]-[and his capacity] does not suffice even for learning the practical applications of the mitzvoth, even though he makes his Torah study primary--then he is a boor... Let him engage in business so that he can support those who study Torah day and night... and he will be treated as if he learns himself, and the others' learning will be credited to him." That is, the business role in the Issachar-Zebulun arrangement is only permitted to a boor.

Please see the above link for the entire piece on this issue. YL