[Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to society

[Chana Luntz]

RMSS wrote:

> >But the contrast was between him sitting in his ivory tower of a 
> >yeshiva and going out into the world and becoming a medic and saving 
> >lives, ie pikuach nefesh.  The question that was asked was 
> in essence, 
> >what is it that Hashem commanded him to do out of those two?
> 
> Well, lets see what Chazal say about this--the Gemara in 
> Megilla that Gadol Talmud Torah MeHatzalas Nefashos. It would 
> appear that they felt it's better to seat in that ivory tower.
> 

This aspect of the discussion just gets us back to the previous one we
had regarding doing other mitzvos instead of talmud torah.  It is clear
from the Shulchan Aruch that I brought in that discussion that one is in
fact commanded to take time out from talmud torah to perform other
mitzvos, unless they are delegatable to others.(If you remember in
particular the discussion focussed on burying people and being a member
of a chevra kadisha).

It seems pretty clear from the sources that if there is nobody else
around to bury, then one is commanded to stop and bury - and that
statements such as gadol talmud torah and talmud torah kneged kulam
cannot be understood to mean that, for example, corpses should end up
being left unburied because nobody has got together a chevra kadisha.
(Not to mention the sameach chatan v'kala etc requirements).

This is not a TUM versus Torah only discussion, and I am sorry if I
seemed to suggest that is was.  It is about something even more
fundamental.  Should members of our society be taking time out to form a
Zaka, or should we all shrug our shoulders when there is nobody around
to do that kind of work because everybody has been commanded to be in
yeshiva all the time, and this takes out of yeshiva time.  Should there
be anybody out there protecting graves in Eastern Europe, why are they
not in yeshiva? Etc etc etc.

Now if you answer that indeed some people ought to be out there being a
Zaka or protecting graves, then surely the same answer must be, some
people need to be out there being a medic.  Now are those people
protecting graves or being involved in Zaka second class citizens?  I
think most people would say not,  that they are indeed doing what Hashem
commanded them to do.  Should the Gra be one of those people?  I think
most people would agree that the Gra should not be, that there are other
people to do that work, and yet other people cannot manage the level of
chiddush of the Gra, and therefore, the correct division of labour is to
have the Gra in yeshiva and certain other people out of it.  The more
difficult question becomes how many, and who?  What should Mr ordinary
do?  Should he assume that maybe he is a Gra, or that if it is good
enough for the Gra it is good enough for him, or should he be open to
the possibility that maybe *his* skills are best applied outside the
yeshiva.  

In the secular world these decisions are, at least theoretically, made
in two ways:

A) level of need - eg given that it is expensive to train doctors
properly, there are only a limited number of medical school places, thus
the medical schools try and select only the number of doctors they will
need (at least in a system where the doctors are mostly employed by one
employer, eg the National Health Service, as in the UK).  In theory,
they therefore take those people who will make good doctors (or  better
doctors if the pool is wide) and leave the rest;

B) ability compared with other areas: if you are bad at maths and good
at English, then most career councillors will gently suggest that you
not try for that maths degree and rather switch to English.  Of course
if one is bad at one thing and good at another, that is a relatively
easy decision, but what if you are good at one thing and even better at
something else.  If you come top of the class in English and only third
top in physics - in theory one might say that one should do English
rather than physics.  But one then ought to factor in factor A) if there
are thousands of English students and only a handful of physics
students, then maybe you ought to do physics - but again that might
depend on how much better than the other students you were at English.
If you were out of sight better, nobody would say that you should do
physics.  That is why the Gra is not the kind of example being discussed
here.  Even within the secular world, where there are no value
judgements being made about the value of the learning (eg between
English and physics), everybody would agree that the Gra needed to study
torah, as he was out of sight better than anybody else.  Even if he
would have made a top doctor - even from a secular point of view most
people would take the view that the "out of sight" level of his Torah
chiddushim were unlikely to compare with his chiddushim in the medical
world.

So let us agree that in regard to this aspect, we are not talking about
a Gra. We are talking about a Mr Ordinary, or somewhat above ordinary
but well short of a Gra level of ability.  The question for Mr Ordinary
is, should he stay in yeshiva all his life, and not explore to see
whether a) his skills are better served outside it (maybe he is not an
Ordinary as a medic) or b) explore whether the world needs more medics,
so that even if he is only ordinary as a medic, if there is a shortage,
maybe that is where he ought to be.

Now there is a basic division in our society as to what one should do
here.  Should everybody assume that yeshiva is a default, and only those
people who having struggled for years really can't cope (nebech) with it
should be outside it, or should there be a winnowing process in which
many people are actively funneled outside to to make other selections?
Ie should we assume as a basic that everybody is commanded by Hashem to
be in yeshiva full time, and that it is only those people who
demonstrate that they cannot cope who have therefore demonstrated that
they should be in a Zaka or doing other things, or should we assume that
some people who may be able to cope with yeshiva, but are really only
ordinary, might actually do better if they were using other skills out
of it, eg as a medic, and that in fact that is really what Hashem
commanded that particular person to do.

Now some people are happy for there to be a winnowing process but for
this to be by means of economics and market forces.  For example, if you
don't have a rich father, then even though your torah ability might be
greater and your other skills less, then it is appropriate that you
should be the one forced out of yeshiva by the need to put food on the
table, while the fellow next to you with the inheritance stays in
yeshiva even though his skills are the opposite of yours.  Or for
example, if you are above ordinary in both situations, since you are
able to get a lucrative job outside the yeshiva, you will end up taking
that, while the fellow next to you who is a nebech in general, and
couldn't manage a decent job out there, stays in yeshiva and is
supported by you.  Some people believe economics is a lousy way of doing
it and there should be other ways while others seem to take the view
that since Hashem controls parnasa, we shouldn't get involved and should
just let the market forces, subsidised by a few nissim, roll.

But this isn't about TUM.  People with a TUM perspective are likely
drawn after certain sides of this debate, but it is not axiomatic.

> Is that so? Before you gave as the alternative to the ivory 
> tower becoming a medic, i.e. helping people. The Gra chose 
> not to do this; he chose to remain in the ivory tower. If 
> what you meant was secular knowledge, who argues against 
> this? No one. The Gra is quoted in favor, and it's a Mishna 
> in Avos that chochma exists by NJ. This is a straw man.

I don't think it is a straw man.  The fundamental division between TUM
and Torah only is whether one ought to take the time out to study eg in
a university or secular wisdom (mada) (not just a few minutes in the
bathroom, as most people can't pick up very much that way).  Do you go
to a YU where one is required to take secular subjects, or to a yeshiva
where one is not (or to an evening school to pick up some parnassa
practical skills which is really about torah only but the need for a
parnassa).  Ie does secular knowledge have instrinsic value, value
because of the requirement to have a parnassa or not at all.  The
problem with talking about studying medicine is that there are two
aspects to being a doctor - the one is the learning, and the other is
the practice.  And I think the threads got confused, and I probably
contributed to the confusion.  I think we can apply this to the Gra to
show the division a bit - in an ideal world, a torah only approach would
not have the Gra studying medicine, as it might distract him from his
studies.  A TUM approach might have the Gra studing medicine, because it
would help him with his Torah, but perhaps making sure there were enough
others (more ordinary others) studying medicine  so that there would be
no call on him to practice, because his skills were so "out of sight" in
Torah, or alternatively a TUM approach might well understand the
perspective of his father and might well suggest that the Gra prioritise
other aspects of secular learning, eg physics or literature.

 The 
> question that was posed (I quote from Avodah Digest, Vol 23, 
> Issue 82)

There were two questions posed - this one, and the one about the fellow
without parnasa worries who was clearly no Gra, but who would after
years in Yeshiva as an adult, be baki in quite a few masechtos (ie a
level that the Gra had well and truly surpassed by his barmitzvah).  It
was this question that I primarily focussed on.

 was, "I just wanted to point out what the Pe'as 
> HaShulchan says in his preface, that the GRA wanted to study 
> pharmacology from the doctors of the time (i.e. the practical 
> stuff of how to concoct medicines. It sounds like the 
> theoretical things he figured out on his own),

How is this shown?

 and his father 
> forbade him from doing so, so that he should not have to 
> waste time from Torah study, since he would have to go save 
> lives if he knew how to practically apply the knowledge he 
> would get from the doctors).
> 
> I believe this is based on the Gemara in Megilla that Gadol 
> Talmud Torah MeHatzalas Nefashos. Had the GRA known practical 
> medicine, he may have had situations of a Mitzvah that could 
> not be done by others to save lives, and his father felt that 
> it was not comparable to the value of the extra Torah study 
> the Gaon could accomplish.
> 

If this was the reason, then there could be no justification for anybody
not in Torah studying anything else but medicine.  Because while you you
are putting forward an argument that Torah is greater than saving lives,
being a lawyer or an accountant or a computer programmer or a housewife
clearly isn't.  So how is it that anybody not in Torah is not required
to be in medicine?  Clearly for anybody to allow people to be in other
areas, one must hold that choosing to study medicine, or practical
medicine, is a reshus.  


> Does the Torah UMadda accept  this approach as part of its 
> Hashkafa, and, if so, how? Or does TuM feel that other 
> sources contradict this approach?". No one denied that the 
> doctors had knowledge that they could have taught the Gra. 
> What is being asked is, would a TuM adherent make the same 
> choice as the Gra? And if not, why?

In fact, a TUM perspective would seem to hold that studying medicine
davka is reshus more strongly than perhaps a Torah only perspective
might.  Because all one knows about Torah only is that studying medicine
is not the place to go to help torah learning, - whether medicine is
second best or not is not clear.   From a parnasa perspective, one
presumably would say that if parnasa overrides torah, then it will
override studying medicine (but if medicine really were a second best,
then surely it would the occupation of choice if one could get a
parnassa that way, and since it does not seem to be, anybody holding a
parnasa perspective clearly regards it as reshus).  But from a TUM
perspective, the fact that other areas can be studied in preference
makes it clear that it is only one of equally valid options, so if the
Gra switched his studies from pharmacology to physics, that would also
be fine (unless of course he had learnt every bit of secular knowledge
and torah knowledge there was to learn, bar this).
> 
> >Regarding the Chazon Ish, a TUM perspective could well take the view 
> >that the Chazon Ish might have been even greater if he had had more 
> >secular knowledge (might not have been a daas yachid regarding the 
> >nature of electricity for example) - and that it was his lack of 
> >secular knowledge and understanding of the outside world 
> that resulted 
> >in the Chazon Ish never being accepted by the entire Jewish world as 
> >the posek hador - so that arguably he did indeed not fulfil 
> his mission 
> >in life.
> 
> I can only quote a Gemara to such an attitude, "If he is 
> judged as not fulfilling his mission in life, what hope is 
> there for the rest of us?"
> 

But it is also said, that one will not be asked why one was not the
Chazen Ish, but why one was not oneself.  The Chazon Ish (according to
most people) had abilities that far exceed the average (he too fell into
the "out of sight" category) so that he is judged on an "out of sight"
mission.  One of the fundamental issues that comes up (and again it is
not a TUM issue specifically) is the extent to which it is accepted that
there are differences in ability.  One view (to take it to an extreme)
is that we could all be Gra's or Chazon Ish's of we tried hard enough,
and the power to try hard enough is in our hands.  Another view is that
individuals  are created with different abilities, and that most of us
could never have been a Gra or Chazon Ish no matter how we tried.  Ie
the stories about (eg the Netziv) being an ordinary student as a child
and then becoming a gadol on trying very hard means either a) everybody
could do it if they tried hard enough or b) some people may be late
blossomers, and that is part of their instrinsic ability, but the
average person could no more be a late blossomer than he or she could
have been an early blossomer.  Of course even if you hold b) the
additional difficulty with late blossomers is, how do you know (and by
when will you have picked up most if not all of them).  Are we so
clueless that even a gadol can't tell until a person is in their
forties, or can somebody with skill tell a potential late blossomer, at
least by the end of high school, if not by his barmitzvah (an early
blossomer you may even be able to tell aged 2 or so.)  These are
underlying questions that people from different groupings tend to answer
in certain ways, often without necessarily thinking them through (eg Rav
Dessler's famous statement about 1000 go in so one gadol emerges is
predicated on  certain answers to these questions, but these are usually
not articulated) but again it is not as simple as TUM and not TUM -
although again it is *likely* that somebody with a TUM perspective will
give the answers on these questions most commonly accepted in the
secular world (particularly for example, where similar questions have
been studied in secular studies - eg the nature of intelligence).  After
all, if you value secular studies, and the current secular studies have
something to say on the nature of genius, or economic forces or human
psychology, you are likely to apply  those to these type questions.  But
again it is not axiomatic (and again it is often not articulated).

> 
> KT,
> MSS

Regards

Chana