[Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY

[Samuel Svarc]

>From: David Riceman [mailto:driceman at att.net]
>Samuel Svarc wrote:
>
><If you will kindly point out, i.e. by bringing quotes instead of
assertions,
>which two posts of mine seem to you contradictory it would be my pleasure
>to play Ariadne to your Theseus.>
>
>sources follow:

I thank R' Riceman for going to the effort of assembling the relevant core
of my varied posts in one spot. I will now try to repay him by explaining
them.

><The "ivory tower in discussion" was learning full time, isolated, or
>going out and doing something to help this world. >

I think this is the most succinct statement I made, as long as one keeps in
mind that I, 1. Argued for the learning side of the equation, and 2. Was
explicit that this is as preference.

><So, one might not be obligated to learn all day (a topic we will leave for
another time), but it definitely is preferred >over other Mitzvos.>

Once again, I said that learning is preferred over other mitzvos.

><Sure, if someone wants to train to enhance his Torah study, go right ahead
(although I disagree with you on how effective and time efficient a route
this is). > 

The same way one who eats or sleeps, this time is understood to be necessary
as a preparation for learning, so to one who studies other subjects in order
to better understand Torah, it is necessary as a preparation for learning.
Does one's time spend sleeping count as TT? No. Is it counted as a necessary
preparation? Yes.

>If so, how do you justify the Rama's behavior?

He learned these subjects as a preparation to better understand Torah. The
Maharshal held that these subjects are forbidden to study and the Rama
disagreed with him. The same way, like today, there are machlokes haposikim
on certain subjects if one is permitted to learn them, they too argued about
this. But none of them held that one can't study permitted subjects to
enhance Torah.

>Is there a precise formulation of this preference somewhere?

Actually, there are many. Let's start with one that is being discussed
on-list now. Megillah 16b. If you've missed the recent posts on this I'll
gladly forward them to you.  

>>> Don't you agree, for example, that
>>> learning the umanus of shehita counts as Talmud Torah?
>>
>> No, I don't agree. The halachos of shechita, yes. Practical lessons on
>> how exactly to hold the knife, no. Pray tell, why do you think
differently?
>> Do you have a source that leads you to this opinion?
>
>Sure; the Shulhan Aruch discusses it, as does the Gemara.

This is an assertion without a source. I would be shocked if either the SA
or Gemora refer to learning the practicalities of shechita, not the
halachos, as TT. I would be interested in a source that says otherwise.

>I would have
>thought that Talmud Torah necessarily includes learning how to do
>mitzvos.  If you exclude that then haser ikkar min hasefer.

If you are referring to the halachos of how to do mitzvos, I'm in full
agreement that this is TT. If you mean practicalities, this is already the
position that I responded to above (indented quotes) in a previous post in
which I pointed out the incongruity of something that has no Torah in it
being considered TT. I also asked for a source that says contrary, and you
haven't, as of yet, provided one.

KT,
MSS