[Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to society

[Samuel Svarc]

MSS then wrote (on why a computer is not compared to a person):
>
>> I do not believe that is the correct answer. Your computer is
>> an inanimate object that has no chiyuvim or mitzvos. The Jew
>> sitting in "his ivory tower of a yeshiva" is doing what
>> Hashem commanded him to do.
>
>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.

>> Experientially, this is a disproven perspective. The two
>> greatest examples of people who spent their lives in an
>> "ivory tower" are the Gra and the Chazon Ish. It's ludicrous
>> to assert that they didn't fulfill their mission in life.
>>
>
>Note that a TUM perspective would disagree vigorously with this
>statement which suggests that the Gra spent his life in the ivory tower
>of the yeshiva. The Gra was famous for teaching himself, and that
>includes all forms of secular knowledge.  One doesn't have to go to
>university to satisfy TUM - just be prepared to explore all forms of
>knowledge.

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

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?

>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?"

>And RDB then writes:
>
>> 1) Your computer has no Neshama that is nourished by bytes of
>> Torah information. 2) Your computer is not fulfilling the Mitzvah of
>> Talmud Torah K'neged Kulam. 3) Your computer has no appreciation that it
is
>> absorbing the Chochmah of the Borei Olam. 4) Your computer has no need to
fulfill
>> the Halachos contained in the stored information 5) Your computer has no
Bein Adam
>> LaChaveiro interactions that need to be guided by the Torah. Our protege
interacts
>> with his family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and
>> strangers on a daily basis, just not in the context of a
>> particular profession.
>
>Agreed.  But note that certainly 3), 4) and 5) are precisely about that
>something extra called understanding that a human being is capable of
>adding.  Appreciation of Chochma is understanding.  In addition one
>needs understanding in order to fulfil halacha, and to have bein adam
>l'chavero interactions.  As I tried to suggest, one of the key
>differences between my computer and a human being is this thing called
>understanding, which allows the knowledge held to be applied.  That I
>thought was a universal.  The difference is that TUM believes that the
>understanding achieved by also picking up secular knowledge and
>knowledge of the outside world is a deepened form of understanding when
>then applied to the learning of Torah.  That is, from a TUM perspective,
>when a human being learns Torah after some contact with the outside
>world, he has a deepened appreciation that he is absorbing the Chochma
>of the Borei Olam (ie no 3), it helps him to better understand the Torah
>he is learning so as to fulfil the halachos contained in the Torah he is
>learning (no 4) and thereby helps him better to do the bein adam
>l'chavero interactions better (ie 5).

I see no evidence of this. One would think that after at least 50 years of
TuM having a run one could handily show these assertions. Can it?

KT,
MSS