[Avodah] Torah study vs. other contributions to society

[Samuel Svarc]

>From: "Chana Luntz" <chana at kolsassoon.org.uk>
>Subject: [Avodah] Torah study vs. other contributions to society
>
>
>For example, somebody I know was apparently standing in a queue to do
>something in connection with the Israeli beaurocracy (it being one of
>these things that one had to do in person, and could not send somebody)
>when somebody generally regarded as a gadol also showed up.  This person
>felt that the gadol's time was unquestionably more valuable than his
>time, and kovod hatorah and all that, and so gave the gadol his place in
>the queue.  According to the RDB approach listed above, however, how did
>he know that in fact that wasn't more amal batorah than the gadol, and
>that his learning might not be more valuable to Hashem and of greater
>protection to the world?

I think this apparent to anyone who has spent time with a major TC, that
their amal and avodah is both quantitatively and qualitatively that they are
holding on a higher level. This is what causes most people to respect them.

>Similarly, on what basis should one follow the advice of those generally
>recognised as gadolim, as opposed to one's neighbour who always has an
>eitza for everything - maybe the gadol has learnt with less amal batorah
>than one's neighbour?

Anything is possible, but as the Chazon Ish writes, Klal Yisroel recognizes
their Gedolim, so one can rest assured that if he goes to a person that TC
hold of that he has gotten the real deal. 

>We cannot know what it is that Hashem values, but we can and do
>recognise intellectual capacity and we can and do recognise the ability
>to be mechadesh on a high level.  Whether the key criteria for producing
>those who are mechadesh is intellectual capacity plus dilligence, or
>dilligence alone is, as I indicated, something of a machlokus.  But to
>deny that the ability to be mechadesh on a high level is the hallmark of
>a gadol seems to me rather difficult to maintain.

It was never the level of chiddush that makes someone a Gadol b'yisroel. R'
Ahron Leib Shteinman is not known to be a bigger m'chaddish then the dozens
of RY in EY that are his age. You are barking up the wrong tree with this
criteria.

> In which case, you
>end up effectively saying that we have no way of judging whether gadolim
>are any better than the rest of us.

We do have; plain old Torah, Avodah, and Gemilas Chassodim. If one observes
them, he sees this. This is why people who observe them, hold of them. There
is a dayan in Lakewood that I'm close with. Being a cousin, when I was a
bochur here, I used to hang out in his house. From what I observed there, I
feel it a privilege to try to help him, so I've made numerous trips to Home
Depot to get the right hardware to hang a shelf for him, etc. Are there
people in Lakewood who are better then him? Might be, but I don't feel that
I'm one of them, so if I could give him my place on line (something that is
not always halachically proper) I would do it.

>And RZL writes:
>
>> I'm not involved in this discussion, but I would just like to
>> point out that it is not so poshut to go from the classical
>> cases of temporarily interrupting one's learning for doing an
>> immediately necessary deed that required no training, to the
>> kind of training and more permanent time commitment that
>> preparing for Zaka requires, and certainly to the time and
>> effort needed to become a medic in preparation for situations
>> not yet in existence (although of course predictably they
>> will be). In the first case, Talmud Torah remains the kevius,
>> as opposed to in the other two cases.
>
>Absolutely.  The one is at best a form of hecsher mitzvah (ie the
>training) as opposed to the mitzvah itself (the doing). That is why the
>fact the Gra's father might not have wanted the Gra to study practical
>medicine does not mean that there was a conflict between talmud torah
>and pikuach nefesh, as RMSS tries to argue, with talmud torah trumping
>pikuach nefesh.

I'm not sure what you're saying, as your syntax is not clear, but I suspect
you've misunderstood what I said. I've been explicit that PN comes before TT
in many posts now. I've equally been explicit that training for Zaka is not
PN and doesn't come before TT. I hope this clears it up.

>But there is also a different debate in our (ie halachic) society which
>is who, if anybody, does those jobs that do require training before any
>mitzvah can be performed (ie where it can become difficult to have the
>talmud torah dominate one's day if one is to do the training properly).
>I gave Zaka as a classic example precisely because it does require
>training, and training without ever knowing if it will be needed (please
>G-d there should be no further need of a Zaka).  In the classical
>sources there is no discussion of a Zaka, but there is of a chevra
>kaddisha. A chevra kaddisha is also an example of a situation where
>training and organisation is needed before there is actually a meis in
>front of one, triggering the mizvah.  And one is required to be set up.
>The question becomes, how is this done, who should participate?
>
>Now RMSS's response to this is:
>
>> I don't see where "society" comes into this. There are
>> explicit halacha's that deal with this, and one is supposed
>> to make burial society's etc. If the only people available to
>> do this are people learning (a far-fetched occurrence, which
>> even in Lakewood - the town that most probably has the
>> highest percentage of full time learners - this doesn't
>> occur...), then they are the ones who need to take care of
>> this, "Society" doesn't enter the picture.
>
>See this is a particular ideological viewpoint - ie that these things
>will sort of happen by themselves - somebody will presumably see a need,
>and somebody will do something about it and form a chevra kadisha or a
>Zaka or whoever (although it is not really clear whether it is mutar or
>not to do this if the participants would otherwise be in learning).
>There are in this piece also hints to the idea that those who fail to be
>able to maintain themselves as learners will fall into this role as a
>form of second best (ie that is how you get to it being mutar, but only
>for those who cannot manage to sit in yeshiva full time).

As I've pointed out, throughout history there have always been people who
were not learning full time who did these things. Given that this has been
true across many different situations (including, most probably, the town
that has the highest percentage of full time learners in Jewish history) I
fail to see the actual relevance of your question. But to address it as an
hypothetical, if there are only full time learners, and they can't get
anyone to do these things for them, some of them will have to do it. I would
imagine it would evolve as who heard about it first, he would do it that
day, or they might set a rotation. 

>However many people don't believe in this extreme atomised idea of
>decision making.  Certainly in the classical cases it was assumed that
>the beis din of the town or the tovei hair or somebody would be
>organising such things (ie, in other terms, society).

No, "halacha". And they wouldn't pick the couple of full time learners to be
the chevra kadisha either. I don't think they "picked", in that sense of the
word. They asked people to join, and yidden, being interested in doing the
right thing, looked at it as a privilege.

> But the deeper
>philosophical question is as to how such people (theoretically or
>actually) should make a decision that X should spend his time doing such
>things, including therefore any training necessary to do it properly,
>and Y should not.  Is it that in theory everybody should be learning and
>the failures to sit in yeshiva all day end up being fingered to do such
>things (and what if there are no failures?), or are there other criteria
>(eg ability in learning compared to others as determinable by other
>human beings eg the rigourous selection criteria of the great Lithuanian
>yeshivos in Lithuania, economics, etc).

You're comparing some "Utopia", by definition it doesn't exist, to real
life. Yeshiva's in Lithuania didn't make their rigorous entrance exam as a
matter of choice; they would have loved to be able to accept everybody,
reality however dictated that only a few could be accepted, so they choice
those that they thought would be for the greatest good. So I fail to see how
is relevant to our discussion, where we are referring to people who are
making the decision on their own, i.e. the yeshiva has accepted them, now
should they attend or should they join Zaka? They should attend, as that is
the preferred choice. 

Now you're asking: Who will run Zaka? Realistically, whoever has been
running it till now. They obviously, don't, can't, etc., learn full time and
they'll continue to run it while this person goes to learn full time. But
you asking a hypothetical case, Island Jewish Utopia, where all males have
both the desire and abilities to learn full time and the women as well want
them do. Money, food, and medicine is being supplied by the UN. Terrorists
as well... No? Zaka?? OK, just your standard chevra kadisha, because people
are still dying since Moshiach hasn't come yet. "You're sure Moshiach hasn't
come yet? This is how the Ramabam describes the days of Moshiach." "Nu, it's
an hypothetical case." OK, same answer as before, either each full time
learner will interrupt his learning as he becomes aware of a meis or they'll
set up a rotation (skipping the Cohanim of course...).

But as I hope this trip down imagination lane has made clear, this is not
something that can happen. There will always be people who don't learn full
time, and it's these people who take care of these things. This is how it
has always been throughout Jewish history.  

KT,
MSS