[Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to society

[Micha Berger]

After having the time over Shabbos to look over the Tosafos YT on Avos
2:1, I would have to agree with RDB, that the TYT is clearly a source
for the yeshivish value system.

As he writes on Thu, May 31, 2007 9:35pm:
: The Tosfos Yom Tov to that Mishnah quotes the Derech Chaim as
: follows:
: "That which it says... Talmud Torah K'negged Kullam has nothing to do
: with "Ein Atta Yodeia Mattan Secharan Shel Mitzvos", for that is only
: said by *Mitzvos*, but between Talmud Torah and Mitzvos there it was
: not said, for it is obvious *that the reward for Talmud Torah is
: greater*.

That said, BH the goal I had set for myself was far more modest. I'm
not interested in disproving the origins of yeshivish thought. Rather,
I was originally motivated by RDB's use of the gemara in Megillah, and
fired up by his exclusion of alternatives from the realm of "Torah
hashkafah". I will therefore clearly state my agenda:

1- I do not believe this is the conclusion one can draw from the
gemara. Yes, binyan BHMQ takes a back seat to talmud Torah. May we
face this decision bb"a. However, we see that lemaaseh, Mordechai's
example is to be followed. We can argue about what is garu'ah about
being forced to follow his example, but the bottom line is that one
can't prioritize even safeiq piqu'ach nefesh behind Torah.

In particular, I understand the Taz as saying the exact opposite of
RDB's take. He says that lemaaseh the fact that Talmud Torah has a
plus has no behavioral impact. This is how he justifies the SA telling
you to redirect money earmarked to support learning into hatzalas
nefashos (if needed). So, we could argue what the plus is, but it's
not prescriptive, and thus can not be a measurement on a scale that
implies priority.

Further, the Taz quotes the halakhah (which isn't under machloqes)
that we prioritize learning currently in progress over being the one
to save lives that will be saved otherwise. The din only makes sense
if this prioritization is only true when the learning is currently in
progress. Otherwise, why add it as a conditional?

The CS needs to give an alternate explanation for the negative
judgment of Mordechai which would seem to say he holds that the
exchange of Torah for hatzalas nefashos would not in-and-of-itself
justify the judgment. And thus he says it was based on Mordechai's
learning being the one Hashem considers more interruptible.


2- On the more heated issue, RDB's claim that there is a consensus
amongst all Torah hashkafos about the role of talmud Torah not a
matter of finding a maqor for those who take "TT keneged kulam" at a
maximalist face value, but a matter of disproving the existence of
other meqoros.

The TYT isn't the only way to understand the seemingly conflicting
mishnayos of "i ata yodei'ah secharan shel mitzvos" and TTK.

The Tif'eres Yisrael says that TTKK is not inherent in the mitzvah
itself, but in the fact that without knowing what to do, one can't do
the other mitzvos.

This would seem to feed directly into Rav Hutner's understanding of
"lilmod al menas la'asos" meaning that if one lives according to one's
limud, that is part of the qiyum of talmud Torah. This is how he
explains Tosafos's answer of how the rest of life is not a hefseiq WRT
birkhos haTorah, as well as why "Ahavas olam / Ahavah rabba" can serve
as a birkhas haTorah despite discussing qiyum hamitzvos and not only
TT. But RYHutner goes further, and says this is breadth of life (and
not only direct qiyum hamitzvos, BTW) the "ma'arichin ba'echad'" of
Shema, which gets one the berakhah of arikhas yamim!

And that's without addressing the more famously "Torah-and" acharonim.
I am sure RDB wasn't suggesting that RSRH's wasn't a "Torah
hashkafah".

But the origins of this eilu va'eilu go back quite a ways. I already
mentioned R' Yismael vs Rashbi, but I can push it back another
generation: According to R' Tarfon, ma'aseh outranks Torah. But even
according to R' Aqiva, does Torah's outranking ma'aseh (which I would
think is the ancestor of the TYT's idea) mean that one doesn't try to
get a "well balanced diet"?

See RnCL's post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n008.shtml#14>
about TT keneged kulam. However, I will comment further after I see the
Derekh haChaim.

Actually, gedolim like the Gra and CI -- to reuse two examples from the
top of this discussion -- did spend time on chol topics. The Gra to
the point of publishing math books. R' Chaim Brisker, it would seem,
spent more hours engaged in chessed than in learning. (RCB's lifestyle
was amazing, and worth a discussion in and of itself...)

The lifestyle is one of learning, torasan umnasan. But it wasn't
"torah only". In Volozhin and Slabodka (the two examples I spent a
little time learning the history of), talmidim were expected to pick
this stuff up -- but on their own time. (Except for Russian Language,
which Volozhin actually had classes in toward the end.) WRT Slabodka,
RAEK draws a vivid picture of the debates over topics like Hegel, Marx
and Freud. Kelm altogether ran a Gymnasia, at least while the Alter
was alive to give it direction. The whole anti-mada thing is far more
extreme today than it was before the issue became a sociological
communal line. (Not claiming it's new, just that both sides are
further from the middle than they were in Eastern Europe.)

Perhaps if one follows like the Gra, that even the gadol hador will
gain 100 yadayim of Torah if they add a yad of mada to their learning,
that one yad studied for the sake of the 100 isn't bitul Torah.

-- 
Micha Berger            It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha at aishdas.org       you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org  happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie