<pre>RMB writes: >> and<br>fired up by his (RDB's) exclusion of alternatives from the realm of "Torah<br>hashkafah". <<<br><br>Whoa. I'm a little more broad minded than that! What I said was this,
<br>and is limited to this:<br><br>>> I think your comments on *TuM enhancing understanding that Torah is the<br>Chochmah of the Borei* are not in sync with the Torah's Hashkafah. <<<br><br>Can you tell me a source that Madda enhances understanding that Torah
<br>is Chochmah of the Borei? (Not that Madda enhances understanding the Chochmah<br>of the Borei, but that Madda enhances understanding that *Torah* is Chochmas <br>HaBorei, more so that learning Torah without Madda does)
<br><br><br><br>RMB: >>1- I do not believe this is the conclusion one can draw from the<br>gemara. Yes, binyan BHMQ takes a back seat to talmud Torah. May we<br>face this decision bb"a. However, we see that lemaaseh, Mordechai's
<br>example is to be followed. We can argue about what is garu'ah about<br>being forced to follow his example, but the bottom line is that one<br>can't prioritize even safeiq piqu'ach nefesh behind Torah. <<
<br><br>IIUC, you agree that Binyan BHM"Q should be prioritized behind Talmud Torah <br>when choosing what to do. This is true even during the time that Ezra was eating <br>or resting - he was not supposed to get up from
<br>his meal or bed and go build the BHM"Q, but to<br>go back and learn under Baruch ben Neriya. <br><br>Why, then, do you distinguish between this and Gadol TT MeHatzalas Nefashos, <br>and, if there is a distinction, what grants the Taz license to prove anything
<br>from how to understand TT vs. Hatzalah from TT vs. BBHM"Q? The Taz says explicitly<br>that these two statements are identical in their import.<br><br><br>>> The CS needs to give an alternate explanation for the negative
<br>judgment of Mordechai which would seem to say he holds that the<br>exchange of Torah for hatzalas nefashos would not in-and-of-itself<br>justify the judgment. And thus he says it was based on Mordechai's<br>learning being the one Hashem considers more interruptible. <<
<br><br>Where is the CS?<br><br><br>>> 2- On the more heated issue, RDB's claim that there is a consensus<br>amongst all Torah hashkafos about the role of talmud Torah not a<br>matter of finding a maqor for those who take "TT keneged kulam" at a
<br>maximalist face value, but a matter of disproving the existence of<br>other meqoros. <<<br><br>Again, I never said such a thing. I began by asking whether TuM accepted that Torah <br>study was superior to any other contribution to society, and, if not, what the
<br>sources were for equating other contributions to society to Torah study. That "Torah<br>Hashkafah" thing was on a very limited point.<br><br>-- </pre>