RSRH

mdd, I assume you refer to my first comment quoting from Justice Holmes, not to my second comment about setting VERY high standards for kollel members that seek public support.

In truth, I regretted the post as soon as I had clicked “send.” it was not meant to be derogatory nor was it directed at the three generations of kollel learners we are discussing. It was a poor attempt at humor (I have a strange academic sense of humor, I cant help it), and it was the first thing that popped into my head when I originally saw the title of the topic (the original title was ‘Three generations,” the “kollel yungerleit . . .” was added later) before I had read what it was about.

Again, I do apologize for the unintended insult.

As a side note. mdd, if my comment had been intended as derogatory, please distinguish derision of people who happen to learn torah and of the Torah itself. I think you would have to admit that there is a difference between saying (and I don’t mean this, its just an example), “kollelnicks are lazy no good leaches” and saying “the laws of the Torah are complete lunacy and to follow them is the ultimate mindless enslavement of one’s self.” Both statements are wrong and reprehensible. One is mivazeh the torah, while the other is mibazeh individuals that happen to learn torah. there is a valuable and meaningful difference.

Wow WIY, you and I are in agreement (a rarity, to be sure, but a welcome one indeed!).

I would add one point. I think that those sitting and learning need to be focusing more on halachah and less on gemarah for its own sake. If a qualified individual sits in kollel for 10 years, and is to be supported by the community (and very generously at that; we ought to respect our scholars – at least the select few that are truly scholars – and we ought to insure that they live a lifestyle that engenders respect and admiration, not derision), I think that he ought to be able to function as a dayan, posek, rov, mechanech, or the like when he is done.

Also, in addition to the bechinas, which I think are important, but don’t really measure quality as much as quantity, I think kollel members should be required to produce scholarly articles on halachik and torah-related topics in journals (english or hebrew) that can be purchased by the public. People ought to be able to see what they are getting for their money! Also, I don’t think it would be a bad idea to require long term learners to produce a sefer or two, much like a doctoral candidate is expected to produce a dissertation. THis way, kollel members will contribute to the larger Torah discourse, and not just keep their hard work, knowledge and scholarship to themselves.

Needless to say, with such requirements, the number of kollel members will drop, and those that there are will be of a very impressive caliber.

I quote Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 270.

May the prediction be realized speedily in our days, and the proper Torah-approach to life in this world be widely reinstated.

Homeowner: What kind of pro bono project? I’m a 2L at Fordham and always interested in working on something juicy.

WIY: You speak with anger and frustration. Perhaps you are reflecting you own personal struggles on others? You struggle with the negative impact television, films, and music have had on you, and I suspect your hashkafic and halachik background has not given you the tools to deal with these issues. As a result you are frustrated; frustrated by your own inability to rectify your outer appearance with your inner uncertainty, and frustrated by what you perceive as the looming danger that is sure to strike countless unsuspecting young Jewish boys and girls certain to fall into the same trap as you.

As one deeply involved in many areas on non-Jewish (though I will venture to say, not anti-Torah) study, and intimately familiar with all the world has to offer, I must say i do not share your fear and consternation. Thank God, I have been taught, and have myself studied how one can deal effectively with all that life in this world entails b’menuchas hanefesh. I have not played ostrich and stuck my head in the sand pretending its not there; I have not banished the world from my sight out of fear of being negatively influenced by it, only to leave it to bring down those such as yourself who are less well prepared for the challenge. I have engaged the world and all that is in it. I have evaluated all the intellectual ideas and social norms with which I have been privileged to come in contact, and consider their value or lack thereof in light of the rules and principles of the Torah.

I feel for your apparent inner turmoil. But please, please don’t do as so many others and reflect your frustrations on others to their own detriment. Not all are like you, and not all will benefit from applying your experiences to their own lives. Indeed, it is precisely that idea – that one person’s perspective or experience can serve as a cookie-cutter template for everyone else – that leads to the development of those “bad” children you are so very afraid of.

bombmaniac, with respect, this is not about the soldiers; it’s about the mishebayrach. And the mishebayrach includes language that is easily construed as supporting the Army and the State, not just the individual soldiers, who are most assuredly our brothers and sisters, may God protect them from harm. The issues are therefore heavily related, and you cant really deal with one in a meaningful way without considering the other.

Squeak, please go back and read your Hirsch (not just the Nineteen Letters please; thats kid’s stuff and just lays the basic outline for the rest of his works). Nationalism is not consistent with the Torah. In Hirsch’s view, Jews are supposed to be the ultimate internationalists – we have no inherent need for our own polity. A state merely serves as a means to an end – to show other countries how to run a government and manage political affairs in accordance with God’s will. If the “Jewish” state is not doing that (and I think even the most hard-core Zionist would be hard-pressed to say it is) it serves no purpose, and in fact retards our national calling to live every aspect of our individual and social lives as an example to others of how God want human existence to look.

I don’t think we need to go to Mod’s argument. Lomed, your argument rests on a false premise. Austritt was not based on religious institutions espousing non-Torah values; indeed, the fact they are espousing non-Torah values makes then irreligious. It was based on Jewish institutions – institutions that have an obligation to adhere to the Torah. Yes, the State is an anti-Torah institution. It doesn’t need to interfere in the religious lives of its citizens. The Torah gives us guidelines of how to run a State, how to engage in war, deal with other nations, dissenting locals, and other political functions. A Jewish run political system that does not adhere to these guidelines is un-Jewish and subject to austritt.

Utilitarian balancing of the costs and benefits of the State may be appealing, but I don’t think it is correct. First, who is to say objectively what are the “good” and “bad” consequences of the State. I think God may be able to make that kind of judgement; we don’t know enough to do so. All we can do is look to the law as God gave it to us.

Been watching and reading for a few months now, but just decided to get into the fray.

Darchei Noam:

The Torah was given to the Jewish People for their own welfare, but the Jewish People where given to the rest of the world for its welfare. Your approach is typical of the entitlement-oriented focus of many in the Jewish world today. We are not here to take from others (yes, even non-Jews). We are here to emulate God; to give to everyone and better human civilization and human existence through our adherence to the Torah. Does theft from non-Jews comport with that mission? D’racheha darchei noam, v’chol n’sivoseha shalom!

Why is it that a kollel man’s learning all day and putting his obligations to be mipharnes his family on others (whether they do so willingly or not, he still has a personal moral-ethical duty min hatorah to do so) is “the greatest most productive life”? How is that more productive than my choosing to sit in school for years and years to become truly an expert in profession, support my family, and earn smicha yadin yadin at the same time? How is that more productive than my publishing articles in respected forums about the moral worthiness of Jewish law for all the world to read and learn from? It is easy to say that the guy sitting in the bais medrash that no one will ever hear from or learn from is holding up the world in a spiritual manner, but why doesn’t he hold it up in a tangible way; a way that his fellow men can appreciate and value and benefit from?

Ben Torah: Your analogies between kollel members and other professions is misleading, I think. Baseball players, academics, lawyers, doctors, and entertainers are all paid because they DO SOMETHING – they produce something tangible – either they draw fans to the game or entertainment venue, or they heal the sick, represent the client, or produce scholarly works. These professionals do not expect to be paid money to sit in law school, medical school, graduate school, training camp, ect. on the basis of their future production value.

Many kollel men will go on to be productive members of the community – poskim, rabbeim, mashgichim, roshei yeshiva, dayanim, writers of seforim. Most will not (thats the sad truth; most people learning in kollel do not have the intellectual ability or personal qualities to go on to produce something for others with their Torah learning – they will likely sit and learn forever).

In either case, learning in kollel is at best comparable to studying for a future profession. I am unaware of any students that get paid for their schooling efforts alone. Perhaps the community may wish to sponsor the studies of particularly gifted students that can be expected to become productive practitioners of the Torah they study. But to make that the standard and expect the kehilla to sponsor mediocre students with little potential for further accomplishments, i just don’t know . .

Thanks. Which point do you refer to? I tend to make many points in a single post – my tendency to ramble. (Oops, there I go again!)

It seems to me that a true ben Torah is one that truly is a son of the Torah. His (or her) life should be a product of the Torah – regardless of what he or she does from day to day. The Torah does not mandate a particular lifestyle; rather, it demands that regardless of what lifestyle (profession, location, nationality, fashion taste, ect.) a person adopts as fitting their particular nature and needs, that person regulates their conduct in accordance with the Torah’s laws.

Simply put, a true ben Torah is anyone whose daily conduct in every sphere of human endeavor testifies to the content of the Torah itself. Just as a child is a reflection of its parent – not precisely identical, but reflective nonetheless – a ben Torah is reflective of the Torah itself. Even when a parent’s many children look and act differently and take different paths in their lives, they are truly children if they WAY they go about on the paths they have chosen reflects the upbringing their parents provided for them.

You throw around the term “the gedolim” like politicians talk of “the people” and activist federal judges speak of “the public interest.” You take an amorphous unidentifiable collective body and personify it by using terms like “shlita” which refers to an identifiable individual, and then use that fiction to prop up your personal views. Your not the first to do it, and I am certain you wont be the last.

BTW, whose “gedolim” are you voting for? obviously not mine; i guess they must be yours. Who are they exactly? what is the basis for their superior authority to my own gedolim, or my own knowledge of the relevant issues? Do they have to demonstrate their superior scholarship, or do you just assume it? what is the basis for this assumption; the color of their coat; the length of their beard; their language; their place of residence; how many things they can assur; how many things they can mattir?

Just wondering . . .

The E’Y analogy does not work at all. There is an important distinction between things that are non-Jewish (i.e., things said, done, and thought by non-jews who have no obligation to follow our Torah) and things that are un-Jewish (i.e., things said, done, and thought by fellow Jews that are obligated to adhere to the Torah, but choose not to do so).

There is little inherent problem with associating or supporting things non-Jewish, but associating or associating with things that are un-Jewish, even if you do strictly adhere to the Torah, runs the risk of implicitly legitimizing a Jew’s break with halachah.

Satmer and many others have problems with the Israeli government because it is an un-Jewish institution. The State of NY, or the United States, or any other country for that matter is a non-Jewish establishment. Even when they go wrong, supporting and associating with them does not risk legitimizing the uprooting of Torah ideals. Any reasonable person should be able to recognize that the State of NY is not bound to follow the Torah, so if they adopt though legislation non-Torah morals this says nothing about what the Torah or Jews say.

Ben Torah,

Thank you for bringing that Gemarah to my attention.

I disagree with the first paragraph of your comment, since ultimately it is the homosexual act that the Torah forbids, not some amorphous concept of domestic relationship or what kind of outrageous behavior some may exhibit at a parade. Those are all actions, but it seems to me that the ones that matter for our purposes are the ones the Torah expressly prohibits. After all, if the Torah assurs the act of eating a sheretz, you would not say that the act of going to the zoo to look at the scorpions and rodents is a violation of this prohibition – going to the zoo is certainly an act related to sheratzim, but ultimately it is not the act the Torah spoke of.

As far as the gemarah, goes, again thank you! I have not yet learned chullin (I am more of a nezikin and choshen mishpat guy, hence my being a bit of a stickler for the letter of the law, ect.), and had not seen the gemarah. I will have to consider it, and likely revise my position.

As I think about this point, however, perhaps you could give me your thoughts on a few points:

1) This is clearly aggada, not halacha, so what role do you see it playing? Can it be a sufficient basis for legislation in a non-Jewish country to ban gay marriage? It seems to be a statement rather than a prohibition. Couldn’t New York, for example, choose to allow gay marriage, and then see what happens – i.e., see if indeed it will collapse due to abandoning this standard of conduct.

2) Keep in mind that a kesubbah is essentially a private contract. It doesnt confer state benefits or immunities. A gay couple may currently make a private contract stipulating the obligations of civil marriage – i.e., mutual financial obligations, penalties for separation, ect. So why equate State recognition of gay marriage to kessuba as used in the genarah; it seems that gay couples can already (and they probably do) write private “kessubos” for each other.

Ben Torah: I will assume from your username that you understand the distinction between actions and taivah. I dont think I need to spell out what mishkav zachos is on this forum, but needless to say, two men or women living in the same home, cooking dinner together, sharing their income, filing their taxes under “married,” and receiving each other’s insurance benefits, is not “mishkav zachor.

I do not disagree with you about the act, or the penalty under sheva mitzvos (though its not clear whether such peanlty is min hashamayim, or if the mitzva of creating a legal system requires the prohibition and proper punishment of sheva mitzvos). I also think the Supreme Court’s holding that it is unconstitutional to prohibit homosexual conduct under the due process clause of the 14th Amend. is wrongly on the law and wrong on democratic grounds. In terms of equal protection, however, in a democracy, we CANNOT treat people differently in terms of their ability to enjoy certain legal protections and benefits simply based on their mindset. And that is all homosexual marriage (as distinct from actions) is, isn’t it? Its a domestic relationship between two people of the same gender who happen to prefer each other’s company to that of members of the opposite gender. The michkav zachor is neither a necessary nor sufficient aspect of claiming the social benefits of civil marriage, and so I still don’t see what the issue is?

WIY:

All agree that Anochi and Lo Yieyeh are mitzvos, thats pretty clear, isn’t it? However, not all agree that these are, as you say, *beliefs*. For many, the mitzva of Anochi Hashem is not to * believe* in God, but rather to actually make God YOUR GOD. Lo yeiyeh is taken as the negative side of the same coin – an injunction not to make anything else YOUR GOD. i.e., the mitzva is to make God the reference point of your existence and the scale against which you measure your earthly conduct, and to not make any other *god* (ideology, belief, conviction, desire) the focal point of your life against which you judge your actions. Belief is beside the point.

As for the six constant mitzvos: First, I am not sure why you chose these six as constant. Lo sasuru is constant, but so is lo yimosh divrei hatorah m’picha, and kibud av v’eim, and lo sigzol for that matter. We are constantly bound by all the laws of the Torah. Second, I’m not sure what any of these mitzvos has to do with belief; they are requirements to act or not act in particular ways, as are all the mitzvos.

I don’t *believe* in either of these propositions. Rather I conduct myself with the *knowledge* that they are true. The distinction is subtle, I think, but important.

I don’t think these are necessary beliefs. What is necessary is proper actions, not proper thoughts. (Though thoughts are good too, I wouldn’t impose a belief requirement on others, merely a conduct requirement).

BP Totty,

I thought the whole point was to take away the formalities and framework of the “system.” Why the need to designate separate nights for different (artificial?) classifications? Why not let whomever is interested come all together on the same night (or day) and let them all work it out for themselves.

I know, I know, we cant trust those little kids to actually handle things on their own in a mature manner. Perhaps not. But maybe, just maybe, they will choose to use the responsibility given to them in a responsible and sensible manner. After all, God put us here and pretty much lets us do what we want – we can choose to be good people or bad, its all in our hands. God doesn’t stand over us with lightning bolts ready to pounce if we take a wrong step. Only by giving us the responsibility and choice to be good people does our choice to do so mean anything.

\Why not give our kids the same opportunity?

Wow, I’m at a bit of a loss for how to respond to a question like that. I will dig deep to try and come up with some minimal response, however.

First, the question assumes that it is not the proper role of a woman (or a man for that matter) to look to the conduct of her (his) spouse. I’m not really sure where such an absurd notion comes from. What else is a spouse’s role if not to look after the betterment of their better half? What should a spouse be doing other than giving of them-self in order to help the other improve and really maximize on his/her potential? Would the OP suggest that a wife’s proper role is to stay at home, cook dinner, and work all day so that her husband can idle his time away in kollel? I am not suggesting that time spent in kollel is idle, but if a wife cann’t properly influence her husband’s conduct, what’s to stop his “learning” time from being nothing but pure batalah?

I will take a leap and assume the OP was not suggesting that “ezer k’negdo” and the numerous other examples in tanach and shas of wives serving as the moral-ethical compass of their husbands and families, not to mention pure reason, mean nothing. I will assume that the OP thinks a wife does have *some* role in supporting her husband’s development. If so, it would seem that the OP is suggesting that in the modern yeshiva-centered world, the wife must take a backseat in favor of the mashgiach being a man’s sole moral compass.

There are numerous consequential reasons why this should not be so: A mashgiach cannot possibly know a man’s true nature as well as his wife; the support, direction, and admonition of a removed mashgiach cannot possibly be as effective as that of ones most intimate partner and friend. More important than these reasons however is that the claim is just plain wrong on a normative level. What gives a mashgiach a monopoly on direction? Wouldn’t we all have to admit that good direction and advice of a stranger is properly warranted (“hocheiach tochiach”)? Indeed, I would not be surprised if the OP himself is one of the CR posters often advocating the admonition of women dressed in an untznius manner. What gives anyone the right to give advice or direction to anyone? Shouldn’t that person’s own rav/mashgiach have a monopoly on giving such advice? Clearly not, as is the halachah. If so, should a man’s wife be in any worse a position in this respect than a stranger off the street?

What matters is the content of the direction or advice, not its source. A mashgiach giving poor or erroneous advice (yes, it can happen)should be ignored, and a wife giving good advice ought to be revered above all else.

Perhaps the man in question should spend more time learning so as to establish a basis for determining what advice is good and what is bad (and by default, he will likely have less need for such advice) and less time choosing what advice to listen to based on its source instead of its content.

Homeowner, well said!

I am a second year law student with an undergrad degree from Touro. I took my undergraduate work seriously, and made sure to become very capable of writing, researching and discussiong issues in an academic manner. A BTL cannot, and I stress again, CANNOT prepare you properly for law school and a legal career. If you are going to law school just to get a decent paycheck after you graduate (and these days even that is a remote possibility), I would strongly urge you to look for another profession. Three years of little sleep, much stress, and huge debt,is simply a foolish path to take unless you are genuinely committed to the legal profession as a valuable pursuit – not just a meal ticket.

If you want to excel, it is extremely important that you have a broad liberal arts background. Understand the theory behind the law, politics, society, economics, ect. Learn to write well reasoned, well researched pieces of scholarship. I see the BTL guys in my school (BTW, the school stopped seriously considering any BTL applicants this past year), they struggle, and ultimately are generally not the most successful or productive bunch in terms of their legal skills. They may know how to think, but they dont have the vocabulary, or general knowledge needed to translate their well developed logical minds into good legal thought and practice in a practical non-yeshivah context.

Please note, I dont say this as someone without a yeshivah background. I attended a very elite yeshiva in Meah Shearim, as well as another respected yeshiva in America. I am also studying for yadin yadin smichah. In my experience, it is my broad knowledge obtained as a college student that serves me best in my academic pursuits. And my ability to study law effectively only enhances my ability to dissent complex issues in choshen mishpat, and even see them in new ways due to my exposure to many other ways of thinking about and dealing with novel legal questions.