Ulshoneinu Rinah

In advance of my daughter Rena's Bat Mitzvah this past Shabbos, we learned the part of the sixth chapter of Pirkei Avos that lists 48 traits needed for success in studying Torah.

We put together a mini-sefer which collects the ideas we developed regarding the 48 traits. It's downloadable from YUTorah.org here; feedback would be welcome.

Of Teaching and Chesed

About a month ago, I posted a question on this blog: "Is teaching a class an act of chesed (generosity)?" I received some insightful emails, as well as good comments on the post; thank you.

As I said on that post, teaching a class just doesn't feel like chesed. I'd like to unpack that here.

I can see three definitions of Chesed:
1) Filling the need of a recipient;
2) Sacrificing personal resources for a recipient;
3) Connecting with a recipient.

In truth, I believe that teaching a class does qualify as Chesed, within all three definitions. A good teacher:
(1) provides for the educational needs of the students;
(2) expends real effort and time in planning how best to convey Torah to the students; and
(3) connects and builds relationships with the students.

So why doesn't it feel like chesed? A few reasons, I think, all tied to the different definitions of chesed I mentioned above:
1) Filling a need - Rabbis need to advertise and recruit people to shiurim; if this were filling a need, would we need to work so hard to persuade people to take advantage? Further, however well-intentioned, a Rabbi may misunderstand or misstate his Torah. A shiur may be wrong without the teacher realizing it, but the benefits of a hospital visit, counseling, a relationship are often visible.

2) Sacrificing personal resources – If I am paid to teach classes, then whatever I do is a fulfillment of that job. It is equally true that a shul rabbi is paid for rabbinic chesed, but when a rabbi sacrifices to go above and beyond in chesed – as happens regularly – it feels more like an uncompensated "extra" than when I learn with a chavruta or give a shiur despite being exhausted.

3) Connecting with others - One can teach Torah without investing emotionally; I believe that such teaching is less successful, but it can be done. On the other hand, the relationship aspect of chesed requires at least sympathy, if not empathy.

I don't see a moral to this story; it may just be something I find interesting. But then again, this is a blog, so I suppose that's okay.

Why the Bar Ilan Responsa Project can be bad for the Jews

In his recent article on the decision by certain rabbis to rule on complex issues rather than consult senior scholars, Rabbi Hershel Schachter condemned those who use searchable databases like Otzar haChochmah and the Bar Ilan Responsa Project in order to research topics and then think themselves experts.

To this some have responded that these searchable databases constitute a democratization of information which elevates more people to the level of being able to decide halachic matters.

The response is flawed by a fundamental error: mistaking learning-via-search for true knowledge handicaps the learning process and produces inferior results both in the particular researched topic and in one's broader Torah learning.

Full disclosure: I believe I was the first person, back in 1995, to create a free Internet-based tool which would enable people to search and find Torah sources they wanted – that was my WebShas (which I still hope to return to, and complete, someday...) I strongly believe it is important to create such tools and raise the general level of Torah learning. However, those who learn with such tools should never delude themselves into thinking that they are accomplishing true scholarship.

The scholarship needed to decide serious halachic matters requires that one find the sources not by searching for keywords (or by reading summaries in publications like the Journal of Halachah and Contemporary Society or Techumin, a practice which presents a related problem), but by learning, analyzing, absorbing and memorizing large amounts of primary text, and then bringing it to bear on these halachic matters as they come up.

Here are just a few reasons why searching Torah databases produces only the illusion of scholarship, and an inferior halachic analysis of any given topic:

Inferior Breadth of Knowledge

You only find what you set out to find. Rav Amital z"l of Gush Etzion is reported to have said that he learned the most from the pages before and after that which he sought when he opened a given text. I can say the same from my own narrow experience. If all you want is to read a responsum that mentions nashim and tefillin within 20 words of each other, then you will not see the preceding responsum - and if it lacks interesting keywords then it will be forever missing from your repertoire.

This is a particular problem when approaching meta-issues in psak. Many of the most pressing halachic issues of today require an understanding of themes like hefsed merubeh (great loss), she'at hadchak and broader klalei hapsak. But the major sources addressing these themes don't necessarily make reference to popular cases with attractive keywords; some of the best sources on hefsed merubeh deal with arcane matters of purity and impurity. And don't tell me you will search for the words hefsed merubeh - someone who is relying on search for his knowledge isn't going to read through the thousands of results he will find. (More on that under "Inferior Drive" below.)

Further: Reliance on searchable databases encourages people to study by topic, and so they rarely learn an entire sefer. Instead, they search for items related to the topics they want, and just study those. The result is a terrible poverty of true knowledge, and an inadequate basis for approaching new subjects.

And one more note in this category: Those who learn by search are at the mercy of the publishers. Of course, all of us are at the mercy of publishers; I am more apt to use a source on a source sheet if I can find it in a cut-and-paste text on hebrewbooks.org. And I learn Tosafos before I learn Rosh, because printers put that collection of Tosafos on the page of gemara. But if you rely on search not just for crafting a source sheet, but for your primary research, then all you have is whatever the publisher had on hand.

Inferior Comprehension

When I read a responsum from a writer whose broader work I do not know, I miss out on the meaning invested in the writer's choice of words and selection of sources. I can only compensate for this by learning more of the writer's work, to gain a greater familiarity and therefore a greater understanding. If all I know is the one piece that showed up in my search, then I really don't understand what the writer was getting at, and how it fits into a greater worldview.

Inferior Memory/Retention

Doing a search to find phrases involves less struggle. As scientists have been saying for years, information is retained better if it is processed in multiple ways; without struggle, little processing is needed. And if it's not retained, then you don't have a broad range of information in your head with which to make associations (see "Inferior Depth" below), or catch your own mistakes.

Further: When you find items by database search, you don't need to memorize them, because you can just find them again by searching; it's like GPS vs. directions, or Speed Dial vs. a phone book.

Inferior Drive

In an ideal world, everyone would have sufficient time to research topics in great depth, and to work at the text for however long was necessary in order to gain full understanding. Unfortunately, few of us set aside the time we really need to do things well, for we are greedy in our ambition to forever accomplish "more", and so we give on accomplishing "well". The result is that we take short cuts – and the searchable database is the shortest cut of all, and it is habit-forming. Once people become accustomed to relying on searches, they find it very difficult to do things right, from the ground up.

Inferior Depth

Using database searches means you don't need to analyze and study with depth and creativity in order to find new ideas and make new analogies. You may become an artificial Sinai, but you will lack the depth of understanding to make novel and necessary associations between sources that don't lend themselves to keyword searches.

This is the oker harim phenomenon which I have seen some mis-translate as being about "explaining sources and logic". A true oker harim finds the analogies that help us deal with new issues when they emerge – and this is the mark of a true posek. People whose knowledge of a subject comes from superficial searching will never have it.

There is more to be said, but I'll stop here for now.

Chocolate Chip Pizza

Even though our Beit Midrash publishes a weekly dvar torah bulletin, which we make as interest-grabbing as we can with a range of special features, nonetheless, I am against learning Torah, reading parshah sheets and otherwise engaging in study during davening. During the breaks between aliyot, perhaps [for what is kriat haTorah if not communal Torah study], but not during davening.

This is not about halachic issues related to learning Torah during the repetition of the amidah; my point is spiritual, not technical, and it's about the entirety of davening, from Modeh Ani to Adon Olam.

The other day, I found the following metaphor to explain this to my children:

Imagine that you are a chef, and you prepare dough for pizza, and you slather on tomato sauce.

Then you decide that it would be wonderful to have chocolate chip cookies, and so you add chocolate chips.

Then, reverting to pizza-making mode, you put on cheese, but then you add the vanilla needed for cookies, and you mix it all together.

Then you cut it into small balls and put it on trays in the oven.

The result: Chocolate Chip Pizza. And while I love pizza, and I love chocolate chip cookies, I'm not having any chocolate chip pizza.

The same is true during davening. Davening to HaShem is great. Learning Torah is great. But mixing them together is self-destructive; the davening lacks emotional commitment, and the learning lacks focus and concentration. Neither is successful; the result is trash, a waste of time and resources.

I admit that I will look to learn something if the chazan is dragging on for so long that I cannot focus on davening anyway. Absent that, though, learning plus davening equals Chocolate Chip Pizza, and I'm not interested.

Empowerment or Abandonment?

[This is my article from this week's Toronto Torah.]

Nearly two thousand years ago, Rabbi Yehoshua battled Rabbi Eliezer regarding a question of halachah. Rabbi Yehoshua defended the view of the assembled authorities, but Rabbi Eliezer stubbornly summoned a celestial voice, which declared, "Why do you quarrel with Rabbi Eliezer? The law always follows his view!" But Rabbi Yehoshua dismissed the heavenly interloper, citing our parshah (Devarim 30:12), "Torah is no longer in the heavens." In the end, Rabbi Yehoshua emerged victorious. (Bava Metzia 59b)

Our parshah indeed asserts that Torah is no longer in the heavens; after G-d taught Moshe all He wished to convey, no novel messages could be communicated to humanity. All innovation and application must now come from the beit midrash, authored by human minds. In general, we tend to view this evolution positively; we no longer need to ascend to the heavens in order to ascertain the Divine will. Har Sinai is in our hands!

From another perspective, though, the assignment of Torah to humanity alone is a horrifying abandonment which threatens the very veracity of our transmission of Torah. On an earlier occasion when HaShem attempted to distance Himself from us, Moshe dramatically denied permission, declaring, "If You are not going with us, do not move us from here!" (Shemot 33:15) Why, then, was Moshe not troubled now? And why was the heavenly source of authentic wisdom closed in our parshah, long before the destruction of the Beit haMikdash and the severing of our close relationship with the Divine?

In truth, the declaration that Torah has left the heavens is both empowerment and abandonment. It is empowerment of the Sages, whose supersession of the prophets is acknowledged in the talmudic observation (Bava Batra 12a), "The scholar is greater than the prophet." Further, a sage may occasionally be privileged to Divine aid; as the Talmud (Bava Batra 12a-b) indicates, scholars may find themselves inspired by a Divine muse. So it is that a scholar who has reached his wits' end may suddenly find his capacity mysteriously augmented. (For more on this, see Ramban and Chatam Sofer to Bava Batra 12a, and Maharitz Chajes to Berachot 3a.)

At the same time, we are unmistakably abandoned, for the vistas open to a thoughtful sage are more limited than those to which a prophet can aspire. The Zohar (Mishpatim pg. 116b) observes that scholars are capable of philosophizing regarding the most abstruse matters, speculating upon even the Shechinah, while the prophet reaches a stage at which he falls upon his face and can see no more. Yet this is not a sign that the scholar is truly greater than the sage; the prophet must withdraw his gaze because he is exposed to fantastic wonders which the scholar will never come close to apprehending.

The reason for this partial abandonment may be seen in a note authored by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin regarding his mentor, the Vilna Gaon, "The heavens wished to give him, without any work or exhaustion, celestial secrets via angelic messengers… He did not raise his eyes to this. It was close to him, and he distanced it. I heard from his mouth that angelic messengers often rose early to his door, desiring to convey to him secrets of Torah without any work, and he did not turn his ear to them at all." (Introduction to Safra d'Tzniuta)

The Vilna Gaon understood that we are not meant to be recipients of free gifts; that which comes to us without labour is, in the terminology of the Zohar, nahama d'kisufa, bread of shame. As Adam and Chavah were instructed to work in the Garden of Eden despite its Divine bounty, so we are meant to draw our insights from the strain of our minds, not from prophetic communication. [Perhaps this is why we tend to feel greater satisfaction with the fruits of our labour than with the gifts we receive from others, as noted in Bava Metzia 38a.]

Our ancestors, standing on the edge of the Jordan River, were nudged from the nest like a young bird pushed forth by her mother. Certainly, there was an element of abandonment, but this was also a grant of independence critical to achieving our purpose.

Expanding this idea further, we may say the same for the gift of Free Will which is mentioned several sentences subsequent in our parshah (Devarim 30:19). Certainly, our religious lives would be more productive were G-d to take charge, but we are meant to work for our greatness. And as with scholarship, the one who works for his personal purification is promised Divine aid. (Yoma 38a)

In both our studies and our general religious lives, may we merit to struggle and to be rewarded with Divine assistance, and to earn a ketivah vachatimah tovah.

The Vilna Gaon, the Maggid, and the Work Ethic of a Talmid Chacham

[Interesting: Shana Tova Parking Tickets at Life in Israel]

[Note: "Maggid" in the title of this post refers to an angel who comes to teach a person Torah. It does not refer to an itinerant preacher.]

A friend led me to the passage below today, and I knew instantly that I needed to translate this for others to read. There is much to learn here; it comes from Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin's introduction to the Vilna Gaon's Safra d'Tzniuta, available at hebrewbooks.org here. I have appended the Hebrew at the bottom, but there is more to see in the original.

He [the Gaon of Vilna] did not gain satisfaction other than from the work he did in wisdom and intellect and ability and after much strain, when Heaven had mercy upon him and wellsprings of wisdom were revealed to him, secrets of secrets and hidden things inside hidden things, this was for him a gift of Gd. Other than this, he did not want them, even though the heavens wished to give him, without any work or exhaustion, celestial secrets via angelic messengers, masters of secrets and officers of Torah. He did not raise his eyes to this. It was close to him, and he distanced it. I heard from his sacred mouth that angelic messengers often rose early to his door, desiring to convey to him secrets of Torah without any work, and he did not turn his ear to them at all.

One of the angelic messengers pressed him greatly, but he did not look upon the angel's great appearance. He answered and told him, "I do not want my grasp of Gd's torah to come via any intermediary at all; my eyes are raised only to Him. That which He wishes to reveal to me and give me as my portion in His Torah for the work I have done with all of my energy, He will give me wisdom, from His mouth comes intellect and comprehension, when He gives me a comprehending heart…

And he said that although our master Rabbi Yosef Karo had an angelic messenger, that was two centuries ago, when the generations were proper, and he lived upon the holy land. It is not thus now, when there are many who break the barriers, and especially outside of the land it is impossible to be at the height of holiness, without any inappropriate element mixed in. Especially those revelations which come without Torah, his spirit was impatient with them and they were not significant to him at all.

לא הראה את נפשו טוב רק בעמלו אשר עמל בחכמה ובדעת ובכשרון ואחר רב יגיעותיו וכאשר חסו עליו מן השמים ונתגלו לו מעיינות החכמה רד"ר וסתרין דסתרין זו היה אצלו מתת אלקים וזולת זה נפשו לא רצה בם אף כי רצו למסור לו מן השמים בלא שום עמל ויגיעת בשר רזין וסתרין עליוני עליונין ע״י מגידים מארי דרזין ושרי התורה לא נשא עיניו לזה עמו היתה וריחקה כי שמעתי מפיו הק' שפעמים רבות השכימו לפתחו כמה מגידים מן השמים בשאלתם ובקשתם שרוצים למסור לו רזין דאורייתא בלא שום עמל ולא הטה אזנו אליהם כלל

וא' מן המגידים הפציר בו מאד עכ"ז לא הביט אל מראהו הגדול וענה ואמר לו איני רוצה שתהיה השגתי בתורתו ית״ש ע"י שום אמצעי כלל וכלל רק עיני נשואות לו ית״ש מה שרוצה לגלות לי וליתן חלקי בתורתו ית"ש בעמלי אשר עמלתי בכל כחי הוא ית"ש יתן לי חכמה מפיו דעת ותבונה שיתן לי לב מבין
...
ואמר אף כי מרן הב"י היה לו מגיד היה זה לפני ב' מאות שנה שהיו הדורות כתקנן והיה שרוי על אדמת הקדש לא כן עתה שרבו המתפרצים ובפרט בחו"ל א"א כלל שיהיה כלו קדש קדשים בלי שום עירוב כלל. ובפרט הגילויים אשר בלא תורה נפשו בחלה בהם ולא היו נחשבים אצלו כלל וכלל.

Challenging our predecessors

This is a new experience for me: An entire night of inability to sleep, with a full day of meetings and shiurim ahead. I am going to be an absolute joy today...

In any case: Here's a piece that caught me eye, in preparing for a Pirkei Avot shiur. It's from Rav Chaim of Volozhin's Ruach Chaim to Avot 1:4, on the counsel, "יהי ביתך בית וועד לחכמים הוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם," "Make your home a meetingplace for the sages, and wrestle [הוי מתאבק] in the dust of their feet":

The word מתאבק is like "And the man wrestled [ויאבק] with him," a battle, for this is a mitzvah war.


And so are we opposite our rebbeim, the holy ones who lie in the ground but whose souls are in the heavens, the famous authors whose texts are with us. Via the texts in our homes, our homes become meetingplaces for these sages.


We are instructed, too, and given permission to battle verbally and answer their questions, and not to show favour to anyone but to love truth. However, one must be careful for his life, lest he speak arrogantly and with haughty heart when he finds room to argue, imagining he is as great as his rebbe or the author of the text he is challenging. He should know that many times he doesn't understand the words and intent of the author, and so he should only be very humble, saying, "If I am inadequate, still, it is Torah, etc." This is "Wrestle," as we have said, but on the condition that it is "in the dust of their feet," meaning in modesty and humility, arguing on the ground before them.

And the original Hebrew:

"והוי מתאבק" מלשון "ויאבק איש עמו", שהוא ענין התאבקות מלחמה כי מלחמת מצוה היא. וכן אנו נגד רבותינו, הקדושים אשר בארץ ונשמתם בשמי מרום המחברים המפורסמים וספריהם אתנו - הנה ע"י הספרים אשר בבתנו בתינו הוא בית ועד לחכמים אלה. הוזהרנו ג"כ וניתן לנו רשות להתאבק וללחום בדברים ולתרץ קושיתם ולא לישא פנים לאיש רק לאהוב האמת. אבל עכ"ז יזהר בנפשו מלדבר בגאוה וגודל לבב באשר מצא מקום לחלוק, וידמה כי גדול הוא כרבו או כמחבר הספר אשר הוא משיג עליו. וידע בלבבו כי כמה פעמים לא יבין דבריו וכוונתו, ולכן יהיה אך בענוה יתירה באמרו "אם איני כדאי אך תורה היא וכו'" וז"ש "הוי מתאבק" כנ"ל אך בתנאי "בעפר רגליהם", ר"ל בענוה והכנעה ולדון לפניהם בקרקע.

Interesting.

Are all midrashim to be taken literally?

Several weeks ago I came across interesting 13th century comments recorded in the Shiltei Giborim [on the Rif] to Avodah Zarah 20. These comments address the question of whether midrashim are intended to be taken literally. You can find a text of the Hebrew - corrected from manuscripts - on-line here, along with some very important footnotes.

Here's a quick translation of the Shiltei Giborim's words:

Know and understand that there are three paths in midrash:

1) Some [midrashim] exaggerate, as Chullin 90b says, "The Torah spoke words of emptiness, the prophets spoke words of emptiness, the sages spoke words of emptiness," such as in Deuteronomy 1:28 "great, fortified cities in the heavens," and Kings I 1:40 "the earth split due to their voice."

There are many of these, like the words of Rabbah bar bar Chanah in Bava Batra 73b; these were exaggeration, for people speak thus.

2) Some of the midrashim present miracles, in which Gd demonstrates His might and displays amazing and shocking deeds, as in Daniel 10:7, "And I, Daniel alone, saw the vision, and the people with me did not see, etc." And Yonah ben Amitai who was swallowed by the fish and spat out. And many others like this.

Many of these are found in the words of the sages, such as Bava Batra 58a regarding R' Bena'ah marking caves, and Bava Batra 58a with a magician digging in the caves of the dead. All of those were miracles, as were performed and revealed to the prophets, but not for other people.

There are many of these, like the deeds of Rabbah bar bar Chana, things which are shocking which Gd showed His pious people who believe in Him wholeheartedly.

3) In some of the midrashim the sages intend to analyze Scripture with any means possible, relying on Tehillim 62:12, "Gd said one thing; I heard two." And so Yirmiyah 23:29, "For My words are as fire; this is the word of Gd. And they are like a hammer, splitting stone." They learned from this that one sentence may lead to many meanings, as explained in Sanhedrin 31a.

Do not be shocked by this; you often see that even a normal person speaks a complex message with two facets, and certainly words of wisdom spoken with Divine inspiration. Along these lines the sages analyze a passage in any way they can analyze it, saying (Shabbat 63a), "The passage does not depart from its simple meaning," which is the essence, and regarding all of the midrashim which are drawn from it, some of them are of the essence and close to the literal read and some of them have a small hint [in the text].

You see what one of the sages taught in Taanit 5b, "Yaakov our ancestor did not die." One sage replied to him, "Did the eulogizers eulogize him and embalmers embalm him and buriers bury him for nothing?" And he responded, "I am analyzing the passage." Meaning: I know he died, but I intend to analyze the passage in any way it can be analyzed, and if the midrash cannot be as it sounds, the passage still offers a hint that one could say "he did not die" as Berachot 18a says, "The righteous live even in their death," for their names and memory and deeds live eternally.

A similar case is seen in Shabbat 30b, in which the exegete taught, "Israel will produce cakes and fine clothing," as it is written, "There will be pisat bar in the land." [See Rashi there, for the connection between pisat and cakes and clothing.] A student mocked him, noting that Kohelet 1:9 says there is nothing new under the sun! To which he replied, "Come and I will show you an example of these items in this world." He went out and showed the student mushrooms. The sage was informing him that the midrash could be explained in a manner which was close to it; the original verse was teaching that the Creator would provide great goodness in the world.

Similar statements occur in other midrashim

They said in Yerushalmi Nazir 7:2, "Are the midrashot amanah? Learn them and receive reward." It is explained that the sages did not state the midrashim as matters of faith [emunah] and as the essence, but to increase the meanings of the text and analyze all of its facets, such that they might include a hint. Links to text and hints are among the paths of Torah study, regarding which it is said, "Learn them and receive reward."

Regarding one who mocks their words it is said (Divrei haYamim II 36:16), "And they mocked the messengers of Gd… and made light of His prophets." In various places we find that they were punished for mocking the words of the sages. Learn from the student who mocked the words of the sage who was analyzing Yeshayah 54:12, "And I will make your windows of gems," and they showed him from heaven, for the honour of that sage, that the words of the sage were accurate and one should not mock them, and the student was punished. (Sanhedrin 100a)

Ending and then Beginning

I don't celebrate New Year's Day as a religious holiday, but something in me registers a substantive, positive change when the year flips over and we start writing 12 instead of 11. It's not that different from the feeling that comes with a birthday, just another day and yet so loaded with meaning. It's the end of the old immediately followed by the start of the new.

Starting anew immediately reminds me of a practice of my second grade ("grade two" in Canadian) rebbe, Rabbi Hyman ז"ל. Thanks to him, I am allergic to finishing a parshah, a perek of gemara, a sefer, without starting a new one. Whenever we made one of those siyyumim (celebrations of completion) that second graders perform from time to time, he had us read the first line from whatever book we were starting next. It made enough of an impression that I still do it, 30 years later.

I used to annoy my Daf Yomi crew with the practice, too; we would finish a masechta, and they wouldn't have the new volume with them and the day's Daf was concluded, but I would insist on starting the first mishnah in the new volume.

Theoretically, there is no reason to do this for the end of some specific section; we could add another line at every pause from our learning, whether at the end of a book or mid-page. One could even argue that it's a negative practice, keeping us from spending time thinking about what we have just completed. But from a psychological standpoint, it's important to do this specifically when we complete something, so that we don’t see our study as complete, but as leading to something new.

The same could be said for starting new ventures in life whenever an old one is complete, having nothing to do with study. [This has particular value when the 'completion of the old' is associated with grief and loss, but that's a discussion for another time.]

The model for Rabbi Hyman's practice might be Simchas Torah, when we start the Torah with Bereishis immediately after we finish the Torah with v'Zos haBerachah, but just the other day I came across another, earlier basis for the practice:

The gemara (Avodah Zarah 19a) records a story involving two sages, Rabbi Shimon bar Rebbe and Levi, who were studying from the same scroll. They finished learning one book, and then they wished to start a new one. The story is only recorded in the Talmud because of their debate as to what they should learn next; the fact that they had just finished a text is not directly relevant and doesn't seem to belong, and so Rav Shmuel Eideles (Maharsha) comments:

מדנקט לה בכי האי גוונא דסליק ספרא נראה דאשמעינן שבשעה שמסיימין ספר אחד יש להתחיל ספר האחר

From the fact that it brought the story in this manner, mentioning that they had just finished a book, it appears that they were teaching us that when we conclude one book we should begin another book.

So there's a solid source. May your every completion – secular year or individual day or study session – lead directly into a new beginning.

PS - The Maharsha adds a note:

כמו שאנו עושים בשמחת תורה ע"פ המדרש מפני קטרוג השטן

This is like our practice on Simchas Torah, based on a midrash of preventing the Satan's accusation.

I don't know where this midrash cited by the Maharsha appears, but Rav Ovadia does quote it to explain why there is no kaddish between completion of the Torah and the start of Bereishis on Simchas Torah (Yabia Omer 4:Orach Chaim 22).

Kollel Study

Gd-willing, I'll be delivering a shiur (first of two parts) on Wednesday evening, on the topic of Kollel Study. It's part of my series on Responsa that changed Jewish History (although I'll discuss in the shiur whether the responsa involved in this history actually changed anything).

Here is my source sheet for the shiur. There is nothing novel in it, but I suspect you won't find a translation of the Tashbetz, free of charge, anywhere else:

Responsa that changed Jewish History, Topic 4a: Rambam vs. Tashbetz on Kollel Support

R’ Mordechai Torczyner – torczyner@torontotorah.com

1. Rambam’s commentary to Avot 4:5

דע, כי זה כבר אמר: אל תעשה התורה קרדום לחפור בה, כלומר: אל תחשבה כלי לפרנסה, ובאר ואמר שכל מי שיהנה בזה העולם בכבוד תורה שהוא כורת נפשו מחיי העולם הבא. והעלימו בני אדם עיניהם מזו הלשון הגלויה, והשליכוה אחרי גוום, ונתלו בפשטי מאמרים שלא הבינום - אני אבארם - והטילו להם חוקים על היחידים ועל הקהילות, ועשו את המינויים התוריים לחוק מכסים, והביאו בני אדם לסבור שטות גמורה, שזה צריך ומחוייב, לעזור לחכמים ולתלמידים ולאנשים העוסקים בתורה ותורתן אומנותן. וכל זה טעות, אין בתורה מה שיאמת אותו, ולא רגל שישען עליה בשום פנים. לפי שאנו אם נעיין בתולדות החכמים, זכרם לברכה, לא נמצא אצלם לא הטלת חובות על בני אדם, ולא קיבוץ ממון לישיבות המרוממות הנכבדות, ולא לראשי גלויות ולא לדיינין ולא למרבצי תורה ולא לאחד מן הממונים ולא לשאר האנשים, אלא נמצא קהילותיהם כולן יש בהם עני בתכלית, ועשיר רב הממון בתכלית, וחלילה לה' שאומר שהם לא היו גומלי חסד ונותני צדקה, אלא זה העני אילו פשט ידו לקחת היו ממלאים ביתו זהב ומרגליות, אבל הוא לא היה עושה כן, אלא מסתפק במלאכה שיתפרנס ממנה, בין ברווח בין בדוחק, ובז למה שבידי בני אדם, הואיל והתורה מנעתו מזה. וכבר ידעת כי הלל הזקן היה חוטב, והיה חוטב עצים ולומד לפני שמעיה ואבטליון, והוא בתכלית העניות, ומעלתו - עד כי תלמידיו הם אשר הושוו למשה ויהושע, וקטן תלמידיו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. ולא יסופק לבר דעת שאילו היה מסכים לקבל מבני דורו, לא היו מניחים אותו לחטוב עצים. וחנינה בן דוסא, אשר קול קורא עליו: "כל העולם כולו אינו ניזון אלא בשביל חנניה בני וחנניה בני דיו קב חרובין מערב שבת לערב שבת", ולא ביקש מבני אדם. וקרנא דיין בכל ארץ ישראל, והוא היה משקה שדות, וכשהיו באים בעלי הדין, היה אומר: או שתתנו לי מי שישקה במקומי כשאני מתעסק עמכם, או שתתנו לי שעור מה שאבטל מעבודתי, ואדון לכם. ולא היו ישראל בני דורם של אלו וזולתם לא אכזרים ולא שאינם גומלי חסדים, ולא מצאנו חכם מן החכמים שהיה מצבם דחוק שיגנה אנשי דורו שאינם מרחיבים לו, חלילה לה', אלא הם בעצמם היו חסידים, מאמינים באמת לעצמה, מאמינים בה' ובתורת משה, אשר בה הזכיה בעולם הבא, ולא יתירו לעצמם זה, ויסברו שהוא חלול השם אצל ההמון, לפי שהם יחשבו התורה למלאכה מן המלאכות אשר מתפרנסים בהן, ותתבזה אצלם, ויהיה עושה זה "דבר ה' בזה" +במדבר טו, לא+.

ואמנם טעות אלו המתגברים כנגד האמת והלשונות המפורשים, בלקיחת ממון בני אדם ברצונם או על כורחם - הן המעשיות אשר ימצאו בתלמוד באנשים בעלי מומים בגופותיהם, או זקנים באו בימים עד שלא יוכלו לעשות מלאכה, שאין תחבולה להם אלא לקחת, ואם לא - מה יעשו, הימותו? זה לא ציוותו התורה...

וכבר שמעתים, הניפתים, נתלים באומרם: "הרוצה להנות יהנה כאלישע, ושלא להנות אל יהנה כשמואל הרמתי". וזה אינו דומה לזה כלל, ואמנם זה אצלי סילוף ממי שמביא ראיה ממנו, הואיל והוא מבואר ואין בו מקום לטעות. כי אלישע לא היה מקבל ממון מבני אדם, כל שכן שלא היה מטיל עליהם ומחייבם בחוקים, חלילה לה' מזה, ואמנם היה מקבל הכיבוד בלבד, כגון שיארחו איש אחד, והוא בדרך, נוסע, וילון אצלו ויאכל אצלו בלילה ההוא או ביום, וילך לעסקיו. ושמואל לא היה נכנס בבית איש, ולא אוכל ממזונו. ובכגון זה אמרו החכמים, שתלמיד חכמים, אם רצה להדמות לזה, עד שלא יכנס אצל איש - יש לו לעשות כן, וכמו כן אם רצה להתארח אצל איש בהכרח נסיעה או כיוצא בה - יש לו לעשות כן. לפי שכבר הזהירו מן האכילה ללא הכרח, ואמרו: "כל תלמיד חכמים המרבה סעודותיו בכל מקום" וכו', ואמרו: "כל סעודה שאינה שלמצוה אסור לתלמיד חכמים להנות ממנה".

ולמה אאריך בזה הענין, אני אזכור המעשה אשר התבאר בתלמוד, והמתעקש יעשה כרצונו: היה איש שהיה לו כרם, והיו באים בו גנבים, וכל אשר היה פוקדו בכל יום, היה מוצא ענביו מתמעטים וחסרים, ולא היה לו ספק שאיש מן הגנבים שמהו מטרה. והיה מצטער מזה תמיד כל ימי הענבים, עד שבצר ממנו מה שבצר, ושטחו עד אשר יבש, ואסף הצמוקים. ומדרך בני אדם, שכאשר יאספו הפירות המיובשים, יפלו גרגרים מן התאנים והצמוקים, ומותר לאוכלם, מפני שהם הפקר, וכבר הניחום בעליהם למיעוטם. ובא ר' טרפון במקרה יום אחד לזה הכרם, וישב, והיה מלקט מן הצמוקים הנופלים ואוכלם. ובא בעל הכרם, וחשב שזה הוא אשר היה גונב ממנו כל השנה, ולא היה מכירו, אבל שמע שמו. ומיהר אליו ותפשו, והתגבר עליו, ושמהו בשק, ורץ עמו על גבו להשליכו בנהר. וכאשר ראה ר' טרפון עצמו אובד, צעק: "אוי לו לטרפון שזה הורגו". וכאשר שמע זה בעל הכרם, הניחו וברח, ליודעו כי חטא חטא גדול. והיה ר' טרפון בשארית ימיו מאותו היום דואב ומיליל על מה שארע לו, בהצילו נפשו בכבוד התורה, והוא היה בעל ממון, והיה יכול לומר לו: הניחני, ואני אשלם לך כך וכך דינרים, וישלם לו, ולא יודיעהו שהוא טרפון, ויציל נפשו בממונו, לא בתורה. אמרו: "כל ימיו שלאותו צדיק היה מצטער על דבר זה ואומר: אוי לי שנשתמשתי בכתרה שלתורה, שכל המשתמש בכתרה שלתורה נעקר מן העולם". ואמרו בזה: "משום דר' טרפון עשיר גדול הוה, והוה ליה לפיוסיה בדמים".

ופתח רבנו הקדוש, עליו השלום, אוצרות חיטה בשנת רעבון, ואמר: כל מי שרוצה לקחת פרנסתו יבוא ויקח פרנסתו, ובתנאי שיהיה תלמיד חכמים. ובא ר' יונתן בן עמרם ועמד לפניו, והוא אינו מכירו, ואמר לו: פרנסני, ואמר לו: באיזו גדר אתה מבחינת הלימוד? ואמר לו: פרנסני ככלב וכעורב, רצונו לומר: אפילו אין לי חכמה, וכמו שיפרנס ה' חיה טמאה ועוף טמא פרנסני, שאין עם הארץ פחות מהם. ונתן לו...

ואמנם הדבר אשר התירתו התורה לתלמידי חכמים הוא, שיתנו ממון לאדם, יעשה להם סחורה בו בבחירתו, אם ירצה - ועושה זה יש לו שכר על כך, וזה הוא מטיל מלאי לכיס תלמידי חכמים - ושתמכר סחורתם תחילה למה שיימכר, ותתפס להם ראשית השוק דוקא. אלו חוקים שקבע ה' להם, כמו שקבע המתנות לכהן והמעשרות ללוי, לפי מה שבאה בו הקבלה. כי שתי הפעולות האלה יש שיעשו אותן הסוחרים קצתם עם קצתם על דרך הכבוד, ואפילו לא היתה שם חכמה, ולכל הפחות יהיה תלמיד חכמים כמו עם ארץ מכובד. וכן פטרה התורה את כל תלמידי החכמים מחובות השלטון כולן, מן המיסים, והאכסניות, ומיסי הנפש, והם אשר יקראו כסף גולגלתא, יפרעום בעבורם הקהל, ובנין החומות וכיוצא בהן. ואפילו היה תלמיד החכמים בעל ממון רב לא יחוייב בדבר מזה. וכבר הורה בזה רבנא יוסף הלוי זצ"ל לאיש באנדלוס, שהיו לו גנות וכרמים שהיה מחוייב עבורם אלף דינרים, והורה לפוטרו מהמס, להיותו תלמיד חכמים, אף על פי שהיה משלם המס ההוא אפילו העני שביהודים. וזה דין תורה, כמו שפטרה התורה הכהנים ממחצית השקל, כמו שבארנו במקומו, ומה שדומה לזה.

Know that the mishnah already stated, “Do not make Torah into a blade with which to dig,” meaning, “Do not consider Torah a tool for support.” The text explained that anyone who benefits from the honor of Torah in this world is cutting off his soul from life in the next world.

People have hidden their eyes from this clear language, casting it after their bodies, relying on interpretations of passages they do not understand, but I will explain. They have placed laws upon individuals and communities, and they have turned the Torah’s positions into the law of tax collectors, and they have brought people to believe total foolishness, that it is necessary and mandatory for them to aid sages and students and people who are involved in Torah and whose trade is Torah.

All of this is in error, and there is nothing in Torah to validate it, and there is no leg upon which they could rely in any way. Were we to examine the chronicles of the sages of blessed memory, we would not find that they ever placed obligations upon people, or gathered money for the exalted and honored yeshivot, or for the exilarchs or judges or spreaders of Torah or appointed leaders or others.

In all of their communities there were people at the height of poverty and people at the height of wealth; Gd forbid to say that those wealthy people were not generous and were not philanthropic! Rather, had this pauper extended his hand they would have filled his house with gold and gems, but he did not do so. Rather, he survived with the work from which he was supported, whether with ease or under strain, and he disdained that which came by the hand of man, since the Torah prevented it.

You already know that Hillel the Elder was a woodchopper, chopping wood and studying before Shemayah and Avtalyon. He was at the height of poverty, and he was so great that his students were compared to Moshe and Yehoshua, and the least of his students was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai! Let no intelligent person be in doubt that had Hillel agreed to receive from the people of his time, they would not have allowed him to chop wood…

In truth, the error of these people who rally opposite truth and opposite the clear expressions [of the law], taking people’s money with their agreement or against their will – these are deeds found in the gemara regarding men who are physically wounded, or elderly people who could no longer work, who had no means other than to take. Otherwise, what could they do? Should they die? This is not the Torah’s command…

I have already heard what the fools depend upon when they cite, “One who wishes to benefit may benefit like Elisha, and one who wishes not to benefit may not benefit like Shemuel haRamati.” But this is not relevant, and to me this is corruption for one who uses it as his proof, since the matter is clear and there is no room for error. Elisha did not accept money from people, and he certainly did not put upon them and obligate them in his portion. Gd forbid! He did accept the kibbud, that one would host him when he was travelling on the road, and he would stay there and eat that night or that day and then go about his business. And Shemuel did not enter anyone’s home or eat his food. Regarding this the sages said that Torah scholars who wish to imitate this, not to enter anyone’s home, may do so, and if they wish to be hosted by someone because of the needs of travel or similar needs they may do so. They were already careful not to eat when unnecessary, as it says, “A Torah scholar who increases his meals everywhere…” and “A Torah scholar may not benefit from a meal which is not a mitzvah meal.”

Why do I go on at length on this matter? I will mention the Talmudic account, and one who is stubborn will do as he wishes: A man had a vineyard, and thieves would enter it. Daily, he found the grapes reduced, and he was certain that thieves had targeted it. He was upset all through the season, until he finally harvested what he could collect, and he laid it out to dry, and he collected the raisins. Generally, when people gather dried fruit some of the figs and raisins fall away, and one may eat them for they are hefker, abandoned by their owners because they are few. R’ Tarfon happened by this vineyard one day, and he sat and collected the fallen raisins, and he ate them. The owner of the vineyard came, thought he was the thief and did not recognize him, although he knew the name of R’ Tarfon. He rushed to catch him, overpowered him, put him in a sack and rushed with R’ Tarfon on his back to throw him in the river. When R’ Tarfon saw he would be lost, he cried out, “Woe to Tarfon, that this man would kill him!” When the vineyard owner heard this, he put down R’ Tarfon and fled, knowing he had committed a great sin. And for the rest of his life, R’ Tarfon mourned and wailed for what had happened, that he had saved his life through the honor of Torah. He was a person of means, and he could have said, “Leave me be and I will pay you X dinar,” and he could have paid without letting the man know that he was Tarfon, and so he could have saved his life through his wealth rather than through Torah…

And Rabbeinu haKadosh opened stores of wheat during a famine and declared, “Any who wish to take their means may come and do so, if they are Torah scholars.” R’ Yonatan ben Amram stood before him, and Rabbeinu haKadosh did not recognize him, and he said, “Support me.” Rabbeinu haKadosh asked him, “What is your level of learning?” And he said, “Feed me as a dog or raven,” meaning, “Feed me even if I have no wisdom, just as Gd feeds non-kosher animals and birds, for an am ha’aretz is no worse than them.” And so Rabbeinu haKadosh fed him…

That which the Torah permitted for Torah scholars is that they may give a person money and have him engage in business of his choosing on their behalf. One who does this for them receives reward, and this is the meaning of, “putting merchandise into the wallet of Torah scholars.” Their merchandise is sold to whomever, and they receive the first of the market, specifically. These are the portions Gd established for the sages, just as He established gifts for the kohen and tithes for the levi, as is our tradition. Merchants already engage in these activities for each other, as a show of respect, even if there is no greater wisdom involved; let Torah scholars be no less than a respected am ha’aretz.

And the Torah also exempted Torah scholars from the obligations of the ruler, from taxes and billeting and head-taxes, which the community pays on their behalf, and the construction of walls and the like. Even a wealthy Torah scholar would not be obligated in this. Ravna Yosef haLevi aleady ruled thus for a man in Andalusia who owned gardens and vineyards which required [tax of] one thousand dinar, and he exempted the man from the tax because he was a Torah scholar, although even the poorest Jew paid that tax. This is the law of the Torah, just as it exempted kohanim from the half-shekel.

2. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10-11

כל המשים על לבו שיעסוק בתורה ולא יעשה מלאכה ויתפרנס מן הצדקה הרי זה חלל את השם ובזה את התורה וכבה מאור הדת וגרם רעה לעצמו ונטל חייו מן העולם הבא, לפי שאסור ליהנות מדברי תורה בעולם הזה, אמרו חכמים כל הנהנה מדברי תורה נטל חייו מן העולם, ועוד צוו ואמרו אל תעשם עטרה להתגדל בהן ולא קרדום לחפור בהן, ועוד צוו ואמרו אהוב את המלאכה ושנא את הרבנות וכל תורה שאין עמה מלאכה סופה בטילה וגוררת עון, וסוף אדם זה שיהא מלסטם את הבריות.

מעלה גדולה היא למי שהוא מתפרנס ממעשה ידיו, ומדת חסידים הראשונים היא, ובזה זוכה לכל כבוד וטובה שבעולם הזה ולעולם הבא שנאמר יגיע כפיך כי תאכל אשריך וטוב לך אשריך בעולם הזה וטוב לך לעולם הבא שכולו טוב.

One who sets his goal to involve himself in Torah and not engage in work, and to be supported by tzedakah, desecrates Gd’s Name, disgraces the Torah, extinguishes the light of religion and causes evil for himself and removes his life from the next world, for one may not benefit from words of Torah in this world. The sages said: One who benefits from words of Torah removes his life from the world. They further instructed, “Do not make them a crown in which to be elevated or a blade with which to dig.” They further instructed, “Love work and hate authority,” and, “All Torah that does not include work with it will be nullified and will lead to sin, and in the end one will become a bandit.”

There is a great level in supporting one’s self with the work of one’s hands, and this was the trait of the early pious ones, and through this one merits all honor and goodness in this world and the next, as it is written, “When you eat the labor of your hands, you are fortunate and it is good for you.” You are fortunate in this world, and it is good for you in the next world, which is entirely good.

3. Tashbetz 1:142

לפי שראיתי הרבה בני אדם מגמגמין על מה שנהגו בכל קהלות ישראל בכל הדורות לתת פרס לחכמיהם ונתלים בזה במ"ש בזה הענין הרמב"ם ז"ל בפירושיו למסכ' אבות (פ"ד מ"ה) על כן אחקור בזה הענין כאשר יראוני מן השמים ומהגמ' וממקומות אחרים אם הדבר הזה רשות או מצוה או חובה או יש שם נדנוד עבירה ואני בטוח בכחן של ראשונים שנהגו לעצמן היתר בדבר זה שלא אכשל בדבר הלכה ושיתבררו ושיתלבנו הדברים בענין הספק הזה:

ואומר כי חובה על כל ישראל לפרנס דרך כבוד לחכמיהם ולדייניהם שתורתם אומנות' כדי שלא יצטרכו להתבטל ממלאכת שמים בשביל מלאכתם וכדי שלא יזדלזלו בפני עמי הארץ מפני עניים ושינהגו בהם כבוד ושורש דבר זה יוצא לנו מן התור' ע"פ מדרש חכמים. אמרו בפ"ק דיומא (י"ח ע"א) ובהוריות פ' כהן משיח (ט' ע"א) הכהן הגדול מאחיו שיהא גדול מאחיו בנוי ובכח ובחכמה ובעושר אחרים אומרי' מנין שאם אין לו שאחיו הכהנים מגדלין אותו ת"ל והכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו... וכן למדו מזה לתלמיד חכם שיכול ליטול מעצמו ממון שיתעשר בו ואין גנאי בדבר דאמרי' בפ' הזרוע (קל"ד ע"ב) ההוא שקא דדינרא דאתא לבי מדרשא קדים רבי אמי זכה ביה והיכי עביד הכי והתניא ונתן ולא שיטול מעצמו ואסיקנא אדם חשוב שאני ותני' והכהן הגדול מאחיו שיהא גדול מאחיו בכח ובנוי בעושר ובחכמה אחרים אומרי' מנין שאם אין לו שאחיו הכהנים מגדלין אותו שנא' והכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו. השוו בעלי הגמ' דין אדם חשוב שחייבין ישראל להעשירו לדין כ"ג. וכן מדת הדין נותנת מק"ו שהרי הוא קודם לכל דבר להחיות ולהשיב אבדה לכל אדם שהרי משנ' שלימה שנינו בפ' בתרא דהוריות (י"ג ע"א) כהן קודם ללוי לוי קודם לישראל וגו' אימתי בזמן שכל' שוים אבל אם הי' ממזר חכם וכ"ג עם הארץ ממזר ת"ח הוא קוד' לכ"ג ע"ה... ובפ' סדר תעניו /תעניות/ אלו (כ"א ע"א) במעשה דאלפא ור' יוחנן אמרינן התם מלך ר' יוחנן פי' שעשאוהו ראש ישיב' וכתב שם מאיר עיני הגולה רש"י ז"ל בלשון הזה מי שהוא ראש ישיבה היו נותנים לו הרבה כדאמרי' גבי הכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו עכ"ל ולפ"ז כשהיו פרנסי הדורות רואים ת"ח דדחיק להו עלמא טובא היו משתדלי' למנותם בראש כדי שיפרנסו' הצבור דרך כבוד כדאמרי' בהוריות פ' בתרא (י' ע"א) דר"ג ור' יהושע הוו קאזלי בספינתא בהדי רבי יהושע הוה פתא דסולתא בהדי ר"ג הוה פתא שלים פתא דר"ג סמך אסלתא דר"י א"ל מי הות ידעת דאית לך עכובא דאייתית נמי סולתא א"ל כוכב אחד יש שעולה לשבעים שנה ומתעה את הספנין אמרתי שמא יעלה ויתענו א"ל כ"כ יש בידך ואתה יורד לספינה אמר לו עד שאתה תמה עלי תמה על ב' תלמידים שיש לך ביבשה ר"א חסמא ור' אלעזר בן גדגדה שיודעים לשער כל טיפות שבים ואין להם פת לאכול ובגד ללבוש נתן דעתו להושיבם בראש כשעלה ליבשה שלח להם ולא באו חזר ושלח להם ובאו אמר להם כמדומין אתם ששרר' אני נותן לכם עבדות אני נותן לכם שנא' וידברו אליו לאמר אם היום הזה תהיה עבד לעם הזה ועבדתם. הרי שר"ג שהיה פרנסן של ישראל לפי שידע דחקן של ת"ח וכל אותו פלפול שלהם בכל אות' השיעורי' לא עמד להם לפרנס עצמם הושיבם בראש כדי שיגדלו' ישראל בעושר משלהם וכן פי' שם רש"י ז"ל והם לא רצו לקבל מפני חשש קבלת שררה עד שדרש להם ר"ג שאין להם לחוש ליוהרא מפני השררה כי אינ' אלא עבדות וכיון שאינה אלא עבדות ולא שררה יש להם לישב בראש כדי שיתפרנסו בכבוד כראוי להם ולפי שדבר זה מוטל על פרנסי הדורות אמר ר' יהושע לר"ג אוי לו לדור שאתה פרנסו שאי אתה יודע צערן של ת"ח במה הן מתפרנסין כדאיתא בפ' תפלת השחר (כ"ח ע"א) דמשמע התם דר' יהושע היה מתפרנס בדוחק ור"ג חזא אשייתא דביתי' דמשחרן א"ל מכותלי ביתך ניכר שפחמי אתה כלומר שעושה פחמין או נפח שאין שחרות הכותלים מדבר אחר ונראה שר' יהושע היה עושה מלאכתו בצנעה שהרי בפרהסיא היה אסור לו שהרי אב ב"ד היה כדאיתא התם (שם) וכדאיתא בפ' החובל שמנהגם היה שהנשיא היה ראש ישיבה וממנה תחתיו אב ב"ד לכל ישראל כדמוכח הת' בשלהי הוריות (י"ג ע"ב) וכיון שאב ב"ד היה לא היה אפשר לו לעשות מלאכה בפרהסיא כדאמרי' בפ' עשרה יוחסין (ע' ע"א) כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס על הצבור אסור לו לעשות מלאכה בפני שלשה ופרש"י ז"ל שגנאי הוא לצבור שיהיו נצרכין לזה וכיון שבפרהסיא לא הי' עושה אלא בצנע' משום הכי לא היה יודע ר"ג שאומנותו פחמי שאם היה יודע חלילה לו לרבן גמליאל שלא היה משתדל עם הצבור לגדלו משלהם שהרי לרבי אלעזר בן חסמא ולר"א בן גדגדה... והרי דבר זה הרבה מפורש בתלמוד שהצבור חייבין להושיב בראש לחכמיה' כדי לפרנס' דרך כבוד ודבר זה מוטל על פרנסיהם ומנהיגיהם להתעסק בעניניה' עם הצבור ולא יוכל אדם לחלוק בזה כלל ואפי' התלמידים העוסקים בתורה כל ימיהם אע"פ שאינן ראשי ישיבות חייבין הצבור לפרנסם דרך כבודם כדאמרינן בפרק ואלו קשרים (קי"ד ע"א) איזהו ת"ח שבני עירו מצוין לעשו' מלאכתו כל שמניח עסקיו ועוסק בחפצי שמי' למאי נ"מ למיטרח לי' בריפתיה. ואמרי' ביומא (ע"ב ע"ב) ר' יוחנן רמי כתיב ועשית לך ארון עץ וכתיב ועשית ארון עצי שטים מכאן לת"ח שמצוון /שמצווין/ בני עירו לעשות מלאכתו. וכבר היתה להם קופה מיוחדת לקבץ בה ממון לחלק לתלמידי' לפרנסם דרך כבוד' כדמוכח בפ' הנזקין (ס' ע"ב) כדאיתא התם ההוא שיפורא דמעיקר' הוה בי רב יוסף ולבסוף בי רבה ולבסוף בי ר' יוסף ולבסוף בי אביי ולבסוף בי רבא. וראיתי בתשובה לר' שרירא גאון ז"ל שכ' שפירש שיפורא תיב' כמו י"ג שופרות דשקלים ואמר הגאון ז"ל שהיתה תיבה לקבץ בה ממון לחלק לתלמידי' ופירושו יותר נכון מפרש"י ז"ל שפי' שופר של תקיעות ערב שבת והביא הרב ז"ל ג"כ פי' הגאון ז"ל בפירושיו והוא הראוי לסמוך עליו שדברי הגאונים ז"ל קבלה הם והרי ענין זה נהוג בימי חכמי התלמוד ז"ל כפירוש קבלתנו ולמה יקשה עלינו זה והלא אפי' למלמדי תינוקות אמרי' בבתרא פ' השותפין דמסייע להו ממתא ולמה לא נלמוד ק"ו מזה לת"ח ואף לראשי הישיבות זה מצינו בתלמוד מפורש... ומצינו שבימות הגאונים ז"ל היתה קופה מיוחדת לישיבות משלחין מכל הקהלות ממון קצוב לראשי הישיבות ותלמידיהם. מצינו כתוב בס' רב עמרם גאון בתחלתו וז"ל שגר לפנינו רבנא יעקב בן רבנא יצחק כ' זהובים ששגרת לישיבה חמשה שלנו וחמשה עשר לקופה של ישיבה וצונו וברכנו אותך ברכות שיתקיימו בך ובזרעך ובזרע זרעך ע"כ ונרא' שרבנא יעקב כששגרם כך כתב לו בפי' שיתנו לו חמשה לראש ישיבה וט"ו לקופה שאל"כ אלא כך שלח שינתנו לראש ישיבה ולכל הישיבה מן הדין הי' יוכל /יכול/ רב עמרם ליקח עשרה זהובים וכמו שדרש ר"ע בפ"ק דע"ז (י' ע"ב) והיתה לאהרן ובניו מחצה לאהרן ומחצה לבניו ובפ"ק דיומא (י"ז ע"ב) איתה והכי קי"ל בפ' מי שמת (קמ"ג ע"א). אי נמי מנהג חסידות נהג בעצמו רב עמרם ז"ל שלא ליטול אלא חמשה זהובים אבל מ"מ מכאן נראה שמנהג הי' ג"כ בימות הגאונים ז"ל ליחד קופה של ישיבה וגם בימות האחרונים ז"ל מצינו זה המנהג מתפשט. וכתב הר' יהודה אלבר'גלוני ז"ל והביאן בספר החשן סי' ט' ונהגו ברוב מקומות לעשות לב"ד קופה שפוסקין מזון ב"ד ופרנסם לכמה עול' בשנה ומגבין אותו בתחלת השנה או בסופה ואין בזה משום תורת שוחד ותורת אגרא כי חוב' על כל ישראל לפרנס דייניהון וחכימיהון ע"כ. גם בדורות שלפנינו עד דורינו זה ראינו הדבר ממשמש והולך ומנהגן של ישראל תורה היא וכ"ש שהדברים מפורשים בתלמוד ובמדרשות ואין בדבר ספק ונר' שהחכם עצמו יכול לתבוע חלקו בפיו והכי מוכחא ההיא דרבי אמי דפ' הזרוע (קל"ד ע"ב) כדלעיל ואפי' למישרי תיגרא ברישא אמרינן בפ' קונם (ס"ב ע"א) דשרי לי' למימר צורבא מרבנן אנא שרי לי תגראי ברישא שנ' ובני דוד כהני' היו מה כהן נוטל חלק בראש דכתיב וקדשתו לכל דבר שבקדושה אף ת"ח נוטל חלק בראש כ"ש בדבר שיש בו חיי נפש וכבוד תורתו שיש לו לתבוע בפיו ואין בזה משום יהורא כלל. והנה נתבאר צד אחד של חיוב בענין הזה והוא שהצבור חייבין לפרנס חכמי דורם לפי כבודם וכבוד תורתם וזה דבר תורה:

Because I have seen many people hesitate regarding the practice of all Jewish communities, in all generations, of paying their sages, and in this they depend upon what the Rambam wrote in his commentary to Avot, therefore I will examine this issue as Heaven guides me, from gemara and other sources, to see whether this is permissible, mitzvah or obligatory, or whether it involves some element of sin. I am confident in the strength of the early authorities who customarily permitted this, so that I will not stumble in a matter of law, and all of the relevant issues will be cleansed and clarified.

I say that the Jewish people are obligated to support, with honor, their sages and judges whose livelihoods are their Torah, so that they will not need to cease their heavenly work for the sake of melachah, and so they will not be disgraced before amei ha’aretz because of their poverty, and so they will be treated with honor.

The root of this comes from Torah, as explained by the sages. They explained in Yoma 18a and Horiyyot 9a: “It is written, ‘The kohen who is greater than his brethren’ – He should be greater than his brethren in beauty, strength, knowledge and wealth. Others said: If he lacks this, then his brother kohanim elevate him, as it is written, ‘The kohen who is greater than his brethren’ – elevate him from that which belongs to his brethren.”… They also deduced from this passage that a Torah scholar may take money to enrich himself, and there is no disgrace in it, in Chullin 134b: “A sack of coins was brought to the beit midrash [for the students’ use]; R’ Ami took it first. How could he do this? Did we not learn, “‘And he shall give’ – And not that one should take [the gifts for the kohanim] for himself!”” And they answer, “An important person is different, as we learned, ‘The kohen who is greater’… The sages equated the law of an important person, whom Israel are obligated to enrich, with the law of a kohen gadol.

This is also logical, for he precedes others to be given life and to have his lost property restored to him, as it is learned (Horiyyot 13a), “Kohen precedes Levi, Levi precedes Yisrael… This is when all involved are equal, but a mamzer who is a Torah scholar precedes a kohen gadol who is an am ha’aretz.”…

And in Taanit 21a, the story of Ilfa and R’ Yochanan, they say that R’ Yochanan reigned, meaning he was made head of the yeshiva, and Rashi, who illuminates the eyes of the diaspora, explained thus: “They would give much to the one who was head of the yeshiva, as is seen regarding the kohen gadol…”

Because of this, when the leaders of the generations saw Torah scholars who were in tight straits, they appointed the scholars as leaders so that the community would support them in an honorable way, as is seen in Horiyyot 10a, “Rabban Gamliel and R’ Yehoshua were travelling on a boat. Rabban Gamliel had bread, R’ Yehoshua had flour. Rabban Gamliel’s bread was finished, and he depended on R’ Yehoshua’s flour. He said to R’ Yehoshua: Did you know we would take this long, that you brought flour? He replied: There is a star which ascends every seventy years, and it fools the sailors. I said, ‘Perhaps it might ascend and fool us.’ Rabban Gamliel said: You knew all this, and still you entered the boat?! He replied: Before you express shock at me, express shock at your two students on land, R’ Elazar Chisma and R’ Yochanan ben Gudgida, who can estimate the drops in the sea but who lack bread to eat and clothes to wear! Rabban Gamliel decided to appoint them at the head…”

And because this was a matter for the leaders of the generations, R’ Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel, ‘Woe to the generation you lead, for you do not know the pain of the Torah scholars, how they are supported,’ as is seen in Berachot 28a where it seems that R’ Yehoshua was narrowly supported, and Rabban Gamliel saw that the walls of his home were dark. Rabban Gamliel said, ‘From the walls of your home it seems you are a charcoaler,’ meaning that you make charcoal or you are a smith, for nothing else would blacken the walls. It appears that R’ Yehoshua performed his labors in private, for he was head of the Beit Din and he would have been prohibited from working in public… as Kiddushin 70a says that when one is appointed as leader, he may not engage in melachah before three people. Rashi there explained that it is disgraceful for the community if its leaders need to do this. So because he engaged in this in private and not in public, Rabban Gamliel did not know he was a charcoaler. Had Rabban Gamliel known, it would be a desecration to suggest that he would not have worked with the community to elevate R’ Yehoshua, given what he did for R’ Elazar Chisma and R’ Elazar ben Gudgida…

The gemara is explicit, then, that the community must establish their scholars at the head in order to support them in an honorable way. This obligation rests upon their leaders and directors to take care of matters for them with the community. None can disagree with this at all.

The community is even obligated to support students who learn Torah all of their days, even though they are not heads of yeshivot, as seen in Shabbat 114a, “Who are Torah scholars, such that the people of their city must perform their melachah? Any who leave their affairs and involve themselves in the needs of Heaven. What is the practical application of this? To work to provide bread for him.” And in Yoma 72b, “R’ Yochanan asked: It is written, ‘And you shall make an ark of wood for yourself,’ and, ‘And they shall make an ark of shittim wood!’ This teaches that the people of a Torah scholar’s city must perform his melachah.”

They had a box designated for collecting funds to distribute to students, to support them in an honorable manner, as is found in Gittin 60b, “The shipura was in the house of Rav Yehudah, then the house of Rabbah, then the house of Rav Yosef, then the house of Abbaye, then the house of Rava.” I saw a responsum of Rav Sherira Gaon stating that the shipura was a box, like the 13 shofarot used to collect half-shekalim, and this box was used to collect funds to distribute to the students. This seems more correct than Rashi’s explanation that it was the shofar used to blow [warnings] before Shabbat, and Rashi also cited the view of the Gaon in his commentary, and upon this we should depend for the words of the Gaonim are received tradition. This practice dates back to the Talmud.

And why should this be difficult for us – even teachers of children, per Bava Batra 21a, were helped by the city, so why should we not deduce logically to a Torah scholar?...

We have found that in the days of the Gaonim they had a collection box designated for the yeshivot, and they sent it to all communities to provide a fixed amount for the heads of the yeshivot and their students. We found recorded in the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon, at the start, “Ravna Yaakov ben Ravna Yitzchak sent us twenty gold coins which you sent to the yeshiva; five are ours, and fifteen went to the yeshiva’s box. We have instructed and blessed you with enduring blessings, for you and your children and your children’s children.” It appears that Ravna Yaakov must have written to him to give five to the head of the yeshiva and fifteen to the general box, for [had he not specified this,] Rav Amram could have taken ten for himself, as R’ Akiva taught (Avodah Zarah 10b), “‘And it shall be for Aharon and his sons’ – half for Aharon and half for his sons.”… Alternatively, perhaps Rav Amram acted with extra piety. In any case, we see that the custom in Gaonic times was to designate a box for the yeshiva.

We also found this common practice in the days of later ones. Rav Yehuda Albergeloni (11^th century Spain, aka Al-Barceloni), cited in (Tur) Choshen Mishpat 9, wrote, “In most places the practice is to prepare a box for the beit din, to provide food and support them annually. They collect it in the start of the year or its end. There is no issue of bribery or payment, for all Israel are obligated to support their judges and sages.”

Also, in the generations before us, until our own day, we saw this practice continue, and the practice of Israel is Torah, certainly when it is explicit in Talmud and midrash, and there is no doubt in the matter.

It appears that a sage may even demand his portion verbally, as is seen in the case of R’ Ami cited earlier.