Owning our Mistakes (Toldos)

 

 

Our patriarch Yitzchok was not much of a conversationalist. His exploits in the Torah barely cover three Parshios. In one of these, Parshas Chaye Sara, he doesn’t even have a speaking role. In Parshas Veyeira, his sole speaking role is all of six words. The main point is three words: “ואיה השה לעולה?” – Where’s the sheep?

Yitzchak Avinu is very concise and says several profound things in very few words. And every word is measured. I just presented one example above from Parshas Vayeira. Here in our Parsha (Toldos), we hear a bit more from him, but still in very few words. Some examples are פן אמות עליה and הנה נא זקנתי. He doesn’t waste time on big talk.

Now I need to get to the point (I am not so concise) and discuss one of Yitzchak Avinu’s brief statements that tell us a very important message. Once again, he says it in just three words.

This is after Yaakov snuck in and received the brachos and then Eisav entered and asked his father to eat and bless him. Yitzchak asked Eisav who he is, and he identified himself as Eisav. The Torah says that Yitzchok shuddered and exclaimed, “If so, who was that that hunted game and brought it to me to eat before I blessed him?”

Okay, that statement was not too short. But he follows it up with a very curt remark: גם ברוך יהיה. “And he will remain blessed.”

And he will remain blessed. What is Yitzchok telling us?

Rashi explains: And he will remain blessed – So that one should not say that if Yaakov had not deceived his father, he would not have taken the brachos, therefore he consented and blessed him willingly.

From Rashi we see that Yitzchok is giving us a lesson for life.

We are all human and we all make mistakes. Most of the time it is because we are led to believe that the conditions or circumstances of a given situation are one way, and we learn later that they are different. The initial assumption called for a specific course of action and the updated condition calls for another.

In some cases, the conditions are not in error, but the mistake was an assumption or judgement that a specific course of action will yield the best outcome and we learn later that this is not the case. Perhaps there were other options which would have a better outcome. We call this an error in judgment.

To some extent, we can be excused for making a mistake for just as long as we were not set straight. But not for a minute longer. The minute we discover what we didn’t know until now, from here on in it is no longer a mistake. We need to take a stand on the updated conditions. We need to respond.

This need to “respond” makes us “responsible”.

This means that if there is still a way to remedy the mistake, it is incumbent on us to do so. We cannot say, “Oh, oops, I made a mistake” and walk away. To the extent that they can be corrected, we are responsible.

In many situations, nothing can be done. It is what we call “water under the bridge”. But, of course, we still need to assess the mistake. If it is a mistake that was better not made, then the one “responsible” at least needs to show some remorse. If it damaged another person and cannot be fixed, at least to apologize or perhaps to compensate. If it does not involve another person, it is an opportunity to learn and grow and take care not to repeat it.

Or, we can assess that even though it was not what we meant to do and if we would have known all the facts we would have acted differently, the mistaken path was actually the best course of action. We can give our stamp of approval on the mistake and stand behind it. Indeed, any mistake that we don’t remedy – when possible – or don’t actively distance ourselves from, like to apologize, should and is taken as a declaration that this is no longer a mistake. As of now, it has your full approval.

So, it may seem that this is the lesson that Yitzchok Avinu is telling us with his brief remark - We own our mistakes.

If we don’t approve of them, we must correct them or denounce them. If we do not correct them or denounce them, it automatically says that we approve of them and can be held accountable.

But it’s not just this. It doesn’t stop here.

I think anyone with any midos and yiras shamayim can figure all this out without Yitzchok Avinu’s help. A mature and responsible person takes responsibility for his or her mistakes.

Yitzchok is telling us a little bit more than that.

In our story, there were actually two mistakes. The first was Yitzchok’s mistaken impression that it was appropriate to give Eisav the brachos to begin with.

There are numerous opinions that explain his mistake. I recommend a very insightful newly released shiur from HRHG Yitzchok Breitowitz, Shlita, that I saw today. He points out that Yitzchok was no fool and knew very well that Eisav was no future Rosh Yeshiva. That was Yaakov’s job. But he was planning to give these blessings of wealth to Eisav to help make him a successful administrator and fundraiser to partner up with Yaakov. Rivka understood that Eisav would not use these blessings of wealth to help Yaakov, only to oppose him. As such, even the material bracha had to go to Yaakov.

The second mistake is that he thought he was giving the brachos to Eisav when he was really giving them to Yaakov. Why did he make this mistake?

Because Yaakov deceived him into thinking so.

The first mistake we can say was Yitzchok’s mistake. It was poor judgement, but it was his judgement. He’ll take responsibility for that.

But the second mistake wasn’t really his. He was deceived by somebody else. It’s not his fault. “Don’t blame me. I’m not responsible.” He could have told Yaakov, “You broke it, you fix it.”

But Yitzchok did not shy away. It doesn’t matter why this mistake was made and who triggered it. Now that I know that something didn’t go like I thought it should, I need to take responsibility. I need to make the decision which way this needs to go from this point onward. If I do not, and there are undesirable repercussions, I will have to answer for them even though I did not cause them. It’s my call.

Gam baruch yihiyeh!

It can be said that this is not the first time the Torah conveys this lesson. All the way back in Parshas Breishis, Adam and Chava ate from the fruit of the Eitz Hadaas and this resulted in the biggest disaster to confront mankind.

Adam’s excuse was: “The woman that You gave me, gave me from the tree and I ate.” It’s not my fault. She got me into it. (Note – See Baal Turim.)

Chava’s excuse was: “The snake enticed me, and I ate.” It’s not my fault. This creature talked me into it.

Excuses, excuses. And we know that it did not get them off the hook.

Perhaps Yitzchok also learned it from them. We own our mistakes even if it’s technically not our fault. Once we know the facts, if we can do anything about it, it is up to us. It’s our call. Our burden to bear. And if we don’t make any changes, it is a full declaration that we approve of the current status as if this was our position from the start.

Gam Baruch yihiyeh.

It is obvious that we are living in times of total turmoil. It is a time of birrur – distinguishing. Which side are we on? Where are we headed? Is this where we should be headed? If so, what can I do to get us there faster? If not, where and how to change course?

We are swiftly approaching what the evangelists call the “Day of Reckoning”. Reckoning means  דין וחשבון. The GR”A famously says that din is an accounting of what we did or did not do. Cheshbon is an accounting of what we could have done and should have done. This means what we could have done before our mistakes were made and what we should have done after our mistakes were made, regardless of what caused us to make them.

It is not only Parshas Toldos but it is also the first week of Kislev. The struggle of the Chashmonaim against the pagan Greeks was the easy fight. Their struggle against the Hellenist Jews was the bigger fight. To be honest, even up to now, we haven’t really won that one. It’s still raging. As I wrote in my previous post, we don’t know who our friends are and who our enemies are. Our closest relatives may be our worst enemies.

והסר שטן מלפנינו ומאחרינו

But Yitzchok Avinu is telling us something way more important.

Many individuals don’t even know who they themselves are. Deep inside they know it is the day of reckoning. But they don’t know what to do.

Each of us needs to take a stand and own our mistakes. Either make the necessary changes or take responsibility for not changing them. There is no neutral and there is no “Let bygones be bygones”.

Moshe Rabeinu said it at the eigel and Mattisyahu said it to the Hellenists.

מי לה' אלי – Who stands with HKBH come to me!

 

ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם לך ולזרעך אתך לרשתך את ארץ מגריך אשר נתן א-לקים לאברהם.

 

גם ברוך יהיה!

Prenups V – Trei Gadya, Trei Gadya: Part One - Is the Shunra Guarding the Goat-pen?

Author's note - Please see the previous posts about the BDA Prenuptial Agreements - Part 1 , Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

In this week’s Parsha, Rivka Imenu instructs Yaakov to go to the goat-pen and take “for me” two kid goats. Rashi tells us that Rivka was instructing Yaakov to take what was rightfully hers to take “...for this is what Yitzchok wrote to her in her Ketuba, she may take two kid goats each day.”

Yes, I took that last written test in the Toen Rabbani cycle two days after Rosh HaShannah. It takes quite a while to get the results of one of these tests. They usually come out about a week before the next test on the cycle – close to Chanukah. I won’t know if I passed the test until then but I have a good feeling about it.

In the meanwhile I am prepping myself toward this line of work and am learning new things all the time. And the more I look into the concept of the BDA prenups, the more concerned I am.

For starters, it’s been a full year since I opened this series. The results of my previous analyses indicated that the language of the document, at best, needs at least two corrections. None have been made.

One language problem is that the term “and I recite that I shall be deemed to have repeated this waiver at the time of the wedding” is useless. This is because the groom has no intention for the waiver to take effect at the time of the wedding, only at the time of the separation. So this is what the contract must say. Even after this, it is not certain that the waiver takes effect and it is almost certainly revocable until the time of separation. Details HERE.

The second language problem is that the clause about “through the Jewish law mechanism of Kim Li” in the last paragraph is likewise faulty. If anything, it must say: “through the Jewish law mechanism of Kol Tnai she’b’mammon kayam”.  Details HERE.

So a year has passed and I have seen no changes. I know for certain that my posts have reached the eyes of some of the chief architects and promoters of this document and it would surprise me to learn that it hasn’t reached the attention of Rabbi Willig, Shlita. Although I can understand a dissenting position on the first correction, there is absolutely no room for dispute on the second correction.

The fact that the document continues to remain uncorrected tells me that the BDA does not take these issues seriously. I think this undermines their integrity. The impression I get is that they maintain that their document has been tried and tested and endorsed by some prominent Gedolim so they can ignore all the detractors. It doesn’t matter if someone brings up issues that haven’t been addressed – if it ain’t fixed, don’t break it.

What frightens me more than their complacence is their claim in a 2013 resolution that “the BDA prenuptial agreement maintains a 100% success rate in preventing get-refusal in the context of a divorce following marriages where it was properly signed and notarized”. Firstly, this sounds like propaganda. How can they verify this "statistic" to the public?

Secondly, there are two scenarios where, even according to the BDA (and Reb Shalom Spira’s prenup, as well) the prenup would not be effective. One is a case where the husband is flat broke, and more likely in debt, and he doesn’t really care about how much money he needs to pay his wife for mezonos. He doesn’t have it and he won’t pay it. Let her hair turn grey.

The second is the case of moredes - a rebellious wife - where the woman is not entitled to mezonos. It won't matter how large is the support allowance; she is not entitled to it. I intend to elaborate on the moredes issue in Part Two of this post.

Now, Reb Michael J. Broyde, in a guest blog post in Emes V’Emunah on August  20, 2017 addressed the moredes scenario. He had two responses. His first response is to promote the controversial Halachic position that even though a moredes loses her rights to support, if the husband withholds the get, he is still liable for the support. There are numerous problems with this position that I hope to discuss in Part Two.

The other response is that, “since the BDA Prenup is an arbitration agreement, the bet din panel hearing this matter could decide not to order the payments…” This says that they have the absolute power to decide whether or not the wife is a moredes. 

What this means is that the “husband-to-be” is entrusting the moredes status into the hands of the BDA Beis Din who have a vested interest in somehow making sure the woman is not ruled a moredes if only to keep up their flawless track record. This may be so even where, under more objective conditions, a typical Beis Din would rule that she is a moredes. Bear in mind that for the mezonos part of this contract, the basic Halacha is that any questionable case (sefeika d'dina) has to be ruled in the payer's - the husband's - favor. It is very questionable to say that the bizarre kim li clause at the end of the agreement overrides this privilege.

The shunra (cat) is watching the goat-pen.

For now, I only want to comment that, in light of these limitations, can the RCA really claim the PNA to be 100% effective? You mean in 26 years they never had to deal with a deadbeat husband? In all that time there was never a bona fide moredes? Or, are they fudging the numbers the same way the unemployment office does – if you simply gave up on looking for a job, you are not called “unemployed” so you don’t count for the statistics; here, too, if she is disqualified for being a moredes or if the husband is a deadbeat, it was not meant to work so it doesn’t count for the statistics?

100% is just too “neat and clean”; like the Beis Din that votes 23-0 to convict (Rambam Sanhedrin 9:1). Clearly, the BDA is not an objective Beis Din (we already established this with the "kim li" clause), and this is very troubling.

However, time wounds all heals. The claim of 100% was made in a resolution dated 2013. It’s been five years since that time, and perhaps their record is not so impeccable. So, what if the statistic is no longer 100%, would they have the integrity to tell us? Or do they want us to think that what they claimed in 2013 is in effect forever even if it isn’t?

My experience is that when conditions change away from one’s preferred position, he doesn’t bother to update his followers. (Like on all those Jewish sex offender lists. When a person who was listed as “Arrested” gets fully acquitted, somehow this development is never noted on the list. More on this in upcoming posts.)  In fact, the RCA added another resolution about prenups in 2016. This is the one about mandating their Rabbis to require them. For some strange reason the 100% claim is notably absent. What does this say to me?

While we are discussing updating things and the 2016 resolution, there is another serious issue that, to date, nobody has brought up. Endorsements.

To understand the problem, I need to go back to my tale about the Eiruv in “Hammerstone Hills”. I wrote that one of the supporting Rabbanim rescinded his support about 2 or 3 years after the eiruv was constructed. He gave a public speech in his shul to explain why he rescinded and he gave numerous reasons. 

The first reason was that he initially supported the eiruv because he knew that it could and would be erected according to the Halachic standards of Rav Moshe Feinstein, ZT”L. However, after the construction, when certain defects and shailos came up, instead of making the necessary repairs, the “committee” used some lower standard bidiavad kulos to consider the eiruv valid. What came out was that, although the eiruv was built in accordance to the standards of Rav Moshe, it was not being maintained at the standards of Rav Moshe.  It’s like when a kosher food product changes its formula and loses its hechsher or the mashgiach retires and isn’t replaced. If there is no Kashrut Alert, it stays “Kosher” forever.

His second issue was that they had plans to unite this eiruv with new eiruvim being built for adjacent neighborhoods. Those eiruvim were not planned to comply with the standards of Rav Moshe even from the get-go. This Rabbi was afraid that the tzibur will use the reputation of the first, more proper eiruv, along with his endorsement, to falsely imply that the other eiruvim were just as kosher (and that he endorses them). This is the old “Kosher by association” trick where one product or restaurant/bakery is certified kosher and then the owner opens a second restaurant or bakery with the same logo but no such hechsher. People will think the baal-hamachshir on the first establishment also endorses the second one.

The 2016 resolution that mandates all RCA Rabbis to require a PNA for every wedding they officiate at, or refuse to officiate, is very scary. As it is, the PNA is treading on thin ice in the area of coercion and many are those who invalidate it for this reason. But even those who do not – and we know that Rav Asher Zelig Weiss’s letter of endorsement only addressed the issue of coercion – may feel that this resolution crosses the line. It certainly invokes the words of the Rema in Even HaEzer 134:4 who stated that bidiavad, if the husband gives a get while under the influence of a self-imposed penalty, the get is still valid “since initially he was not compelled to do this…”. The obvious implication is that if the fellow was compelled to accept this fine, it is a forced get by all opinions. In line with this remark in the Rema, even though we are now dealing with mezonos and not a fine, for one to be compelled to accept upon himself an exaggerated amount of mezonos is very problematic to say the least.

But wait! This PNA is endorsed by such great men as Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, Rav Ovadiah Yosef and (supposedly) Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, no?

Well, it is definitely true that Rav ZN Goldberg, Shlita, Rav Ovadiah Yosef, ZT”L, Rav Chaim Zimbalist and Rav AZ  Weiss, Shlita endorse the concept of the PNA. Further, the basic language of the agreement, more or less a copy of the Toras Gittin, was endorsed by Rav ZN Goldberg, Rav Ovadiah and three others back in 1992. Rav Asher Zelig Weiss wrote an undated letter where he outlined the mechanics of reasonable mezonos and ruled that there is no problem of coercion in this case. He clearly implies that if the allowance for mezonos is not reasonable, we are in trouble. We have no idea from his writing at what point the mezonos are considered unreasonable. Of course, we can always ask him (AMV”Sh).

However, there have been a few changes since 1992. Did anybody endorse those? There was a strong resolution in 2006, another in 2013 and the strongest yet in 2016. Each one takes the question of get meuseh up one notch. Did any Gadol endorse any of these resolutions?

Other Halachic issues were raised such as the issue of asmachta raised by Harav J.D. Bleich, Shlita. Of course there is the system of “meachshav” and Beis Din chashuv but there are other issues. Rav Shalom Spira in his essay mentions opinions that hold that meachshav and Beis Din chashuv only apply if there is a single unknown condition. But when there are multiple unknown conditions, even these mechanisms do not help.

Beyond this is a similar asmachta issue that nobody has yet brought up (you heard it from me first): There is a question if one can make a binding undefined obligation (התחייבות לדבר שאין בו קצבה). If one cannot, this would be a big problem for the BDA prenup. Of course, it is no problem because only the Rambam holds it is not binding and all other rishonim say it is binding, and we go with the majority (kim li is still an issue). The Mechaber tells us this in three places in Choshen Mishpat.

But wait! Comes the SM”A in one of those places (CM 131:13 sk 25) and says that this is only when the obligation is unconditional. But if it depends on a condition which makes it an asmachta together with the undefined obligation, then even where an asmachta would normally work (like meachshav or BD chashuv), the rishonim will agree with the Rambam that with this double whammy, there is no binding obligation!

Did Rav ZN Goldberg and Rav Ovadiah and Rav AZ Weiss address these issues and give their endorsement in the face of them?

And, finally, I am back to where I began this post. In the first three parts of this series, I raised the issue of flaws in the waiver of the wife’s earnings. I summarized them earlier. Rav Willig, Shlita, in his famous shiur conceded that this waiver is a "very sticky" issue. He mentioned that Rav ZN Goldberg addressed the issue of a hodaas baal din on a future event (exceedingly novel and controversial). But the issues I raised are different ones. There is no indication that Rav ZN Goldberg addressed them. The BDA doesn’t want to acknowledge them (they have a lot on their plate with this PNA). But they do not have any outside Gedolim who examined these issues and were able to dismiss them.

We like to think that all major poskim are flawless geniuses who, without fail, take all Halachic angles into account whenever they rule on an issue, and so, all of these issues are covered. The truth is, they only deal with the point of the question that is being asked. Very often, they do indeed bring up collateral issues but not always. They are all very human and don’t think of everything.

It looks to me that the 1992 endorsement certificate is long expired but the BDA is holding it on life support.

I have spent this entire post complaining about corrections, changes and updates that needed to be made but were not. I want to comment now on one change that was made. 

When I examined the BDA PNA a year ago to analyze them, there were two versions: a regular one for a unilateral commitment by the "husband-to-be" and a reciprocal  bi-lateral one which included a commitment by the "wife-to-be" to adhere to the rulings of the BDA court under penalty of a fine to her husband (women can pay fines to their husbands). The reciprocal agreement was more balanced and, consequently, more practical. The financial risks to the husband stay the same, but since there are also financial risks to the wife, it is less likely to be abused. As a bonus, this version serves as a sop to reassure mankind that this isn't all a liberal feminist plot to artificially empower the women in divorce cases. 

When I checked the forms on the website of late to confirm that the language had not been changed I was astounded to discover that the reciprocal version is nowhere to be found. It vanished!

Where did it go - and why?

The lack of this version (especially after it was initially in circulation) now presents the opposite effect. It confirms to mankind that this document is indeed a liberal feminist instrument. With all its other problems, this does not help matters.

Believe it or not, all the above was the intro for what I really wanted to write in this post. But, it’s getting late and I can only make a post so long. I have discovered that once in a while there are people who actually read them.

So I still haven’t let on what I want to discuss now and what it has to do with the Rashi about Rivka and the two kid goats. But, let that be its own hint and we will leave it for the next post (I hope).

In the next post, I hope to make some “seder”…

Divergence from the Womb

ושני לאמים ממעיך יפרדו

And two nations from your bowels (womb) will diverge...

Rashi explains: From your bowels (womb) they will be divergent; this one (Eisav) toward his wickedness and this one (Yaakov) toward his completeness.

Yaakov and Eisav were two very different characters and, as Rashi tells us, they were very different from the moment of conception.

But, what Rashi says to us seems to be going "against our grain". He indicates that Eisav was "born" to be wicked. As if it was pre-destined. And likewise, Yaakov was "born" to be righteous.

How do we reconcile this with our philosophy of "bechira"? Was Iyov right that every person's lot is dictated by his astronomical fortunes?

I don't think so. And I don't think this is what Rashi means either. Although Eisav could never be like Yaakov, I think he was very similar to Aharon HaCohen. And he could have been Aharon HaCohen. And he was meant to be Aharon HaCohen - the older brother who does the avoda while the younger brother (Moshe Rabenu/Yaakov) teaches the Torah.

He just passed up the chance.

To help us understand this, it may pay to do a little psychological analysis on the "divergence" between Yaakov and Eisav based on the principles of Carl Jung. And that's exactly what I did in a term paper about five years ago.

So, for all you Myers-Briggs buffs out there, I present:

Torah Perspective on MBTI Typology

Torah Perspective on MBTI T... by binhersh

Good Shabbos!

Off Center: Limping on our Thighs (or: Harry's [Sciatic] Nerve)

Once again, I must take umbrage with a popular blog that calls itself Emes Ve-Emuna. I am now referring to a more recent post from December 5 entitled, What Happened to Jonathan? There is actually an even earlier post that I wish to comment about but this one relates to this past week's parsha (VaYishlach - I was hoping to get this posted before Shabbos) so it gets precedence.

In this post, Harry critiques a Jonathan Rosenblum article that was written for Mishpacha and carried in Cross-Currents. The article is an overview of a number of unusual hardships that are currently facing the Jewish nation. Jonathan devotes one paragraph to the economic meltdown and how it is taking a severe toll upon the learning sector.

There were two parts of Jonathan's article that fell into Harry's net. One was that single paragraph that I just mentioned. I will discuss this shortly. Before this part, Harry deals with a reported statement from R. Elyashiv, shlita on the severity of danger. Harry took exception to the tone that seems to confer upon RYSE the status of a Navi.

First Harry sets the record straight:

Rav Elyashiv is not a Navi. That is impossible since mankind lost that ability over two thousand years ago. Nor does he have Ruach HaKodesh.

That's cool, nowhere in R'JR's article was there such a claim. Now Harry goes on:

We may indeed need to worry about a coming Armageddon, but not becase it is Rav Elyashiv’s prediction. And we certainly need not pray about what he meant!

Believe it or not, I totally agree with Harry. He is absolutely right with his first line. We do need to worry about a coming Armegeddon and, indeed, not because it is Rav Elyashiv's prediction. It is because it is Yitzchok Avinu's prediction! I will explain momentarily.

Likewise, Harry is absolutely right with his second line, as well. It won't help to pray about what he meant. That is because it is absolutely clear what he meant.

You see, RYSE is not a Navi or the son of a Navi. And he does not need Ruach HaKodesh (though I am sure he has more than you or me). He is just a true chareidi that knows how to learn chumash – with the midrashim and commentaries.

RYSE was merely stating the words of the Minchas Shai on the Midrash Rabbah. He knows that when Yitzchok felt Yaakov's hands he exclaimed:

כב ויגש יעקב אל יצחק אביו וימשהו ויאמר הקל קול יעקב והידים ידי עשו

The well known Midrash Rabbah (Breishis 65:20) says:

When the voice of Yaakov is to be found in the Synagogues and study halls, there will not be "hands of Eisav". But, if not, there will be hands of Eisav.

The Minchas Shai elaborates:

Why is the first word קל missing the vav? So that you should read it like this: הקל קול יעקב when the voice of Yaakov in the shuls and Yeshivos is feeble (קל ) THEN the hands will be those of Eisav.

Rav Elyashiv, Shlita is merely telling us that the voices in the Beis Midrash are much more feeble than they should be (as was the case before WWII). Therefore, Yitzchak Avinu warns us that we are vulnerable to the hands of Eisav.

We don't need to pray about what Rav Elyashiv meant. We just need to pray!!

I hope I cleared this up.

The second part of Jonathan's article that Harry found disturbing was his paragraph on how the economic crisis is endangering the Torah community in Israel. Of the numerous issues, R'JR focused on a seemingly spiteful Livni policy to further reduce the already paltry government assistance that is allotted to Chareidi education.

Now, I have a mouthful to say about what this really means (I think Harry misread the paragraph) but I don't want to digress. Harry does. He wonders why Jonathan does not want to "admit" the real problem:

The system is broken!

Here again I agree with Harry (I don't know why I am suddenly being so agreeable). The system is broken. Though I may not see eye to eye as to exactly what is broken about it. This is because, before we determine that the system is broken we have to be clear about:
How is the system supposed to work?

Now, Harry calls himself a Centrist which means "Good G-d fearing Jew who is not chareidi". I call these people NCOJs (Non-Chareidi Orthodox Jews). Now, what Harry needs to admit is that there is a major difference in philosophy between these two camps.

Centrists such as Harry believe that Jewish society is meant to be comprised of 100% financially independent people. They understand תורה עם דרך ארץ (TIDE) to mean that it must apply to each individual. In other words, every Jew should be learned but only as learned as he can personally afford to be. If he can't personally earn what he needs to subsist on, he has no business spending all his time learning. It is not good for society that anybody should not be independent. Of course, this position is butressed by the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:10.

This is the NCOJ system.

The chareidim believe very strongly in an interdependent system. There is a learning class and working class within the community, and the working class helps support the learning class. The learning class should not need to become fully self sufficient, and should not be looking for ways to do it, particularly if it will compromise the quality of their learning. We also believe in TIDE but we understand it as a community value and not an individual one. The Torah and Derech Eretz do not have to be realized in the same person (although it's OK if it is). One person specializes in Torah and another in Derech Eretz. This is how Avos 2:4 conforms with Avos 3:6. As for the Ramabam in Hilchos TT 3:10, we understand it to mean that a person may not thrust himself upon the community and rely on charity reserved for the poor. It does not mean that he may not draw legitimate income from willing Torah benefactors as the Rambam himself did for part of his life.

Chareidim believe that society is meant to be interdependent. That's what G-d wants and that's why He wrote (Devarim 15:11): כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ . G-d didn't need to make any poor people . But he did. Why? So that everyone else can be מתקן themselves by helping them. He also made the Torah world to be dependent on the working class. Why? So that the working class can have a share in the achievements of the full time learners. Zevulun understood this and so he established the quintessential interdependent "you-wash-my-back-I'll-wash-yours" system. And he was so praised for this that he is blessed before his older brother.

We believe that there is supposed to be a full scale learning class and a working class. And within chareidi society, it exists. We also believe that this learning class should not be for the select few but for anybody who can live up to it. Anybody. The more the merrier. We don't believe that you need 100 Baalei Batim for every kollel guy. If there would be 99 kollel guys and one baal habayis – that should be enough. Because the Torah study brings the bracha to the baal habayis.

Vayikra 26:3 says that the more Torah that we support, the more material wealth we will have. This benefits everybody. It is the same concept of עשר תעשר - עשר בשביל להתעשר give your money away to become richer. In this way, both the baal habayis and the עני will have. I wrote about this at length in an earlier post entitled G-d's Pyramid Scheme. Hence, if somebody is truly learning there is no reason to say "Enough – get out there already!" What for? Who will gain?

So the way the system is supposed to work is that we should try to encourage as many Kollel people as possible and shovel in the money. In this way, the working class will be successful and become wealthy. As I wrote once in a blog comment - don't invest in IBM, invest in BMG (and IDT). Much higher returns.

It's all right there - in VaYikra 26:3.

And, it's guaranteed to work.

So---what went wrong?

What went wrong is that there were not enough people volunteering for the Zevulun job. Oh, they were plenty willing to take all that wealth, but just not anxious enough to channel it to the proper destination. And so, G-d says:


"If the working class Jewish people are not so crazy about supporting Kollel guys who will study and teach My Torah, what do I need them to be wealthy for? If all of Klal Yisroel is going to yell at Yissachar 'Get to work!!' like Harry Maryles does, what do I need Zevuluns for?"

So, maybe the problem isn't with the system. It's just that people like Harry don't know how the system is supposed to work. That's what I think and that's what R' Shimon bar Yochai thinks (Brochos 35b). And I have a hunch that this is what Jonathan Rosenblum thinks, as well. The "system" is fine. It's just that nobody was really reading the User Guide as to how to make it work.

We are the ones who are broken.

This said, I must turn my attention to some of the discussion that appeared in the comments of that Emes V'emunah post. particularly this one:

A group of Roshei Yeshivah from Bnei Brak went to meet Rav Herschel Schechter last week in order to beg him to help them raise $12 million for the kollels. Rav Shachter said, let the guys go out and get jobs! They said, we've had siyata d'Shmaya for 25 years, we're not going to give up now. Rav Schachter said, But this was a time-bomb that was bound to self-destruct eventually!

Rick 12.07.08 - 5:00 am #

I truly hope that this post was a chunk of unabashed motzi-shem-ra. I am thoroughly ashamed at what I saw quoted in the comments in the name of Rabbi Hershel Schachter. The Kollel system a time bomb? Is the Yissachar Zevulun arrangement a time bomb? Is אם בחקתי תלכו a time bomb? Why can't it go on forever?

Is there not enough money for the learning sector? Does R' Hershel Schachter think that G-d cannot create as many Reichmans and Gutnicks and Wolfsons and Dunners and Rothschilds and Tannenbaums and Pluzceniks and Reicehenbachs and Esformises (and Rubashkinses) as HE wants?

התקצר יד השם?

Trust me, this is easier for G-d than krias yam suf (and solving the Shidduch crisis).

A time bomb? Ribbono Shel Olam!!! Does he follow the same Torah that I do? Does his Pirkei Avos not contain Mishna 3:6 (just for starters); does his Shas not include Barachos 35b, Sanhedrin 94b (story of Chizkiya HaMelech), Menachos 99b, Avodah Zara 2a?

Or do they skip the Aggadita in YU?

Does he not support Rashi and Toras Kohanim on VaYikra 26:3? There, Rashi seems to maintain that the brachos of Parshas Bechukosai (of material wealth) will only come with ameilus b'Torah.

What do I hear? "There are too many Yissachars!"

Chizkiya HaMelech didn't think so (Sanhedrin 94b). And his perspective on Talmud Torah explains why the 10 Tribes are lost...and we aren't.

What else do I hear? "If everybody was a Yissachar who would provide society with goods and services?"

Relax. Rabi Shimon bar Yochai handles this problem in Brachos 35b.

To repeat, the "system" is an interdependent Yissachar-Zevulun system. And, indeed it is broken. Doubtless, there are grounds to castigate the Yissachar side for not totally immersing themselves in Torah L'Shma and not being worthy of Zevulun's support. But part of Zevulun's job should be to make sure there are as many tuchuses filling the Beis Midrash chairs as possible. This is what will keep Zevulun's paycheck coming and his stock portfolio up.

This is what's really broken. But Harry Maryles has never admitted that. And he never will.

Still, we cannot say that this is unexpected. That is because it say in this (last) week's parsha (Breishis 32:25,26):

ויותר יעקב לבדו ויאבק איש עמו עד עלות השחר: וירא כי לא יכל לו ויגע בכף ירכו ותקע כף ירך יעקב בהאבקו עמו:

And Yaakov remained alone and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. And he saw that he cannot overpower him and so he made contact with the ball of his thigh and he dislocated the ball of his thigh as he wrestled with him.

Many commentators (see Oznayim L'Torah, ad loc.) explain this strange episode based on a well known Zohar (Breishis 171:1) as a preview of the destiny of the Jewish people. Such that, we are destined to wrestle with the forces of Eisav for the entire "night", i.e., for the duration of our long exile. Eisav will try with all his might to destroy us by weakening the "voice of Yaakov" in the synagogues and yeshivos. He knows the Midrash Rabba and Minchas Shai better than most of us.

But, we will prevail because the learning class will refuse to quit learning. Finally, as the "day" (i.e., redemption) is about to break, he will try one last desparate ploy - he will will turn his attention toward those who support learning, and he will "dislocate" the support system of the learning class and thus try to close down the Yeshivos. But Yaakov will continue the fight even on a "dislocated" thigh. (Note that Oznayim L'Torah wrote this about 50 years ago!)

And so, Harry Maryles and Rabbi Hershel Schachter, I think you are wrong. It is not the "system" that is broken. Perhaps Bernie Madoff's pyramid scheme doesn't work, but G-d's sure does.

So, what's broken?

It's Yaakov's thigh.