tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post2843814602507994321..comments2024-03-19T23:03:01.685-05:00Comments on Beis Vaad L'Chachamim: Vayechi, Devarim 49:15-16. The Tribe of Yissachar and Military Service. אי ספרא לא סיפאEliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-21225235991638733102013-12-14T23:27:48.476-06:002013-12-14T23:27:48.476-06:00Gut voch. You should not be wasting your time her...Gut voch. You should not be wasting your time here with us baalei batim.<br><br>Regarding your first point: Yes, even the regular soldiers were expected to learn. But, as you say, that just illustrates how much greater hasmada was expected from the professional Bnei Torah.<br><br>Since your first point is most likely true, your second point about the development of the distinctions among the Shevatim is not necessary.<br>But since you mention it, let's think about it for a moment.<br>Your point about not having yet settled down would certainly be relevant according to the Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel. But the relevance to Sforno and Netziv isn't as clear, because having or not having land wouldn't have any relation to the character of the Shevatim. <br><br>Unless you mean that everyone was like Yissachar as long as they were in the Midbar and before chiluk ha'aretz, they were the Dor Dei'ah that was totally involved in learning, until they settled down, at which point their specific-shevet-character developed, at which point the other shevatim moved away from their focus on learning more than Yissachar did. Ok, that makes sense. But as I say, your first point is so mistavra that it renders further discussion unnecessary.Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-31633569498332782152013-12-14T22:27:03.607-06:002013-12-14T22:27:03.607-06:00As mentioned in Megila 3a, it seems that even the ...As mentioned in Megila 3a, it seems that even the soldiers on the front lines, in the midst of a siege, were also expected to reserve time for talmud torah; there the gemara recounts Yehoshua's encounter with the Malach, who came to chastise the bitul torah taking place. I assume that was not an isolated complaint on Yehoshua, rather on all of klal yisroel- similar to the complaint of missing the korban tamid as mentioned there. This does not prove, however, that those who learned primarily and those who fought were the same; all it shows is that even those in the army were required to mantain some level of limud torah. In any case, however, one could say that kivush ha'aretz differed in that the varied roles of klal yisrael had not yet crystallized, in particular the bind Yissochor had with his land; thus, all were equal in learning, and in fighting.muzhehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-48073588500655267342013-12-09T15:23:57.691-06:002013-12-09T15:23:57.691-06:00It is common to assume Yissachar & Zevulun agr...It is common to assume Yissachar & Zevulun agreement so that Yissachar did not work at all and was fully supported by Zevulun, but see Bereshit Raba 99:9-10 יששכר כונס וזבולון מביא באניות ומוכר ומביא לו כל צרכו i.e. Yissachcar grew the fruit, and Zevulun helped in marketing (this understanding of Y&Z is in line with Rambam's view in Avot ואמנם הדברים שהתירה אותם התורה לת"ח היא שיתנו ממונם לאדם לעשות בו סחורה בבחירתו ויהיה השכר כולו להם אם ירצה, והעושה זה יש לו שכר גדול עליו)<br><br>Accordingly, the Y&Z agreement might have been in effect, and still a tax on Y did not fall on Z.Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-75343156853744841112013-12-09T12:45:48.437-06:002013-12-09T12:45:48.437-06:00Good, it does answer the Rambam.As for whether it ...Good, it does answer the Rambam.<br><br>As for whether it was "an ideal or just some ad hoc accommodation," I suggest the former. If it were the latter, every shevet that could afford it would buy their way out. The fact that it was limited to Yissachar proves that it was only allowed/approved of because it was in furtherance of limud hatorah.<br><br>What changed by David, no, I doubt that the OU and the Briskers suddenly came in to save the day. Maybe it was a matter of needing more soldiers. On this certainly it is hard to say anything conclusive. Unless I find another Netziv in the Mechilta or something.Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-5938528904921430062013-12-09T12:30:10.721-06:002013-12-09T12:30:10.721-06:00The payoff idea also answers the kashe from the Ra...The payoff idea also answers the kashe from the Rambam -- it was not a tax in the ordinary sense.<br><br>I have no idea whether he means this is an ideal or just some ad hoc accomodation because of the $ that changed hands - not enough there to draw a conclusion.<br><br>I assume Dovid ended it because at some point the cost in manpower could no longer be afforded. I don't think it has to do with the standards of frumkeit (your 3a point) being higher in the army once Dovid became king. Do you think there was that much of a difference in frumkeit between when Yehoshua led the army vs. when Dovid was in charge?Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-5521836334187730072013-12-09T11:50:14.183-06:002013-12-09T11:50:14.183-06:00Eli- I put it in.Chaim- yaah, I typed it and wasn&...Eli- I put it in.<br>Chaim- yaah, I typed it and wasn't paying attention to what I was typing. The passuk there just says מאתיים יודעי בינה וכל אחיהם על פיהם, but it's not clear what וכל אחיהם על פיהם means. What's al pihem? Apparently the Netziv decided it means וכל אחיהם הסכימו להם. <br>That sure changes things. <br>It doesn't affect the Sforno, but the Sforno certainly doesn't say the contrary.<br><br>Now that you point out the Netziv's addition: what does it mean? Does he mean to emphasize that the people who are joining the army should be happy to allow or even approve of Yissachar's deferment? Or does it mean, as you say, that they agreed because Yissachar paid them off? And why did David Hamelech end it if everyone was ok with it?<br><br>You pointed it out, now you fix it.Barzilai/Eliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-57060760537716291802013-12-09T11:33:38.278-06:002013-12-09T11:33:38.278-06:00You forgot to mention the criteria of וכל אחיהם הם...You forgot to mention the criteria of וכל אחיהם הםכימי להם that the Nezviv on the She'iltos sticks in. If the masses did not consent (and there is no reason to think they had an obligation to do so) then the arrangement was off. Paying the tax was a means of buying consent.Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-23515593435850054592013-12-09T06:43:20.312-06:002013-12-09T06:43:20.312-06:00Regarding the (lack of) war tax on Levi - what you...Regarding the (lack of) war tax on Levi - what you say is a possibility, but note that in the same place it says David hamelech drafted Yisachar, it is also says he drafted Levi'im and Kohanim (actually many more than Yisacharites).Elihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793717193734899866noreply@blogger.com