I didn't mean for my comments to start a thread, although I'm glad it sparked some meaningful conversation.
Halachically it's possible you are correct. I was speaking to the hashkafic notion specifically in this context that implies that one is in any way "less" than the other. They are both just different forms of worshiping Hashem - I don't think it is even possible to compare them and rank them.
I've just seen people doing that ranking for years. It causes men to self loathe and women to look down on their husbands. It makes children feel like there is something wrong with their parents who work hard to make an honest living. And the saddest part is that it's so far away from the Torah's view on it.
In no way did I suggest we downplay the role of anyone learning. Learning is of critical importance to the Jewish people and it needs serious support.
As I suggested though, let's get back to what the Torah has to say about all of it.
You quote Yaakov Davis as saying there is no such thing as a two-tiered system of lichatchila in chazal...I'm not so sure that is true. We definitely find examples of something being a more "objective" lichatchila, but then in certain contexts where that is no longer possible, there is a shift to a "second level" of lichatchila. Another way to say it is that in bidieved cases, this is the lichatchila approach. So, while the term "lichatchila shebilichatchila" may not appear, I think the idea behind it does (just as an example, see תוס' גיטין ד: ד"ה אי where he explains a לשון that is משמע לכתחילה to be the לכתחילה in a בדיעבד case).
I think one can potentially argue that לכתחילה of a בדיעבד is different than creating two tiers of לכתחילה, but I'm not sure how compelling that is - to me that seems more to be a matter of semantics.
Have you ever heard of Hidur Mitzvah especially with respect to Ner Chanukah or Arbaah Minim? Take a look at the last Halacha in Hilcos Issuerei Mizbeach as to what we should strive for in terms of Hiddur Mitzvah
I miss having articles that don't have the same AI edited tone. More than I miss yeshiva, which also tried to fill me with an artificially intelligent hashkafa. Perhaps there's more in common than once thought.
Ash, your comment is sharp—clever wordplay with artificial intelligence and artificial hashkafa. But let’s unpack it seriously.
You seem to be suggesting that both this article and yeshiva share a kind of synthetic polish—as if both are trying to superimpose a system of thought rather than explore the real, messy, human experience. If that’s your point, it’s worth engaging—but also worth challenging.
First, this post is a record of conflicting, honest voices: one person aching for his yeshiva days, another reframing that ache through halachic pragmatism, and others debating terminology, sources, and psychology. If anything, the tone reflects the post-yeshiva struggle to make sense of multiple truths at once, not a single programmed ideology. Is that not more human than less?
Second, calling yeshiva hashkafa “artificial” may reflect your personal disillusionment (which many share, no doubt), but that doesn’t make it universally true. It risks flattening a nuanced reality into cynicism. Yeshiva hashkafa ≠ AI-generated content just because both can sound formulaic at times. One is a centuries-old tradition attempting to transmit meaning; the other is a technical output model. There’s a profound difference in intent, even if tone occasionally converges.
Finally, your critique misses the underlying point of the post. The article isn’t trying to preach or polish—it’s trying to wrestle with something many people feel but don’t articulate: the grief of leaving a cherished spiritual environment, and the anxiety of never recapturing it. That wrestling is real, not artificial.
In short, you're raising a valid concern—about tone, about conformity, about the fear of inauthenticity. But to conflate a thoughtful conversation about life transitions with some sanitized AI gloss is to miss the very messiness that the article is working to validate.
Thank you so much for your kind words! 😊 I'm truly glad the comment resonated with you. If there's anything else you'd like to discuss or elaborate on, I'm always happy to continue the conversation. Your feedback is deeply appreciated!
I think Rav Yochanan and Ilfa would each have a lot to contribute to this conversation (Taanis 21a)
There certainly is a mainstream source that directly discusses two levels of lechatchilah for learning vs. earning.
Nefesh Hachayim Shaar 1 chapters 8 and 9.
Here's a good overview, but serious people should study the original.
https://aish.com/48917412/#:~:text=RABBI%20CHAIM%20OF%20VOLOZHIN'S%20EXPLANATION,not%20completely%20doing%20God's%20will.
I didn't mean for my comments to start a thread, although I'm glad it sparked some meaningful conversation.
Halachically it's possible you are correct. I was speaking to the hashkafic notion specifically in this context that implies that one is in any way "less" than the other. They are both just different forms of worshiping Hashem - I don't think it is even possible to compare them and rank them.
I've just seen people doing that ranking for years. It causes men to self loathe and women to look down on their husbands. It makes children feel like there is something wrong with their parents who work hard to make an honest living. And the saddest part is that it's so far away from the Torah's view on it.
In no way did I suggest we downplay the role of anyone learning. Learning is of critical importance to the Jewish people and it needs serious support.
As I suggested though, let's get back to what the Torah has to say about all of it.
Yaakov Davis
You quote Yaakov Davis as saying there is no such thing as a two-tiered system of lichatchila in chazal...I'm not so sure that is true. We definitely find examples of something being a more "objective" lichatchila, but then in certain contexts where that is no longer possible, there is a shift to a "second level" of lichatchila. Another way to say it is that in bidieved cases, this is the lichatchila approach. So, while the term "lichatchila shebilichatchila" may not appear, I think the idea behind it does (just as an example, see תוס' גיטין ד: ד"ה אי where he explains a לשון that is משמע לכתחילה to be the לכתחילה in a בדיעבד case).
I think one can potentially argue that לכתחילה of a בדיעבד is different than creating two tiers of לכתחילה, but I'm not sure how compelling that is - to me that seems more to be a matter of semantics.
https://open.substack.com/pub/derechagav/p/the-holy-basketball?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=33pit
Have you ever heard of Hidur Mitzvah especially with respect to Ner Chanukah or Arbaah Minim? Take a look at the last Halacha in Hilcos Issuerei Mizbeach as to what we should strive for in terms of Hiddur Mitzvah
https://substack.com/@oliviarafferty/note/c-134191596?r=33pit
see my second comment responding briefly to your post, happy to elaborate: https://derechagav.substack.com/p/the-holy-basketball/comment/135274885
To talk about the actual content:
Sitting in yeshiva learning Torah all day? "That’s lechatchila shebilechatchila—the best of the best"
This is word games, and sad one at that. It is "participation trophy' but for adults.
I am far more fascinated at why he thinks learning the whole day is leachatchila when Chazal certainly don't think so except for a miut.
I miss having articles that don't have the same AI edited tone. More than I miss yeshiva, which also tried to fill me with an artificially intelligent hashkafa. Perhaps there's more in common than once thought.
Ash, your comment is sharp—clever wordplay with artificial intelligence and artificial hashkafa. But let’s unpack it seriously.
You seem to be suggesting that both this article and yeshiva share a kind of synthetic polish—as if both are trying to superimpose a system of thought rather than explore the real, messy, human experience. If that’s your point, it’s worth engaging—but also worth challenging.
First, this post is a record of conflicting, honest voices: one person aching for his yeshiva days, another reframing that ache through halachic pragmatism, and others debating terminology, sources, and psychology. If anything, the tone reflects the post-yeshiva struggle to make sense of multiple truths at once, not a single programmed ideology. Is that not more human than less?
Second, calling yeshiva hashkafa “artificial” may reflect your personal disillusionment (which many share, no doubt), but that doesn’t make it universally true. It risks flattening a nuanced reality into cynicism. Yeshiva hashkafa ≠ AI-generated content just because both can sound formulaic at times. One is a centuries-old tradition attempting to transmit meaning; the other is a technical output model. There’s a profound difference in intent, even if tone occasionally converges.
Finally, your critique misses the underlying point of the post. The article isn’t trying to preach or polish—it’s trying to wrestle with something many people feel but don’t articulate: the grief of leaving a cherished spiritual environment, and the anxiety of never recapturing it. That wrestling is real, not artificial.
In short, you're raising a valid concern—about tone, about conformity, about the fear of inauthenticity. But to conflate a thoughtful conversation about life transitions with some sanitized AI gloss is to miss the very messiness that the article is working to validate.
You write so well I’m kvelling 😂
Thank you so much for your kind words! 😊 I'm truly glad the comment resonated with you. If there's anything else you'd like to discuss or elaborate on, I'm always happy to continue the conversation. Your feedback is deeply appreciated!
Hahahahaha 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣