"These ten non-working men were hired by the town to always be [learning] in the Shul to make sure there is always a minyan ready for tefillah…”
I didn't see the learning part in Rashi here, and Rashi in BK 82a says part of their role was to be available to be osek in tzorchei tzibbur in addition to making minyanim. Is it mefuresh somewhere that they were "in kollel," like you wrote at the end?
Hey. Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read my Dvar Torah/article.
Now, nowhere in Rashi is it mefurash that they were in kollel, or that they were learning all day.
That being said, the only common denominator between how Rashi describes the 10 batlanin in the different Masechtos (I saw Megilah 3b & 5a, Bava Kama 82a, and Sanhedrin 17b) is that they were crucial in making sure there was a minyan.
Rashi does add in Bava Kama that they were involved in tzarchei tzibbur, but I'm really not sure what to make of that because he doesn't mention that anywhere else and doesn't really fit with their purpose (which seems to be to avoid not having a minyan - Rashi references Berachos 6b about being careful to have a minyan in multiple of the above sources)
Finally, there's how Rashi on the first Mishnah describes the reason the villagers (villages are halachically defined as not having 10 batlanin) would go to big cities for Megilah reading. He writes that they didn't know how to lein, but in the big city, there were people who did. Now, if the only difference between a village and a big city is having 10 batlanin, then the 10 batlanin must be the reason there's a baal korei; I concluded from there that the 10 batlanin were somewhat more textual. They probably spent most of their time in the Shul (considering they didn't work a normal job, were always available for minyan, and knew how to lein) and most probably also spent a bunch of their time learning.
If you think anything I've just said is mistaken please let me know.
i think its the last step that feels like the biggest jump to me, especially given that it would make sense in context for it to be spelled out yet wasn't explained this way.
Also, assuming your pshat, Chazal couldn't come up with a better term for people who sat and learned all day then "batlanim"??
Rather than retrofitting the 10 batlanim into the modern kollel concept, my instinct is to recognize they had an institution we don't have any more of people who were supported to ensure minyanim and possibly take care of other communal needs - disconnected from learning. Could be they learned, could be they played backgammon - we don't know, unless we get a source filling us in. Your point about the leining is an interesting one, but I would hope for something more direct.
I went back to the Gemaros to see if there were any other Rishonim I forgot about who may help explain this concept of the 10 batlanin better.
Ritva on the Mishna 5a writes:
"עשרה בטלנין של ב"ה פי' שיש שם בעיר י' אנשים כעין תלמידים וכיוצא בהם שבטלים ממלאכת השוק ומזומנים לב"ה ערבית ושחרית ולא סוף דבר שיהיו ממונים לכך מן הציבור כדברי רש"י ז"ל וכן מפ' בירוש'"
He compares them to talmidim (I would assume he means like talmidim of his time period), which implies that they were in fact more learned. He quotes the Yerushalmi which says (1:4):
"These ten non-working men were hired by the town to always be [learning] in the Shul to make sure there is always a minyan ready for tefillah…”
I didn't see the learning part in Rashi here, and Rashi in BK 82a says part of their role was to be available to be osek in tzorchei tzibbur in addition to making minyanim. Is it mefuresh somewhere that they were "in kollel," like you wrote at the end?
Hey. Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read my Dvar Torah/article.
Now, nowhere in Rashi is it mefurash that they were in kollel, or that they were learning all day.
That being said, the only common denominator between how Rashi describes the 10 batlanin in the different Masechtos (I saw Megilah 3b & 5a, Bava Kama 82a, and Sanhedrin 17b) is that they were crucial in making sure there was a minyan.
Rashi does add in Bava Kama that they were involved in tzarchei tzibbur, but I'm really not sure what to make of that because he doesn't mention that anywhere else and doesn't really fit with their purpose (which seems to be to avoid not having a minyan - Rashi references Berachos 6b about being careful to have a minyan in multiple of the above sources)
Finally, there's how Rashi on the first Mishnah describes the reason the villagers (villages are halachically defined as not having 10 batlanin) would go to big cities for Megilah reading. He writes that they didn't know how to lein, but in the big city, there were people who did. Now, if the only difference between a village and a big city is having 10 batlanin, then the 10 batlanin must be the reason there's a baal korei; I concluded from there that the 10 batlanin were somewhat more textual. They probably spent most of their time in the Shul (considering they didn't work a normal job, were always available for minyan, and knew how to lein) and most probably also spent a bunch of their time learning.
If you think anything I've just said is mistaken please let me know.
i think its the last step that feels like the biggest jump to me, especially given that it would make sense in context for it to be spelled out yet wasn't explained this way.
Also, assuming your pshat, Chazal couldn't come up with a better term for people who sat and learned all day then "batlanim"??
Rather than retrofitting the 10 batlanim into the modern kollel concept, my instinct is to recognize they had an institution we don't have any more of people who were supported to ensure minyanim and possibly take care of other communal needs - disconnected from learning. Could be they learned, could be they played backgammon - we don't know, unless we get a source filling us in. Your point about the leining is an interesting one, but I would hope for something more direct.
Yashar koach on the dvar torah!
I hear your reservations.
I went back to the Gemaros to see if there were any other Rishonim I forgot about who may help explain this concept of the 10 batlanin better.
Ritva on the Mishna 5a writes:
"עשרה בטלנין של ב"ה פי' שיש שם בעיר י' אנשים כעין תלמידים וכיוצא בהם שבטלים ממלאכת השוק ומזומנים לב"ה ערבית ושחרית ולא סוף דבר שיהיו ממונים לכך מן הציבור כדברי רש"י ז"ל וכן מפ' בירוש'"
He compares them to talmidim (I would assume he means like talmidim of his time period), which implies that they were in fact more learned. He quotes the Yerushalmi which says (1:4):
"עֲשָׂרָה בְטֵילִים מִמְּלָאכְתָּן לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר. כְּגוֹן אָנוּ שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ צְרִיכִין לְתַלְמוּדֵינוּ."
This also seems to imply that they were generally more learned people, or at least people who were able to spend more time learning.
Lmk what you think.
Great find, that Ritva certainly seems to strengthen the case