The Balance Between Kollel and Working

An interesting Midrash:

Midrash Tanchumah Parashas Beshalach Sif 20 says:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: When a person studies two halachos in the morning and two halachos in the evening, and is occupied (osaik) with his work all the day, he is considered as one who fulfills the entire Torah (kol hatorah kulo) and fulfills the verse, "And you shall meditate in it day and night." Rabbi shumon ben Yehoshuah said: We see from this that the study of Torah [all day - Ed] was designated for those who ate manna, for they had no need to work or to engage in commerce. ... This could also be said [of Kohanim] due to the terumah gift-offerings [they recieve].

It would seem from this that unless someone has somebody to support his family fully (like manna) in order to learn, a person should work. At the same time, since we do not give terumah today, to keep learning going, everyone who works should give money to Kollelim in order to support those who learn. This creates a balance, where when there are many people working, there is more money, and more people can choose to learn full time. When there are many people learning full time, there is less money to give, and some of them need to choose to go work. There is an equilibrium to be reached where the number working is enough to support the number learning with people not having to switch back and forth too much.

Jewish Father and Non-Jewish Mother - Status of the Child

According to Halachah, a child is Jewish if his/her mother is Jewish, regardless of the father's status. The Reform and Conservative movements have challenged this (not so much challenge, as disregard) which unfortunately will cause many problems down the line. The arguments go back and forth, but I think it is interesting to note that challenging this idea is not new, and is already discussed and settled in the Midrash.

The Midrash Tanchumah, Parashas Chukas, Sif 6 states the following:

Yaakov from Kefar Giboraya [same guy who thought fish needed to be shcheted -ed] taught in Tyre that a child that is born as a result of the union between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman is circumcised on Shabbos. [Thus implying - in a strong way - that he is Jewish - ed]. Rabbi Chagai heard this and sent for him. He said to him, "How do you know this?" He said, "for it is written, 'And they were registered by family ancestry according to the house of their fathers.'" [He said to them,] "Prepare him for lashing." He said to him, "Is this the law that a person who says something from the Torah is given lashes?!" He said to him, "You do not teach correctly." He said to him, "How do you know?" He said to him, "Bend over [to receive your lashes] and then I will tell you." [.........] He said to him, "Based on what rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. It is written, "And you shall not intermarry with them. You shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son." - Why? - "for he [the non-Jew] will cause your child [the son of the daughter with the non-Jew] to turn away after Me." Your son who comes from a Jewish mother is called "your son" but your son of a non-Jewish woman is not called "your son" but "her son," as it is stated, "but the son of the slave-woman as well I will make into a nation." He said to him, "Give your lashes because it is fitting and proper that I receive them."

We see here a biblical source for the law that Judaism goes through the mother. I have heard from other Rabbis (although I do not know their source) another interpretation of the verse. In this case the "he" in the explanation refers to the Jewish man, and the "child" is the Jewish man's offspring, which will be "turn[ed] away from Me", i.e. not Jewish. However, for the daughter to the non-Jewish man, this is not said.
It could be that I misheard this drashah, and I was told it in the manner of the Midrash originally.

Either way, the message is clear, that the Torah itself mentions (indirectly) the law. (Although in Yeshiva I learned that before Mattan-Torah, Judasim was passed down form the Father, and only afterward was it passed down through the Mother.)

Don't Say Fish Require Shchitah

Here is something I found interesting. I have been asked by some why fish do not need any kind of shchitah. The thought is that it is cruel to kill fish the way we do, and why is it permitted? Well I found that the idea of fish needing shchitah is not new, and is addressed in the Midrash Tanchumah Parashas Chukas Sif 6:

Yaakov from Kfar Giboraya taught in Tyre that fish require shchitah. Rabbi Chagai heard this and sent for him. He said to him, "From where did you learn this?" He said to him, "From here," 'G-d said, Let the water teem with teeming living creatures, and fowl, ...'" Just as fowl requires shchitah, so too does fish require shchitah. He said to them, "Prepare him for lashing!" He said, "Is this the law, that a person who says something form the Torah is given lashes?!" He said to him, "You did not teach correctly." He said to him, "How do you know?" He said to him from what is written here, "Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? Or if all the fish in the sea will be gathered for them, would is suffice for them?" These [sheep and cattle] require shchitah, and these [fish] require gathering. He said to him, "Give your lashes for they are fitting and proper that I am lashed by them." (Translation from Metsudah edition)

Therefore, we have a pasuk that tells us that fish do not need shchitah. (However, they require "gathering" - I am not sure what this requirement is. My guess is that they must be dead before eating them.)

This also brings out a very important idea that one should not interpret the Torah on their own, but rather check the interpretation with a Sage.