Does the kollel model follow their relationship?

No. Zevulan is not seen as being as important as Yessachar.

It depends, at fundraisers they most definitely are.

Who?

The "kollel" will say that they [Zevulin] are equal (if they do not surpass) Yessachar.

Torah and meforshim certainly use more space for Yessachar than Zevulun.

But are they really Yessachar?
Were Yessachar supposed to sit and learn all day or teach children Torah?

No, its the modern orthodox that follow their relationship. Zevulun is proof that Yaakov understood that someone has to bring home the gefilte fish. Zevulun works while Yissachaor studies. That's the MO model. The Yeshiva model is that everyone studies, and starves. Bnai Brak is now the poorest municipality in Israel.

I'd appreciate it if someone could cite the sources for the Zevulun And Yessachar model.
It's often mentioned but the actual sources are not.

For one, Rashi Vayechi 49:13 (citing the Midrash)

Because?

How much of BB actually sits and learns?

No, because it's Yissachar and Zevulun, not Yissachar and Arida.

Big deal. Take a look at the Sforno who explains why Zevulun's berachah comes first.

you know...not all kollelim have the same model

Meam Loez as well.

(Also it comes first with Moshe's bracha.)

Thanks. Are there any other sources?

The question really should be "Are they really Issachar and Zevulun?". A true I&Z partnership is where Z gives I half of his money in exchange for half of I's Torah learning. While people donating to Torah learning might get a taste of this partnership, it is not an actual I&Z. Possibly, the only true I&Z partnership today would be a husband working for his wife's learning, or vice versa; and that's assuming that a woman gets the same Mitzvah from learning Torah.

Right. In fact that's why Kesubos talks all about the financial support a wife is required to give her husband...

(If you're gonna bring the Gemarra into this, you better bring all of it in. As I remember it, learning according to the Gemarra is not as required for women as for women, thus the partenrship doesn't work)

Arida?


The midrash says basically the same thing. Im ein kemach ein torah. But "Istakel b'Oraysa ubara alma."

Source?

Arida was Yissachar's wife.

Wow. How do you know?

I googled.

Googling yissachar arida gave me this.
Is this reliable?

ETA: Nvm, looks reliable; what's the source?

Yes, you are correct. The midrash is likely the source of both the Sforno and the Meam Loez [I did not see the Meam Loez personally but from what Pinchas reports].
Here is the Midrash Rabbah Parashah 99:

זבולן לחוף ימים ישכון, הרי זבולן קדם ליששכר, שכן מייחסן יששכר זבולן.
ולמה כן?
אלא, שהיה זבולן עוסק בפרקמטיא, ויששכר עוסק בתורה, וזבולן בא ומאכילו, לפיכך קדמו עליו.
אמר הכתוב (משלי ג): עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה
יששכר כונס וזבולון מביא באניות ומוכר, ומביא לו כל צרכו.
וכן משה אומר (דברים לג): שמח זבולון בצאתך.
למה?
שיששכר באהליך, שלך הן, שאת מסייעו לישב בהן:

י [ברכת יששכר]
יששכר חמור גרם, יששכר מביא בחמור, וזבולון באניות, שנאמר: והוא לחוף אניות.

דבר אחר:
יששכר חמור גרם, חמור גרם אותו.
וכי מנין היתה לאה יודעת שבא יעקב?
אלא נהק החמור ושמעה קולו, ויצאת לקראתו.

דבר אחר:
יששכר חמור גרם, כשם שהחמור טוען את המשא, כך יששכר טוען את התורה.
רובץ בין המשפתים, אלו התלמידים שיושבים בארץ לפני חכמים, שנאמר (תהלים סח): אם תשכבון בין שפתים.
וירא מנוחה כי טוב, זו תורה, דכתיב (משלי ד): כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם.

ויהי למס עובד
מהו מס?
זו הלכה, שהיו טועים בה, היו מבקשים מידם, וכן הוא אומר (שופטים ה): בעמק שלח ברגליו, בעומקה של הלכה:



The Eitz Yoseph also references the parallel comment in Parashah 72 where he comments that the cause and facilitator precedes the result and outcome ["ha-sibah kodem la-mesoveiv"].

As to the question in the opening post if the zevulun-yisachar model is a precedent for the current kollel system, that's a good question. If we look to the Rambam, he was famously supported by his brother's business for many years but on the other hand the Rambam writes in no uncertain terms that living off of tzedakah to support one's torah study is a chillul Hashem. So there is undoubtedly a nuanced position. Maybe, and I'm just guessing here, but being supported by a family member [or other close relationship, even if not familial] is acceptable as a zevulun-yisachar model, but being supported off of communal funds is not. The question then becomes if kollel funds resemble this or that. Do donations to kollel suck funds that would otherwise go to tzedakah and therefore are a subcategory of tzedakah funds? When we support kollelim, do we do so out of ma'aser funds that would otherwise go to the poor? Or when we support kollelim, is it directly from A to B in order for A to directly support B and for B to learn in place of A? I'm not so sure, and I suspect that answers are often agenda-driven.

Thanks.

Actually, the source according to Rav Aryeh Kaplan's endnotes are: Zohar, VaYechi; Rashi on Deuteronomy 33:18.
Kaplan also adds:
A different reason is given in Yalkut Shimoni and Ibn Ezra.

I should point out however that the source for Rashi on Deuteronomy 33:18 is Berashis Rabbah 99 like you wrote.

Quick question- how do you look things up in the Zohar? What does a Zohar look like inside?

You don't until you are 40.

It looks like a sefer with words of torah and kabbalah - so I'm told.

It is actually quite difficult because no one seems to have the "original edition" of the Zohar anymore and have one of the various Sulem editions or menukad, which is GREAT for learning but terrible for research because you can't find anything...

No?Dunno. What's the source for I&Z in the first place?

A question that bothers me is why "everyone" is included as part of Issachar and Zevulun? Especially when rabbis say "Issachar and Zevulun were the first kollel group." Okay. Fine. But there's a reason that it was ONLY Issachar and Zevulun and not all of the 12 tribes who engaged in that "kollel group."
Rather than teaching "kollel is the ideal lifestyle for every religious Jewish man," it seems that Issachar is the only one who should be learning all day,

After WWII there had to be something as universal as possible to rebuild Torah in America.
That time has passed.

Or so I've heard.

How do people always quote from it?

Hope you have a teacher at least.

Beraishis 49, Devarim 37 (as earlier posted by yehudi/melech)

Shevatim in learning would seem more like this:
Levi- יוֹרוּ מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לְיַעֲקֹב וְתוֹרָתְךָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל
Yehuda- לֹא-יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו
Yissachar- וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב, וְיִשָּׂשׂכָר בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ
Dan- דָּן יָדִין עַמּוֹ כְּאַחַד שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
Naftali- הַנֹּתֵן אִמְרֵי-שָׁפֶר
Asher- all about his daughters really, but also בָּרוּךְ מִבָּנִים אָשֵׁר
Yosef-וּלְקָדְקֹד נְזִיר אֶחָיו
Binyamin-יְדִיד יְהֹוָה יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח עָלָיו חֹפֵף עָלָיו כָּל-הַיּוֹם וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן:

What does universal mean in this context?

Anyone interested, not just those who will teach or publish.

I'm still lost.

Oy sorry; I didn't read my OP and forgot what I actually wrote.

Basically that there had to be a kollel system like the one in Lakewood, with most people (and not just a select few) encouraged to learn.

Why?

And exactly which one implies learning all day and having someone else supporting you financially?

Levi and Yissachar.

Leviim were not studying all day.

Levi didn't "learn" they went around teaching and spreading Torah... They were free from the yoke of parnossa so that they could be completely dedicated to Torah, but they certainly had a job to do.

Nor were they working. And they rotated shifts when there was avoda.

And they worked in the mishkan.
Besides, Moshe rabeinu was a Levi, and he was a shepherd...though I suppose there're people who would say that's "exceptional."
I don't think so though.

Wasn't Yissachar also supposed to be melamdei tinokos?

calendar guys and heads of the sanhedrin

Thanks. So who are the ones who are supposed to be poor? (I'm very mixed up somewhere)

...