Subscribing to an Idea

Clicked on and /or read most by our subscribers (I’m not telling you which is which):

Please subscribe

Feiglin Has Lots to Learn!

Moshe Feiglin (probably translated from Facebook):

Israel’s cabinet unanimously voted today to accept Minister Naftali Bennett’s proposal and to send $1 million dollars of aid to the Jewish community in Houston.

I applaud Minister Bennett and the cabinet. The economic significance of this decision is strictly symbolic. But its significance is historic.

 The State of Israel is a Jewish State, the state of all the Jews. When the direction of the aid turns around – from the Land of Israel to the Diaspora, and not vice versa – it is a huge, supreme message to every Jew, wherever he may be.

Some counters:

A. The State should not grant aid, nor receive any. Men and communities ought to aid one another.

B. It’s not Tzedakah when the mob does it, only individuals and Beis Din. If they would let us keep our money, we could give far more real Tzedakah and get the merit and rewards.

C. If it’s about the symbolism, why not ten trillion shekels? Why not ten Agurot? Symbolism requires (1) real costs and (2) real individuals. The state naturally lacks both.

D. Not to go too deeply here, but Tzedakah has nothing to do with helping the needy. It’s supply-side, not demand-side.

How do you know?

Because without prices the giver is blind. You can’t allocate resources rationally. To put it drastically: The market is unwittingly charitable; charity is unwittingly cruel.

Rather, Tzedakah is a Mitzvah, a central desired effect of which is personal religious growth (this is not Mussar!).

Rambam on Avos 3:15:

והכל לפי רוב המעשה, אמר שהמעלות לא יגיעו לאדם לפי רוב גודל המעשה, אבל לפי רוב מספר המעשים, והוא שהמעלות אמנם יגיעו בכפול המעשים הטובים פעמים רבות ועם זה יגיע קנין חזק לא כשיעשה אדם פעל אחד גדול מפעולות הטובות כי בזה לבדו לא יגיע לו קנין חזק, והמשל בו כשיתן האדם למי שראוי אלף זהובים בבת אחת לאיש אחד ולאיש אחד לא יתן כלום לא יעלה בידו מדת הנדיבות בזה המעשה האחד הגדול כמו שמגיע למי שהתנדב אלף זהובים באלף פעמים ונתן כל זהוב מהם על צד הנדיבות, מפני שזה כפל מעשה הנדיבות אלף פעמים והגיע לו קנין חזק, וזה פעם אחת לבד התעוררה נפשו התעוררות גדולה לפעל טוב ואח”כ פסקה ממנו. וכן בתורה אין שכר מי שפדה אסור במאה דינרים או עשה צדקה לעני במאה דינרים שהוא די מחסורו כמו שפדה עשרה איסורים או השלים חסרון עשרה עניים כל אחד בעשרה דינרים ואל זה ההקש, וזה ענין אמרו לפי רוב המעשה אבל לא לפי גודל המעשה.

Sure, it’s better for whichever near-randomly selected recipient of 100 Dinars to be “put on his feet” financially. As the Rambam himself says (Matnos Aniyim 10:7):

שמנה מעלות יש בצדקה זו למעלה מזו מעלה גדולה שאין למעלה ממנה זה המחזיק ביד ישראל שמך ונותן לו מתנה או הלואה או עושה עמו שותפות או ממציא לו מלאכה כדי לחזק את ידו עד שלא יצטרך לבריות לשאול ועל זה נאמר והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך כלומר החזק בו עד שלא יפול ויצטרך

But so what? Who cares about the poor?! Do you care about other “Cheftza Shel Mitzvah”s? Helping the poor man is details; the Mitzvah itself is for the benefit of the actor.

Conversely, the problem with giving more than Chomesh (a fifth) of one’s income to Tzedakah is the cruelty. Cruelty toward oneself and one’s dependents, and also towards the future buyers of whatever good the money would likely otherwise be used to sell. Put another way, demonstrated preferences over never demonstrated preferences. (Examine the sugya, and you will see this is so.)

E. If the motley Knesset-dwellers have any goodness at all, perhaps they can distribute their very own ill-gained “salaries” in the same sum to Diaspora Jewry?

Better yet, how about equivalent tax breaks for all Jewish Texans making Aliyah in the next year? But no, that would remind their victims of government’s parasitical nature, and grant those in government nothing in terms of personal control over newcomers (taxes are about control).

F. And, though not as evil as regular “foreign aid”, I’ll bet even in the Houston case there was politics and political favors involved. Who got the Tzedakah money itself? Which organizations did and which didn’t? Who gave Bennett the idea?

Also, see this.

Kapparos Postscript

We wrote two Hebrew posts on the Mechaber’s opposition to the custom of Kapparos.

The skinny:

גם הכותרות בשו”ע נכתבו ע”י המחבר, כידוע. כותרת סימן תר”ה “מנהג כפרות בערב יום כפור”. שמעתי שבדפוסים ראשונים היה כתוב: “מנהג כפרות בערב יום כפור מנהג של שטות הוא“.

I just found Rabbi Meir Mazuz‘s Rosh Hashanah newsletter addressing this. He must have visited this site because I didn’t get it from him (joking!).

He has a different version of the number of editions with the title “Minhag Shtus”. More importantly, he attempts to deny the known fact the headings were written by the author by pointing to the language of one chapter heading referring to the third Shabbos meal as “Shalosh Seudos”, and another to “Birkat Levanah” as “Kiddush Levanah” instead.

My general impression of Rabbi Mazuz is the same as the Brisker Rav’s of the Rogotchover Gaon (from Making of a Godol). Their references, or footnotes, tend to fit into one of three categories:

Could well be \ Absolutely unrelated \ Impossible to refute

Here, our case is that of a clear description, while his examples are of cultural “translation”, or “adaption”.

 

Pray with Your Hands!

 Active Prayer

The waving of the Arba Minim (the Four Species) — the Na’anu’im— serves as a focal point of the t’filot of Chag HaSukkot. Interestingly, though, one can fulfill his minimal obligation by merely picking of the Arba Minim (See Sukka 42a). However, the clear implication of many Rishonim is that Na’anu’im are a l’chat’chila d’Oraisa – a Biblically mandated ideal enhancement to the performance of the mitzva (see Rambam (Hilchot Lulav (7:9); also Tosfot and Ritva to 37b who rule stringently in case of doubt, presumably following the rule S’feika D’Oraisa L’Chumra). Indeed, the Mishna in Masechet Sukka (29b see Rashi there) indicates that unlike the Hoshana (myrtle) and Arava (willow) whose minimum size is three t’fachim (handbreadths), the Lulavrequires 4 t’fachim. The extra tefach, as the Mishna explains, is necessary “k’dei l’na’nai’a bo” — in order to wave it. Although the Ba’al Ha’Itur and Me’iri maintain that this requirement for the fourth tefach is only Mi’d’rabbanan, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and subsequent Poskim maintain that 4 t’fachim is an absolute requirement which would seem to indicate its Biblical origin. Even though the Na’anu’im are only l’chat’chila, the lulav must at least be fit for waving.

What is signified by this Biblically mandated waving? Furthermore, it is clear from the Mishna (37b) that the Four Minim are to be waved at two places in the Hallel — once at “Hodu Lashem Ki Tov” — “Give praise to G-d for He is good” and once at “Ana Hashem Hoshi’a Na” — “Please G-d, save us now!”. These expressions contain drastically different themes. “Hodu” is a call to praise Hashem for his everlasting kindness. “Ana” is a heartfelt prayer for salvation. How does the waving of the Arba Minim enhance these diverse prayers?

What clearly emerges is that the waving of the Arba Minim serves as both a t’fila of bakasha (request) and a song of hoda’ah (praise). But how does the lulav accomplish both tasks? The Mishna in Rosh Hashana (16a) relates that “Be’chag nidonin al ha’mayim” — on Sukkot the world is judged concerning the amount of rainfall for that year. The four species all require additional watering in addition to rainfall to survive. The Torah even refers to Aravot as Arvei Nachal — willows that grow by a river. There is even a minority position in Tosfot (34a) that the Aravot must grow by a river to be valid. Even though we do not follow this position (see Shulchan Aruch (647:1) and Mishna B’rura (3)), certainly the Torah highlights the role of water in the Arba Minim. Indeed, one of the textual proofs that the Biblical “Pri eitz hadar” (Leviticus 23:40) is a citron is that the word “hadar” is etymologically related to the Greek “hydro” meaning water (Sukka 35a). Hence, the Torah refers to a fruit that needs much additional watering to survive. The waving of the species then, is a form of t’fila for rain. Besides the t’fila for rain on Shmini Atzeret, we pray every day of Sukkot for rain in the Hallel by waving the Arba Minim at “Ana“.

Continue reading…

From Torah Web, here.

Donald Trump: Fake News!

JFK, Trump, and Camelot

Gary North – September 23, 2017

If Trump was ever sincere, his election has proven that one person simply cannot fight this corrupt system, this horrid swamp. Trump the reformer, the unlikeliest of knights in shining armor, is gone. The renegade billionaire striking fear into the heart of the establishment lasted a brief shining moment, like Camelot. — Donald Jeffries

These are the concluding words of an article listing Donald Trump’s sellouts since January 20, 2017. There have been a lot of them.

I think he is correct about his association of Trump with Camelot. Trump is a lot more like Camelot then Jeffries imagines.

JFK AS KING ARTHUR

We associate Jack Kennedy’s presidency with the 1960 musical that was totally mythical: Camelot.

Why do we do this? What possible connection does the presidency of John F. Kennedy have to King Arthur?

We do it because Jackie Kennedy was one of the great PR masters of the 20th century. Shortly after the assassination, she saw an advantage like only one other in American political history: the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln became mythic in retrospect. It was fake news at its most implausible, but it worked.

She literally designed the whole campaign to connect her husband’s presidency with a mythical King Arthur, taking advantage of the enormous popularity of the musical.

It took 50 years for this story to become public. It still is not well known, but here are some mainstream media articles that tell the story:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-jackie-kennedy-invented-the-camelot-legend-after-jfks-deathhttp://people.com/politics/jackie-kennedy-invented-camelot-jfk-assassination

http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/inventing-camelot-how-jackie-kennedy-shaped-her-husbands-legacy

The posthumous legend of JFK was entirely mythical. It was tacked on top of a musical that was entirely mythical. The musical was tacked on top of a book that was entirely mythical. The book that was entirely mythical was based on one of the most popular literary myths in English literature. Virtually nothing is known of Arthur.

It was myth layered upon myth that would lead anybody to believe that JFK was anything more than a superficial, verbally gifted, speed reading, James Bond loving, serial adulterer. He got us into Vietnam, and he is to blame for having done so. He led Lyndon Johnson into the big muddy, from which Johnson never emerged. Neither did Nixon.

DONALD TRUMP AS KING ARTHUR

Trump gave a good inaugural address, a lot better than most. But he began to retreat from that address within days of having delivered it.

Trump’s candidacy was fake news. He coined the phrase, and it truly applied to everything he promised. It was all fake from day one. The man is a deal-doer. Deal-doers have no principles. They just do deals. They compromise. They lie. They over-promise. They deceive. They profit by putting lipstick on pigs. They do whatever it takes to get the deal done. He campaigned as a deal-doer. I believed him. That’s why I did not vote for him. I voted for Gary Johnson. I did not want to be sullied retroactively in my own mind by the sellouts that were inevitable.

The problem we are facing is this: Trump always got out of bad deals by declaring bankruptcy of the corporation in which he was the driving force. He raised money by means of his name, but when the deal went south, he bailed out. Here is the problem: you can’t declare bankruptcy on a presidency easily. Richard Nixon did, but Trump does not want to be remembered the way Nixon is remembered.

He is not going to declare bankruptcy on his presidency. I realize there are people who predict this, but I think it’s ridiculous. His presidency is not a corporation. He is, in the language of business, the sole proprietor. He is going to attempt to cobble together his presidential legacy by a series of deals. That’s why he keeps talking about renegotiating all the things that, during the campaign, he promised were nonnegotiable. For a deal-doer, nothing is nonnegotiable.

I really do think that there has been a Camelot element to Trump’s presidency. This element, like the original, was entirely mythical. His campaign was a series of deceptions in order to seal the deal. His inaugural address was his parting shot, not his opening salvo. His inaugural address was indeed a Camelot moment. It was his version of a Broadway play. He was the star of the play. He understood this.

CONCLUSION

The play has closed. It did not have a long run. He is now starring in its sequel: Merlin. King Arthur has died. Merlin has been declared king. It is a show about hope. It is about faith in magic. The star himself is a magician. He has always been a lot more like Merlin than King Arthur. He is a master of illusion.

The play is still sold out. It will be sold out for another 3 1/2 years. It may be sold out for another 7 1/2 years. That is because Donald Trump is not simply the star of the show, he is in charge of marketing. There has not been a marketer as successful at this level since Franklin Roosevelt.

From Gary North, here.