Search Results for: popular

Purging Cursedian Expressions

Rabbi Ahron Hyman and the quote אין נביא בעירו in his Bet Vaad Lechachamim

Rabbi Ahron Hyman ( 1863-1937) was a Rabbi, Scholar and author of numerous books. One of his most popular works is בית ועד לחכמים Bet Va’ad Lachachamim, an alphabetical collection of 30,000 Rabbinic sayings, found in the Talmuds, Medrash etc.

One of the phrases brought down in his book stands out. It appears that Hyman brought down the source to inform people that it’s origin is indeed in the New Testament and not in Rabbinic Writings. The phrase אין נביא בעירו became widespread enough that it needed to be let known that the source is in the book of Mathew.

hat-tip: Menachem Silber

 From Musings of a Jewish Bookseller, here.

Decriminalize Jewish Self Defense Now!

Why Jews Hate Guns

Are they right?
And who are The Shomrim?

 

smalline

 

by Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabbinic Director
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
and Author Alan Korwin, GunLaws.com

 

This white paper is also available as a PDF file
(Three column PDF version also available – ideal for printing.)

 

It’s no secret that one of the largest blocs of people pressing for so-called “gun control” is the culturally (aka not-so-religious) American Jewish community. This confounds many observers who would expect that Jews, with such a stunning history of oppression and murder by humanity’s villains, would cling tenaciously to personal firearms and the ability to protect themselves as the Hebrew Scriptures instruct.

In reaction to the Holocaust, American Jews adopted the phrase “Never Again!” If actions mean anything, they don’t believe it. That’s for someone else to do. How do Jews expect to put teeth behind the words “Never Again!” if not with the ability to apply and project personal force when righteous — and necessary — for survival?

Why then do so many American Jews hate guns and fear gun ownership so much?

Our research identifies ten reasons why these Jews feel the way they do about self defense in general, firearms specifically and your own right to keep and bear arms.

The adamantly anti-gun-rights Jews are bowing to:
1. A desire for utopian moral purity
2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
3. A quest for power through victimization of peers
4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,”
crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place
5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based
behavioral problems that develop in childhood
6. The Ostrich Syndrome
7. Garden-variety hypocrisy
8. Adulterated religion — Jews In Name Only (JINOs)
9. Feel-good sophistry
10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior

Despite the modern American Jewish aversion to arms, it has not always been so, and Israeli Jews certainly understand the value of arms. Throughout history, there were Jews who fought in defense of their people and way of life. The Torah is filled with Jews who took up arms in righteous and valiant defensive action. See, for example, The Ten Commandments of Self Defense, (Bendory and JPFO, 2009); or recall, “When Abraham heard that his nephew Lot was taken captive, he took the 318 trained soldiers of his house and pursued the captors,” defeated them, brought back Lot, and exacted retribution with their looted property. (Genesis 14:14)

Contemporary Jews may have largely acquiesced to their WWII inquisitors, but Biblical Jews resisted their Egyptian slave masters and then fought countless fierce battles against invaders and anti-Semites, such as Amelek, the Philistines and Haman.

Jews have been assaulted, accosted, and oppressed by nearly every nation and empire in history, including the ancient Greeks, Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Ottomans and of course modern nations like Germany and the USSR.

Miraculously, Jews have outlasted all those who would annihilate them, typically by using force of arms. Perhaps their liberal modern approach to assault and suffering — “Don’t fight back, it will only make matters worse” — holds lessons for us. Or perhaps not: it is very hard to witness open-pit graves piled high with emaciated corpses without emotional revulsion. How much worse could matters get?

“Culturally proper” Jews will not want to openly face the tortured reasoning of their Faustian bargain behind “don’t make it worse.” That doesn’t make the following reasons any less real or mortally dangerous. And Jews are not alone in relying on these justifications for rejecting the fundamental human right of self defense. Many other gunless people will also recognize their feelings accurately described by what we have found.

We would not dream of interfering with a free person’s freedom to choose and embrace defenselessness or to go gunless. On the other hand, there can be no tolerance for anyone who attempts to force others to behave so dangerously.

 

1. A desire for utopian moral purity

This seems to be the nub. Devin Sper, author of The Future of Israel (SY Publishing, 2004), supported by exhaustive research on the history of the Jewish people, has found that Jews are wont to seek utopian moral purity, and in doing so they reject use of force. By its very nature force corrupts and polarizes. With power and force come allies and adversaries. Taking sides, even righteous sides, conflicts with utopian egalitarianism. As the phrases indicate, these utopian ideals are unattainable.

Although such a rejection of personal power and righteous use of force seems irrational — especially for groups repeatedly murdered by governments and threatened with annihilation — it is a choice they are free to make. Using diverse strategies Jews have survived every attempt to exterminate them while their tormenters have vanished. In Mark Twain’s classic words:

“The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was … ”

We must remind ourselves that Twain wrote this well before the Holocaust. Would his words have been different had he witnessed the government-run atrocities of the 20th century?

Sper documents the fact that the main Jewish texts, the Torah and Hebrew Scripture, are sometimes violent texts that exhort followers to take up arms in many contexts, and tell stories of vast militia and armed actions by the Jewish tribes. Sper points out that many modern Jews — especially liberal Jews — ignore parts of the Torah they don’t like, such as this militarism. See, for example, Esther 8:15 – 9:18, where Jews obliterate their enemies; and when asked what to do the next day, Esther says more of the same. And for good measure, impale the ten killed sons of evil vizier Haman on stakes. In place of this Biblical claim to righteous use of force, contemporary American Jews have constructed a plain-vanilla substitute that is mostly froth and dragons.

Even the annual Passover retelling of the escape from slavery in Egypt glosses over the horrors of slavery and war to the point of a Grimm’s fairy tale — horrifying if you look at it literally and in full detail, but diluted into a story safe for children, complete with drips of sweet wine to soften the gore and savagery.

Before condemning Jews for hypocrisy in forgetting their history, recognize that many religions similarly gloss over aspects of their sacred texts that don’t mix well with their modern sensibilities. How many Biblical literalists cleave to the elements of, say, Leviticus, with its calls for stoning certain women to death (20:27), burning certain daughters (21:9) or instructions on how to manage your slaves (25:45-46)?

 

2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia

Hoplophobia, n. Irrational morbid fear of guns (c. 1966, coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek hoplites, weapon; see his book Principles of Personal Defense). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, fantasizing, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack, desperate effort at avoidance. Hoplophobe, hoplophobic. http://www.gunlaws.com/GunPhobia.htm

Dr. Sarah Thompson, M.D., in her ground-breaking essay on the subject, Raging Against Self Defense, pointed out that hoplophobes often use the psychological defense mechanism of projection in dealing with their fear. Unable or unsure of their ability to control their own internal conflicts, they project their conflicts onto people around them. They fear losing control, going berserk, shooting people around them or shooting themselves in a mad, chaotic expression of rage. It’s only natural for them to then assume that anyone else with a gun could or would do the same; the occasional madman serves to reinforce their fears.

This explains at last the perpetual hysteria that proclaims, every time a Second Amendment infringement is lifted: we will suffer shootouts at stop lights, slow waiters murdered on the spot, or Dodge City bloodshed as a result. Every new carry-permit law, the repeal of the National Parks possession ban, the expired Clinton-era rifle bans, lifted restrictions for adult gun carry on campuses — all were met with the same barrage of irrational fears. It is a knee-jerk mantra loudly shouted and then brazenly promoted by an unethical media every time.

And the imagined fear? It never manifests. It is but an empty neurotic fantasy. Media corrections are never published, and so the fantasies and lies are repeated and recycled. Shame on those who would forever repeat the same absurd lies, never recant, and refuse to seek help for their neuroses.

We must show tolerance and understand: Facts mean little to people with morbid irrational fears. The fears just continue. Hoplophobes need treatment and sympathy, not laws infringing on the body politic. Some of what we think of as a political issue — so-called “gun control” — is actually a psychiatric condition, a medical problem.

 

Hoplophobes need treatment and sympathy,
not laws infringing on the body politic.

 

The hoplophobic condition also manifests itself as a fear that if the afflicted person had a gun, someone would kill them with their own gun. Of course if this had merit, Jews could have killed their assailants with their own guns throughout history.

Jews and liberals alike appear to suffer from hoplophobia in disproportionate numbers for reasons that beg to be researched. The controversial Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association, now in review for its 5th edition (due May 2013) has yet to recognize or address the widespread phenomenon of gun phobias. We’re told by one expert this is not the purpose of that book: irrational fear of spiders, water, even open spaces, yes; terrifying irrational fear of guns, the very bulwark of liberty, no. Coincidentally, the psychiatric profession has an unusually large Jewish contingent, and its founders were disproportionately Jewish.

 

3. A quest for power through victimization of peers

In our culture, victimization accords moral authority and thus power to the victim. Subjugating or convincing a constituency to accept victimization cedes power to those perpetuating this harmful ruse on their peers. This is despicably immoral — but it is tacitly acceptable and all too commonplace in our victimization culture. Just think of how many “rights” organizations claim moral authority and power through victimization.

Blacks have been largely convinced by their leaders to avoid guns (rap “music” notwithstanding) leaving them reliant on police who are, historically, often perceived poorly by the black community. Who among American blacks trusts police implicitly? Such trust may be irrational, but no one claims humans act rationally all or even most of the time. The people know instinctively they cannot trust government agents for their safety, yet they are left to wish for such illusory protection.

A near-perfect parallel exists with respect to Jews. Governments are historically the greatest threat to Jews (or anyone), responsible for horrendous mass-murder campaigns and pogroms throughout history. Murder by government, democide, is by far the greatest killer of innocent human beings. People imbued with the intoxicating power of government authority exterminated 262 million people in the 20th century, according to political scientist R. J. Rummel. Murderous criminals don’t hold a candle to the deadly threat government poses to the public.

Yet Jewish leaders — in Congress of all places (e.g., Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Barney Frank, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, others) — are the anti-rights leaders on the self-defense gun issue. They are the very strongest proponents of relying on government for safety and of destroying the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Somehow, America’s liberal Jews expect the police to protect them, a reliance that has failed the Jews throughout history.

As you may already know, police are actually free of any legal obligation to protect you, as documented for all 50 states inDial 911 and Die (Attorney Richard W. Stevens, Mazel Freedom Press, 1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this repeatedly, most recently in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

 

4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,” crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place

This basic liberal tenet of faith has been around since time immemorial, and afflicts Jews in disproportionate numbers. Jews are fond of saying that if guns would just go away, the world would be a better place. They fail to look back in history, to a time before guns existed, and recall the incredible savagery that took place without guns available for protection. Life back then was brutal, and encouraged: “Doom them to destruction: grant them no quarter” (Deuteronomy 7:1-2).

Our world bristling with arms is a more decent and safe place to live than the ancient world. People blind themselves to this reality, and pop culture — when it isn’t promoting Hollywood-style machine-gun silliness — enforces the false notion that a total gun ban would bring world peace.

This utopian “vision” is supposedly supported by Isaiah’s prophecy of a Messianic future, when “they shall beat their spears into pruning hooks”, when “the lion shall lie down with the lamb.” Prophetic it may be, but as instructions for living, it’s a recipe for death and destruction, and Jews are also instructed otherwise (but often prefer to ignore the inconvenient): “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, I am strong” (Joel 4:9). Put down your arms in the face of a vicious enemy and you will suffer the fate of the lamb who lies down with the lion.

America’s Jews often hold to a dangerous related myth that violence never solves anything. Like so many platitudes it is appealing, with enormous first-blush power. Yet it is self-evidently preposterous — any degree of thought spoils the sweet image: Hitler, Hezbollah, Haman and the other hordes are not stopped with peace marches, protest rallies, and clever signs.

 

Hitler, Hezbollah, Haman and the other hordes
are not stopped with peace marches,
protest rallies, and clever signs.

 

Despots are overthrown by force or the credible threat of force. Brutal criminals bent on rape and murder are not held back by intellectual prowess or Messianic visions — they are held back either by the brutal stopping power of a well-aimed bullet or by caging them when captured. It is the unfortunate reality of this harsh world: countervailing force is the only deterrent for aggression. American Jews, irrationally, reject this. They’re free to do so, but they have no legitimate moral authority to drag anyone else into that lethal tar pit with them.

Many Jews also cling to the notion that “it can’t happen here,” which is what many believed even as the Holocaust was taking place. This is ironically contradictory to the simultaneous militance implied by “Never Again!”

 

“Deliberate misuse of guns by miscreants
does not define guns. ”

 

And finally, some Jews hold to the notion that weapons are unacceptable because violence is unacceptable. The fact that guns save lives, guns stop crime, guns protect you, and guns are the reason Israel still stands, are blacked out of any thought process. They would have you believe (and they falsely believe) that guns are designed for murder. Murder is illegal. Guns are properly designed — for protection. Killing to protect is legal, moral, just and virtually universally sanctioned. Deliberate misuse of guns by miscreants does not define guns.

 

5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based behavioral problems that develop in childhood

The founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the late Aaron Zelman, framed this succinctly with many Jews he met. They would express outrage at Aaron’s classical approach of arming for safety, peace through strength and deterrence as a means of achieving peace and stability (which is Israel’s approach, though he didn’t frame it in those terms). They would emphatically reject the idea that all Jews should be educated to arms and know how to handle and shoot guns for their own safety. He could see through their self-righteous bluster and tell them, “You’re just a self-hating Jew waiting to sniff the gas.”

 

6. The Ostrich Syndrome

Some people are inherently weak-willed and live without a strong moral compass. They are eager to simplify their lives and avoid uncomfortable situations. Unwilling to face the harsh realities of life, they would prefer to ignore guns and pretend the need for self defense will go away if they pay it no heed. It is irrational, yes, but understandable when you consider the psyche that generates such thinking.

These people, Jews and Gentiles alike, will say things like, “I don’t believe in guns,” as if they don’t exist, or as if their purported non-belief makes the subject evaporate and obviates the possibility of encountering a situation in which self defense is necessary. It is foolhardy and dangerous, but an ostrich with its head in the sand probably feels just fine… until it is devoured.

 

7. Garden-variety hypocrisy

While many Jews say they detest guns, they in fact staunchly support guns, so long as the guns are in the hands of “the proper authorities.” On a civil level today, that means the police. So in reality, so-called anti-gun-rights Jews are really very pro-gun-rights, they just want someone else to hold the guns for them. This is not only hypocritical, it is immoral.

 

“So-called anti-gun-rights Jews
are really very pro-gun-rights,
they just want someone else
to hold the guns for them. ”

 

Attorney Jeff Snyder points out, in his globally famous book Nation of Cowards, that expecting other people to risk their lives to save yours cannot be supported in a moral way: “If you believe it is reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?… Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 yearly salary we pay him?” He asks: if your life is worth protecting, whose responsibility is it to protect it? The full weight of his arguments repeatedly come back to personal responsibility.

 

8. Adulterated religion — Jews In Name Only (JINOs)

Arizona-based historian Michael E. Newton, author of The Path to Tyranny (Elephtheria Publishing, 2010), posits that part of the problem rests with Jews who no longer believe in Judaism, and have replaced their previous religion with a popular new one: so-called “social justice.” If a Biblically-based value system no longer drives protection of the G-d-given gift of life, then abandoning the right to self defense poses little moral dilemma. Jews who are only or barely culturally Jewish have little reason to rise up to the standards Jewish Law speaks of explicitly: “If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first” (Talmud, Berakoth 58b).

 

“If a man comes to kill you,
rise early and kill him first”
(Talmud, Berakoth 58b).

 

Newton observes that, “In times of trouble, religious Jews offer prayers to G-d in the hope that He will help. Secular Jews turn to the government instead to protect and defend them. The Bible says, �Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor.’ Not only can we defend our neighbor from attack, in Torah Law we are commanded to do so. That we must also defend ourselves is so patently obvious in Jewish Law that no defense or justification is given for it.

“Who is more religious? The secular Jew who believes government police forces will defend them or the religious Jew who trusts in G-d but also believes that G-d gave us the strength, right, and even the commandment to defend ourselves?”

The entire anti-rights issue on guns may be a tangent to this perhaps larger issue: Why are the nation’s Jews predominantly liberal Democrats, leaning heavily toward statism, socialism, progressivism, and nanny-state protection and social order? Why don’t they instead gravitate toward human freedom, individual rights and responsibility, and avoidance of the heavy hand of government? Liberal Democrats, in large measure, hate guns and gun owners too, so there would seem to be a degree of go along to get along.

And what of the Israel Paradox? American Jews by and large vigorously support armed defense of the Jewish state, yet persistently work to disarm the American public. That such positions are self-contradictory and hypocritical never crosses their minds. These conundrums leave us baffled.

 

Continue reading…

From JPFO, here.

8 Ways Modern Halacha Has Been Corrupted

Current State of the Law in Today’s Times
The Web of 8 Factors

Scope: This article is humbly aimed at the entire observant Jewish world: including the religious leadership, talmidei chachamim, talmidei chaverim and “the rest of” Am Yisrael.

——————————————————————-

In my humble assessment, there is a “web of 8 factors” that is now disrupting our ability to accurately understand, apply and disseminate Jewish Law – in terms of what is permitted and forbidden. This is having a harmful effect on Jewish continuity, and needs to be taken more seriously. This “web of 8 factors” will be addressed below in detail. The bad news is that many “Observant” Jews are oblivious to the effects of these ensnaring factors, and the interference it sometimes has on the accurate purveyance of Torath Moshe. Unfortunately, some of our righteous Jewish scholars and teachers have also unknowingly fallen prey to this “web of 8 factors.” I suspect that a few might even be shocked after being shown these corruptions.1  From a thousand feet up, this lack of correct understanding and dissemination, which many times translates into a lack of perceived moral clarity, is hurting our people. Besides being fodder for some minim and apicorsim, the ramifications of “non-authentic” dogmatic transmission is also hurting our efforts at Jewish continuity and Qiruv. Come on folks. Our kids want the original stuff, and can smell when something is off. We need to do better. The good news is that this can all be corrected.

Many Jews have instinctively sensed this condition for years, but have not known what to do about it – without being estranged from the community. This lack of guidance leaves many “regular but scholarly Jews” in a state of dazed bewilderment. Unfortunately, the only thing left for them to do is to pick a Rabbi “to hold by” – without understanding the legal implications and liabilities that are still incumbent upon them to fulfill. But what can be done to ease their souls? After all, only qualified scholars can study and understand these issues… right? (To be addressed later).

RaMb’M Raised Red Flag On This Very Issue

On the leadership side, most of our Rabbis and Teachers are moving along with the purest of intentions2. Unfortunately, many box themselves (and their followers) into corners, by forcing themselves to rely upon a roughly-woven mesh of later-day legal precedents and opinions – which have been drastically altered over time. What other choice do they have – is the common explanation. This phenomenon is described further as one of the 8 factors below. Unfortunately, this diminishes the ability to understand and demonstrate the legal issues involved – to their flocks. And while no one would dare deny the greatness and need for strong Rabbonim, the ability to identify and understand the sources is not what it used to be – for anyone. And while no one wants to directly question the leaders of our generation in this respect (by presenting them with a dirty laundry list of corrupted practices), RaMb”M raised a red flag on this very issue – over 800 years ago – when the scholarship was undeniably much higher! In my humble assessment, we really need to replay this warning again, before this generation gets swallowed up (Heaven forbid) in the WEB OF 8 FACTORS.

——————————————————-

Question: But before you start this article, why is it really so important to know what is prohibited and what it forbidden in the first place?

Answer: Well, according to RaMb”M, the ultimate tranquility of earth (and the world to come) depends upon it! So yes, it is really important to get these things right.

RaMb”M answers: “I believe that no one should stroll through the garden of Jewish mysticism unless his belly is filled with bread and meat, by which I mean knowledge of what is prohibited and permitted and similar issues relating to the other commandments. Even though these matters were called ‘minor’ by the sages (who said that Ma’aseh Bereshith & Merqavah is a major matter and the halachic discussions of Abaye and Rava are relatively minor matters), it is still appropriate to master the latter first, since they provide basic mental tranquility to an individual. They are a gift of God to promote social tranquility on earth so that we may inherit the world to come.” (RAMBAM – Maimonides)

TOP MENU
——————————————————-

The Web of 8 Factors:

To Avoid The Web of 8 Factors – You First Have To Know What They Are:

In quick summary, the following factors have contributed to our current inability to accurately understand and purvey the requirements of Halakha:

Factor #1) The current refusal by (~ half) of our leadership to admit that all “legislation” that came after Rav Ashi & Ravina’s court is still non-authoritative – even though the exact opposite perception has been (and is still being) perpetuated and popularized to the masses – by many of our “leaders”. My source for this statement is over 40 years of direct observation.3

Factor #2) The ever-increasing level of pilpul & some chidushim (new understandings) – that take unjustified liberties in unnecessarily reinterpreting, coloring or even adding to (or diminishing from) the law. More often than not, these well-intentioned additions wind up causing the exact opposite result that is trying to be accomplished in the first place.4

This is a great sorrow for me – because most of the time – a more detailed (and systemic) analysis of the Mishneh Torah shows these are not real problems in the first place at all – and can be debunked with logic and accurate texts of the Mishneh Torah!

Factor #3) The inability of many of today’s teachers and students to admit that they are not qualified (without intensive study of the Mishneh Torah) to correctly deduce the “fully settled” legal issues that were agreed upon by the last legitimate Sanhedrin (and last court of Rav Ashe and Ravinah). Besides the effects of the long exile, the most basic prerequisite for Talmudic understanding of the Oral Law requires a complete and total mastery of the entire Talmud Bavli AND all of the associated, accompanying works required for its elucidation – in a way that completely, contextually, systemically and fully grasps all of these sources together – in an interconnected way. And over here, we are merely speaking about this as a prerequisite for the possibility of being able to correctly learn or teach Talmud – in order to deduce the LAW (which is a really bad idea). The RaMb”M explains why people in his own society were not fully capable of deducing these things – and EVEN MORE SO does this apply to our own times. If in his own times, people were not qualified, how can anyone seriously think they are somehow more-qualified than people that were much closer in time, place and accuracy to the original source materials? 

Regarding the ability to learn, my Rav haMuvhaq writes:

“Those who just learn Bavli – without all the earlier and basic Israeli texts (Mishnah, Tosefta, Mekhiltot, Sifra, Sifrey, and Yerushalmi) are simply FOOLING themselves (in terms of understanding it). Bavli was written in the context of the earlier works – just as it was written in the context of the TN”K. They often  bring [only] short phrases, referring to the whole of the matter in the earlier work, whether TN”K or Israeli works, and they MEAN the whole matter in its whole context — not just these words taken out of context. Thus, almost no one today has any idea what they are reading in the Bavli, as they jump into the Bavli without the foundations. It is like studying integral calculus without learning arithmetic, algebra, and trig.”

However; all that being said, we should still aspire to learn the texts of the Oral Law. But how so? In this article, we are merely arguing the reason(s) how we should or should not learn or rely upon the actual books of Talmud Bavli and associated works (to deduce the law) – and what should be the priority. In terms of law, the priority is to learn & rely upon Mishneh Torah as our legal filter – for the many reasons listed in this article. About the Mishneh Torah, RaMb”M wrote: “Thus, I have called this work the [Complete] Restatement of the [Oral] Law (Mishneh Torah), for a person reads the Written Torah first and then reads this work, and knows from it the entire Oral Law, without needing to read any other book between them.”

Regarding the need for Talmudic study (and related works), one can click here for more information. Heaven forbid you think we are dissing Talmudic study!

Factor #4) Subjective & strong cultural loyalties, lineages and / or political motives still keep people from objectively examining the accuracy of the traditions they have been handed & continue to transmit. When we are sure, why would correcting them be an affront to our ancestors. 5

Factor #5) Many times, mystical influence is been allowed to trump existing law, when there is no legitimate legal authority to change the law that came from the last legitimate Sanhedrin, which preserved the legacy of Beit Hillel.

Factor #6) Lack of quality study time and commitment. If your not studying at a fixed time, your not learning properly! Stop kidding yourself.

Factor #7) Low study skill levels. For example: an inability or lack of desire to use an “Even HaShushan” dictionary. Another example relates to the lack of a proper Rav or Moreh to learn from in a way that incorporates Hebrew and participation.

Factor #8) Previous censorship of Jewish manuscripts – that continues to have profound effects on our critical manuscripts (even תלמוד בבלי) – to this day. For most, this is a hard pill to swallow. There is definitely a ‘lack of access’ to pristinely preserved texts. Although not a major factor, it still plays a role. One famous example can be seen in the terms used to describe the definitions of Gevil (for Sifrei Torah), Qlaf (for Tefillin) and Duchsustos (for Mezuzoth). Some versions distort the meaning of these terms, through the obvious copyist errors. 6

To make matters worse, these problems have been around for hundreds of years now. Without going into all the problems mentioned by RAMBAM (even in his own times), what is a descent truth-seeking Jew or Ben Noach supposed to do today, in order to know the requirements of the law?

———————————

Below, we explain why the Mishneh Torah is this only extant reliable source we currently have, and how it can unite our people.

From Chayas, here.

‘Can A Pit Be Filled With Its Own Earth?’

Keynes Must Die

By

May 23, 2016

In 2012, Barack Obama warned that the United States would fall into a depression if Ron Paul’s plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget were enacted.

Wait, I beg your pardon. It wasn’t Obama who warned that budget cuts would lead to a depression.

It was Mitt Romney.

Romney went on to become the nominee of the self-described free-market party.

An ideological rout is complete when both sides of respectable opinion take its basic ideas for granted. That’s how complete the Keynesian victory has been.

In fact, Keynesianism had swept the boards a decade before Romney was even born.

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, the seminal treatise by John Maynard Keynes, appeared during the Great Depression, a time when a great many people were beginning to doubt the merits and resilience of capitalism. It was a work of economic theory, but its boosters insisted that it also offered practical answers to urgent, contemporary questions like: how had the Depression occurred, and why was it lasting so long?

The answer to both questions, according to Keynes and his followers, was the same: not enough government intervention.

Now as Murray N. Rothbard showed in his 1963 book America’s Great Depression, and as Lionel Robbins and others had written at the time, the Depression had certainly not been caused by too little government intervention. It was caused by the world’s government-privileged central banks, and it was prolonged by the various quack remedies that governments kept trotting out.

But that wasn’t a thesis governments were eager to hear. Government officials were rather more attracted to the message Keynes was sending them: the free market can lead to depressions, and prosperity requires more government spending and intervention.

Let’s say a brief word about the book that launched this ideological revolution. If I may put it kindly, the General Theory was not the kind of text one might expect to sweep the boards.

Paul Samuelson, who went on to become one of the most notable American popularizers of Keynesianism, admitted in a candid moment that when he first read the book, he “did not at all understand what it was about.” “I think I am giving away no secrets,” he went on, “when I solemnly aver – upon the basis of vivid personal recollection – that no one else in Cambridge, Massachusetts, really knew what it was all about for some twelve to eighteen months after publication.”

The General Theory, he said,

is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who, beguiled by the author’s previous reputation bought the book, was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use. It is arrogant, bad-tempered, polemical, and not overly generous in its acknowledgments. It abounds in mares’ nests and confusions.… In short, it is a work of genius.

Murray N. Rothbard, who after the death of Ludwig von Mises was considered the dean of the Austrian School of economics, wrote several major economic critiques of Keynes, along with a lengthy and revealing biographical essay about the man. The first of these critiques came in the form of an essay written when Murray was just 21 years old: “Spotlight on Keynesian Economics.” The second appeared in his 1962 treatise Man, Economy and State,and the third as a chapter in his book For a New Liberty.

Murray minced no words, referring to Keynesianism as “the most successful and pernicious hoax in the history of economic thought.” “All of the Keynesian thinking,” he added, “is a tissue of distortions, fallacies, and drastically unrealistic assumptions.”

Beyond the problems with the Keynesian system were the unfortunate traits of Keynes himself. I will let Murray describe them to you:

The first was his overweening egotism, which assured him that he could handle all intellectual problems quickly and accurately and led him to scorn any general principles that might curb his unbridled ego. The second was his strong sense that he was born into, and destined to be a leader of, Great Britain’s ruling elite….

The third element was his deep hatred and contempt for the values and virtues of the bourgeoisie, for conventional morality, for savings and thrift, and for the basic institutions of family life.

While a student at Cambridge University, Keynes belonged to an exclusive and secretive group called the Apostles. This membership fed his egotism and his contempt for others. He wrote in a private letter, “Is it monomania – this colossal moral superiority that we feel? I get the feeling that most of the rest [of the world outside the Apostles] never see anything at all – too stupid or too wicked.”

As a young man, Keynes and his friends became what he himself described as “immoralists.” In a 1938 paper called “My Early Beliefs,” he wrote:

We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its merits, and the wisdom to do so successfully. This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held, and for the outer world it was our most obvious and dangerous characteristic. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdom. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term, immoralists.

Keynes was 55 years old when he delivered that paper. And even at that advanced stage of his life he could affirm that immoralism is “still my religion under the surface.… I remain and always will remain an immoralist.”

In economics, Keynes exhibited the same kind of approach he had taken toward philosophy and life in general. “I am afraid of ‘principle,’” he told a parliamentary committee in 1930. That, of course, is the attitude of anyone who craves influence and the exercise of power; principle would only get in the way of these things.

Thus, Keynes supported free trade, then turned on a dime in 1931 and became a protectionist, then during World War II favored free trade again. As Murray puts it, “Never did any soul-searching or even hesitation hobble his lightning-fast changes.”

The General Theory broke down the world’s population into several groups, each with its own characteristics. Here Keynes was able to vent his lifelong hatreds.

First, there was the great mass of consumers, dumb and robotic, whose consumption decisions were fixed and determined by outside forces, such that Keynes could reduce them to a “consumption function.”

Then there was a subset of consumers, the bourgeois savers, whom Keynes especially despised. In the past, such people had been praised for their thrift, which made possible the investment that raised living standards. But the Keynesian system severed the link between savings and investment, claiming that the two had nothing to do with each other.  Savings were, in fact, a drag on the system, Keynes said, and could generate recessions and depressions.

Thus, did Keynes dethrone the bourgeoisie and their traditional claim to moral respectability. Thrift was foolishness, not wisdom.

The third group was the investors. Here Keynes was somewhat more favorable. The activities of these people could not be reduced to a mathematical function. They were dynamic and free. Unfortunately, they were also given to wild, irrational swings in behavior and outlook. These irrational swings set the economy on a roller coaster.

And now we arrive at a fourth and final group. This group is supremely rational, economically knowledgeable, and indispensable to economic stability. This group can override the foolish decisions of the others and keep the economy from falling into depressions or inflationary excess.

You probably won’t be shocked to learn that the far-seeing wizards who comprise Keynes’s fourth group are government officials.

To understand exactly what Keynes expected government officials to do, let’s say a brief word about the economic system Keynes developed in the General Theory. His primary claim is that the market economy is given to a chronic state of underemployment of resources. If it is not to descend into and remain mired in depression, it requires the wise supervision and interventions of the political class.

Again, we may safely reject the possibility that the political classes of the Western world embraced Keynesianism because politicians had made a profound study of the works of Keynes. To the contrary, Keynesianism appealed to two overriding motivations of government officials: their need to appear indispensable, and their urge to wield power. Keynesianism dangled these ideas before the political class, who in turn responded like salivating dogs. There wasn’t anything more romantic or dignified to it than that, I am sorry to report.

By the early 1970s, however, Keynesian economics had suffered a devastating blow. Or, to adopt Murray’s more colorful phrase, it had become “dead from the neck up.”

Keynesianism could not account for the stagflation, or inflationary recession, that the U.S. experienced in the ’70s.

It was supposed to be the role of the Keynesian planners to steer the economy in such a way as to avoid the twin threats of an overheating, inflationary economy and an underperforming, depressed economy. During a boom, Keynesian planners were to “sop up excess purchasing power” by raising taxes and taking spending out of the economy. During a depression, Keynesians were to lower taxes and increase government spending in order to inject spending into the economy.

But in an inflationary recession, this entire approach had to be thrown out. The inflationary part meant spending had to be reduced, but the recession part meant spending had to be increased. How, Murray asked, could the Keynesian planners do both at once?

They couldn’t, of course, which is why Keynesianism began to wane in the 1970s, though it has made an unwelcome comeback since the 2008 financial crisis.

Murray had dismantled the Keynesian system on a more fundamental level in Man, Economy, and State. He showed that the relationships between large economic aggregates that Keynesians posited, and which were essential to their system, did not hold after all. And he exploded the major concepts employed in the Keynesian analysis: the consumption function, the multiplier, and the accelerator, for starters.

Now, why does any of this matter today?

The errors of Keynes have empowered sociopathic political classes all over the world and deprived the world of the economic progress we would otherwise have enjoyed.

Japan is a great example of Keynesian devastation: the Nikkei 225, which hit 38,500 in 1990, has never managed to reach even half that level since. A quarter century ago the index of industrial production in Japan was at 96.8; after 25 years of aggressive Keynesian policy that gave Japan the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world, the index of industrial production is…still 96.8.

The United States, meanwhile, has had sixteen years of fiscal stimulus or preposterously low-interest rates, all of which Keynesians have cheered. The result? Two million fewer breadwinner jobs than when Bill Clinton left office.

No amount of stimulus ever seems to be quite enough. And when the stimulus fails, the blinkered Keynesian establishment can only think to double down, never to question the policy itself. But there is an alternative, and it’s the one Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises championed: the Austrian School of economics and its analysis of the pure market economy.

Against the entire edifice of establishment opinion, the Mises Institute stands as a rebuke. To the dissidents, to the intellectually curious, to those inclined to be skeptical of so-called experts who have brought us nothing but ruin, the Mises Institute has been a beacon.

We have trained an entire generation of Austrian scholars, journalists, and financial professionals. We put in the hard work so that when a catastrophe like the 2008 crisis occurred, an Austrian response was ready.

But with your help, we can do so much more. The Keynesians are pretending they have everything under control, but we know that’s a fantasy. An even greater opportunity than 2008 awaits us, and we want to help guide public opinion and train a cadre of bright young scholars for that day. With your help, we can, at last, awaken from the Keynesian nightmare.

As the Korean translator of an Austrian text put it, “Keynes must die so the economy may live.” With your help, we can hasten that glorious day.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

Zilberman – Returning To Tradition

The Zilberman Method

by |

The past few decades have witnessed the rapid growth of Yeshivot that adhere to what is known as “The Zilberman Model” in the world of Jewish Education. Yeshivot across the spectrum, from Jerusalem to Johannesburg to Toronoto, have adapted the Zilberman model of education. What exactly is the Zilberman method, and why has it become so popular in recent years?

Some fifty years ago, following the birth of his first son, Rabbi Yitzchok Shlomo Zilberman undertook the study of the sources concerning the mitzvah of talmud Torah. After consulting with the Torah leaders of his day, and receiving encouragement from the preeminent Torah sage Dayan Yechezkel Abramsky, the well known educator from Jerusalem created the method that bears his name. His yeshivah presently located in the Old City of Jerusalem, Aderet Eliyahu, is the forerunner to some forty elementary schools that are based on his model. These schools are found in Israel as well as in Johannesburg, South Africa; Toronto, Canada; Lakewood, New Jersey; Los Angeles, California; and Baltimore, Maryland. The yeshivot use a somewhat modified form of the method used by Aderet Eliyahu.

Far from being a revolutionary approach, the Zilberman method draws upon traditional teaching methods as outlined by Chazal and championed by the Maharal and Vilna Gaon. The Mishnah and the Gemara set forth halachic guidelines for teaching Torah to children. These guidelines include the ages at which texts should be studied (“Five years old is the age to begin studying Scripture; ten for Mishnah; thirteen for the obligation of the commandments; fifteen for the study of Talmud…” [Avot 5:21]), the times of study (including Shabbat for children; Hachazan roeh heichan tinokot korin– the chazzan observes [on Shabbat] where [in the text] the children are reading [Shabbat 11a, Rashi, Ran]) and the manner of teaching (safi lei k’tura–stuffing the children like oxen [Ketubot 50a]; ligmar inish v’hadar lisbor–read the text and then explain it [Shabbat 63a]).

The Zilberman method has children focus exclusively on Tanach and Mishnah in their younger years, ensuring that they know large portions of both areas by heart before they begin learning Gemara. Indeed, graduates of such schools tend to have impressive fluency in these areas. Two key elements in Zilberman’s methodology, however, must be singled out: chazarah (review) and student participation.

In the Zilberman-styled school, a new text of Chumash is introduced in the following manner (obviously adjustments are made for each grade level). On Monday and Tuesday, the rebbe chants the text with the ta’amei ha’mikra (tropp) and the students immediately imitate him. This is repeated several times until the students are able to read the text independently. Then the rebbe introduces the translation/explanation of the text and invites students to participate in the process. New words typically need to be translated only once; subsequently, students are encouraged to call out the translation on their own. All translations are strictly literal. If the translation does not automatically yield a comprehensible meaning, the students are invited to try to find one. The class spends the rest of the week reviewing the material. Each pasuk is reviewed with the tropp at least twenty-four times.

In contrast, in the majority of other schools, the text is not sung with tropp; it is not repeated to the point of memorization and often the entire translation is provided by the rebbe. Furthermore, students are not encouraged to join in the process of translating the words, and usually the translation provides the final understanding of the verse rather than the literal meaning of each word.

What are some of salutary effects of the Zilberman method?

1. Students are continuously and actively involved in the learning process.

2. The constant review guarantees that the children will know the text by heart. This leads to the feeling of mastery, and sets the standard for all Torah learning–mastery. And mastery leads to simchah (joy).

3. Participation in the translation and explanation of the text initiates the student to the process of learning Torah and to his own capabilites. He is not just witnessing the mysterious genius of the rebbe; he is contributing his own intelligence to the process.

4. Mastery leads to penetrating discussions of the text because the students have the whole text before them. So students may be propelled to ask, “How can it be that Yaval invented shepherding if Hevel was a shepherd earlier?” (Did you notice that when you were studying Bereishit at age six?) Then the rebbe draws the student’s attention to Rashi, who explains that Yaval invented nomadic shepherding. Now the student understands what motivated Rashi to provide that particular explanation!

5. Believe it or not, the various benefits listed above generate within students a genuine and deep love of learning. Students do not want to miss yeshivah–some even refuse to take vacations.

The Zilberman Philosophy
The Zilberman philosophy of Talmud Torah is based on an understanding of the nature of mitzvot in general. Every mitzvah has two components: the rules and the goals of the mitzvah. The detailed rules concerning how to perform the mitzvah are the halachot of the mitzvah. Then there are the goals that the performance of a mitzvah should attempt to achieve (although the mesorah does not reveal the goals of every mitzvah). When we plan to do a mitzvah, we seek strategies to both assist in the practice of the halachah and to enhance attainment of the goals of the mitzvah. These strategies may include any means that do not violate Torah norms. However, an appeal to these strategies is not an adequate reason to reject implementing any part of the mesorah-definition of the mitzvah, i.e., the halachah and the goals.

We accept that the halachic rules are nonnegotiable for two reasons:

a.We recognize that while often a purpose of the halachot is to achieve (one or more of ) the goals, the relationship between the two (i.e., the halachot and the goals) is deeper than what we can comprehend.

b. Mitzvot have ta’amim that are often not revealed to us.

When exceptional circumstances arise that demand changing certain details that the mesorah or the halachah set forth, we must look for guidance to the Torah sages of the generation to instruct us in making adjustments.

Consider tefillah as an example. The goal of tefillah is essentially to connect one with Hashem. To this end, kavanah, concentration on the meaning and text of the prayers, is an integral part of the mitzvah of tefillah. One aspect of the halachically defined practice of tefillah is praying from a fixed text. In certain cases where there is tension between the halachic practice of tefillah and the goal of the mitzvah (connection through kavanah) the pesak (formal halachic ruling) is to sacrifice halachic form for the sake of the substance of the mitzvah. A case in point is the abbreviated text of tefillah known as Havinenu, created specifically for travelers. Furthermore, those returning from a trip were excused from tefillah altogether. The practice of the mitzvah was modified because one praying while traveling or returning from a trip is unable to have appropriate concentration. Thus, the form of the mitzvah was adjusted for the sake of the substance of the mitzvah.

Contrast this with the halachot relevant to an avel, a mourner. The halachah requires a mourner to pray even though he may be totally distracted, because he is required to overcome his grief enough to have proper concentration. But what if a mourner can’t overcome his grief. Is he therefore exempt from praying? No, the halachah says, he is not. The halachah dictates that in some cases lack of concentration overrides tefillah and in other cases, it does not.

Far from being a revolutionary approach, the Zilberman method draws upon traditional teaching methods as outlined by Chazal and championed by the Maharal and Vilna Gaon.

The halachic rules of a mitzvah are the fundamental Masoretic prescription for attaining the goals of the mitzvah. Unless the circumstances are halachically exceptional, this methodology is the standard that must be followed. To deviate from the prescription requires a demonstration that the circumstances are relevantly exceptional. And when the circumstances change so that they are no longer exceptional, the original position returns as binding.

The application to talmud Torah is straightforward. Children should be educated in accordance with the educational methodology outlined by Chazal. Some maintain that because the Haskalah, the Jewish Enlightenment, emphasized the study of Tanach, it was discouraged in certain religious circles. However, nowadays, the Haskalah no longer presents the same threat; thus, the time has come to reinstate the primacy of Tanach in the yeshivah curriculum.

The mesorah also defines goals for talmud Torah: getting children to know and understand the material, to love the process of learning, and to develop into ovdei Hashem. To achieve these goals, it is appropriate to use any devices that have demonstrated effectiveness, as long as they do not violate other Torah norms. These may include employing visual aids and group activities, learning through play, writing summaries of lessons, using oral and written exams, relating the material to the lives of the students to make the lessons more relevant and vivid, using activities to promote bonding between teacher and students, et cetera. But none of these devices can serve as the basis for contradicting the mesorah-definition of the mitzvah.

So, for example, we want the children to enjoy the learning, as a means to come to love the process. Many children will not naturally enjoy learning the rules of tumah and taharah, or the architecture of the mishkan, or the list of places that Klal Yisrael passed during their travels in the desert. But that is no reason to omit those sections of Chumash from the curriculum. Similarly, since the halachic rules of Talmud Torah require knowing and mastering Chumash, not merely having read it, dislike of the chazarah needed for mastery is not a reason to omit the repetition (see Avodah Zarah 19a). Moreover, the fact that many nine-year-olds can understand parts of mishnayot is not an adequate reason to change the ages Chazal prescribed for the study of the texts.

There is an even deeper principle for following the dictates of Chazal with regard to educational philosophy. Talmud Torah is a mitzvah. It is not the Jewish counterpart of Greek philosophy, or of contemporary advanced education. A mitzvah is a way in which Hakadosh Baruch Hu ordained that the Creation receives its tikkun, rectification. The mitzvot were given by the Creator Who knows what His Creation needs. He is aware of the nature of His people to whom He has addressed these mitzvot and the nature of the circumstances in which they live. Tampering with the mesorah-definition of a mitzvah is thus ruled out (unless the circumstances can be shown to be halachically exceptional). In other words, changing practice–failing to perform the mitzvah in the way that the mesorah defines–risks lessening or even entirely forfeiting the spiritual effect of the mitzvah; that is, it risks losing everything. For this very reason we would never dream of changing the mesorah-definition of other mitzvot (unless the circumstances can be shown to be halachically exceptional). The four cups of wine at the Pesach Seder may give one headaches until Shavuot and therefore seemingly negate any feelings of freedom that they are intended to induce. Similarly, blowing loud noises with a shofar in a public setting may not appear to be conducive to inspiring teshuvah to one who needs quiet to contemplate. And keeping Shabbat when one is facing severe economic difficulties may cause physical hardship and emotional distress, which seem far from menuchah, the rest that is an integral part of the mitzvah of Shabbat. Nevertheless, no one would suggest that the halachot should be modified for any of these cases.

Ramchal (Derech Etz Chaim) says that the Torah study of young children subdues the powers of evil in a uniquely effective way since they are entirely free from the yetzer hara (evil inclination). The Zohar (Introduction, p. 6) says, “the voice [sic] of tinokot shel beit rabban preserves the world, causes the Avot to appear, and through these children the world is saved.” The Midrash Tanchuma (Parashat Tzav) states: “Why do tinokot shel beit rabban begin with Vayikra? Because Vayikra records all the korbanot and the children are tahorim. Let the tahorim come and occupy themselves with the actions that require taharah, and I [Hakadosh Baruch Hu] regard it as if you brought the korbanot before Me.”

The Maharal (Derush al HaTorah) says that Torah is sechel Eloki (the wisdom of Hashem) and thus naturally foreign to the human mind. Therefore the order Chazal advocated for teaching Torah must be followed to gradually introduce this “foreign” element to our children.

Still another advocate for returning to tradition was Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler (Michtav MeEliyahu, vol. 3, p. 362), who states that the teaching of the aleph bet in the traditional manner [“kametz alef ah….”] “infuses the child with kedushah and chavivut [affection], which lead to yirat Shamayim and love [for Hakadosh Baruch Hu]–and that is ikar halimud, and therefore one must not change the method.” Rabbi Dessler states that he heard similar ideas from the Chazon Ish many times.

In all these sources there is not a word about educational efficiency. Rather, the mitzvah of talmud Torah– teaching Torah to our young—is a mitzvah that perfects Creation in specific ways, and the details of the halachot are designed to achieve that perfection.

The Zilberman position is this: Whatever exceptional circumstances existed in centuries past, those conditions no longer exist and therefore there is no justification to disregard Chazal’s educational prescription. Thus we are required to return to the original mesorah-definition for Talmud Torah. While it is natural for one to say he wants to do what his grandfather did–“If it was right for one as holy and righteous as he, it cannot be wrong for me!”–in this case, it is incorrect. Instead, one should say, “If my grandfather were here, what would he do?”

Rabbi Zilberman believed that if our ancestors were here today, they would embrace the educational methodology advocated by mesorah and by Chazal. Indeed, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s famous pesak concerning changing one’s nusach in tefillah is quite relevant here. Rav Moshe ruled (Orach Chaim II:24) that an Ashkenazi who currently davens Nusach Sephard may switch to Nusach Ashkenaz since somewhere in his past there was an ancestor who changed from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sephard. Thus, this individual cannot in principle be opposed to changes! Similarly, today we find people whose practice of Talmud Torah does not adhere to the directives outlined in the Gemara; at some point, their ancestor(s) veered from the educational methodology outlined by Chazal. They cannot in principle be opposed to reverting back to the traditional guidelines.

Unfortunately, certain ma’amarei Chazal are often cited to justify the departure from Chazal’s educational methods. However, while on the surface these ma’amarei Chazal seem to be negating the importance of studying mikra, a deeper understanding of the various writings of Chazal indicate that the study and mastery of mikra is absolutely essential. I hope the few examples I show below will serve as a binyan av (generalization based on analogy from one source text) for other such sources that may occur to the reader.

Commenting on the Gemara (Kiddushin 30a) that directs a person to divide his days between the study of mikra, Mishnah and Gemara, Rabbeinu Tam says: “We rely on what is said in Sanhedrin 24a: ‘Bavel [Talmud Bavli] means filled with mikra, Mishnah and Gemara–for the Gemara of Bavel is filled with all of them.’” In other words, Rabbeinu Tam is stating one need only study Talmud Bavli to fulfill his obligation to study mikra and Mishnah as well.

Does this mean that the independent study and mastery of mikra and Mishnah are unnecessary? Is it possible that Rabbeinu Tam is contradicting the mishnah in Avot and the other sources that instruct us in the order of study? Elaborating on Rabbeinu Tam’s answer, the Shelah (Masechet Shavuot, beg.) clarifies: “. . . therefore a person must learn halachah from the Talmud every day of his life. And even though he fulfills the obligation to study divrei Torah via Talmud Bavli, this is for the sake of his daily obligation. Even so a person must learn Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim and Mishnah and Talmud. . . until he knows them by heart–and the halachah from the Talmud is to fulfill the obligation to divide his time in three.”

Essentially, the Shelah is stating that an individual has two obligations: a daily obligation to spend a third of his time studying mikra, Mishnah and Talmud, and a separate obligation to master mikra, Mishnah and Talmud to the point where one knows them by heart. According to this reading of the Rabbeinu Tam, in the gemara above Rabbeinu Tam is merely stating that the daily obligation, albeit not the general obligation, can be fulfilled by studying Talmud alone.

Hagahot Sefer Yesh Nochalin, the brother of the Shelah, states: “Chazal said that the study of mikra is mida v’aina mida, only partially praiseworthy.’ Chazal further said: ‘Stop your sons from higayon.’ Rashi explains that higayon in this context refers to excessive study of mikra. [The author then cites the statement of Rabbeinu Tam, and continues] ‘And the verses, mishnayot and passages from the Talmud inserted at the beginning of the siddur ought to satisfy the obligation [to divide one’s time in thirds for the three studies above].’”

Someone who relies on these writings of Chazal to absolve himself from the study of mikra is making a mistake. For we find other statements from Chazal that assert the exact opposite. . . such as a talmid chacham must be adorned with twenty-four sefarim like a kallah. . . [Rashi, Parashat Ki Tisa]. Furthermore, why did many great Torah scholars write commentaries on Tanach if the study of Tanach is secondary? It would seem that all of the sources mentioned above refer to someone who intends to spend all or most of his life learning and wishes to devote the entire time to the study of mikra alone. That is inappropriate. He should spend time learning Gemara as well. Moreover, Rabbeinu Tam is referring to an individual who is already knowledgeable in the twenty-four sifrei Tanach. Ba’al Netivot Hamishpat, Rabbi Yaakov Lisa, wrote in his tzava’ah (will) the following: “Even though Chazal said that Talmud Bavli contains all [that is, all three studies and therefore one need not study Tanach separately]– that is for [Chazal] since they already filled themselves with mikra and Mishnah. Also, [they said this so] that the yetzer hara to learn Torah she lo lishma [not for the sake of Heaven] should not attack [when one studies] mikra and Mishnah.”

I hope from this sample of sources the reader appreciates why the practitioners of the Zilberman method feel that their derech is the default position: Any deviation must be justified by citing exceptional circumstances.

The Ramchal in Derech Hashem (IV: 2) details the unique impact that talmud Torah has on the perfection of the Creation. Hakadosh Baruch Hu placed an intense energy (hashpa’ah) into the Creation and commanded us to access that energy and apply it to the whole of the Creation. The mode of access is talmud Torah. The mesorah– Chazal, Rishoniom and Acharonim –have taught us how to achieve this. It is our sacred trust–may Hakadosh Baruch Hu grant us the wisdom to do it right!

The Zilberman Method in Action
In a Zilberman-styled classroom, the rebbe would translate the verse “Tadshei ha’aretz deshe” (Bereishit 1:11) as, “The earth shall grass grass.” In this way, the students understand that “deshe” and “tadshei” are related. Then the rebbe asks, “What do you think the Torah is telling us when it says, ‘The earth shall grass grass?’” The students respond, “The earth shall grow grass.” This approach instills in students an exquisite sensitivity to the Torah’s language and trains them to pick up subtle nuances in the text.

Another example: consider the following phrases from three verses in Tanach: “nosei Aron brit Hashem” [Joshua 4:18], “nosei avon” [Exodus 34:7], and “lo tisa shema shav” [Exodus 23:1]. If you translate the verses as “carriers of the Aron,” “forgives sin” and “Do not accept lashon hara” respectively, students may miss out on the fact that the same verb appears in all three verses. A rebbe versed in the Zilberman method would translate the verses as follows: “carriers of the Aron,” “carries sin” and “do not carry a false hearing.” Even young students can be guided to get from “He carries sin” to “He forgives sin”; somewhat older students can figure out on their own that “do not carry a false hearing” really means “do not accept lashon hara.”

During the classroom discussion, the rebbe can ask, “Where does one carry something that he hears?” Students reply, “In his head.” Rebbe: “What then could ‘carrying a hearing’mean [how do we keep it in our head]?” Students: “By believing or accepting that which we hear.” Rebbe: “And what kind of false hearing could the Torah be telling us not to carry? If we know it is false, of course we will not accept it!” After a little discussion the students realize that “false hearing” is the Torah’s way of referring to lashon hara. The Torah uses the somewhat ambiguous term “false hearing” to teach us that we must relate to lashon hara as a falsehood, and not believe it.

Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb is a senior faculty member at Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem. An author and lecturer, Rabbi Gottlieb received his PhD in mathematical logic at Brandeis University and later become professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. He is a regular lecturer at kiruv conferences. The author thanks Rabbis Nechemiah Gottlieb and Pinchas Gottlieb for their very valuable comments in reviewing the article.

This article was featured in Jewish Action Spring 2010.

From Jewish Action, here.