Month: December 2018 – כ״ו בכסלו תשע״ט

The ‘Elu Va’elu’ Nonsense Collapses Under Its Own Contradictions

Not unlike Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance”…

The illogical “Elu Va’elu” doctrine has nothing to do with the Gemara, else what’s so crazy about Trinitarianism. It just means both sides are wrong in thinking the interlocutor wrong because neither are exclusively right, while both sides are “right” in the limited sense, referring to their own respective views.

Once again, both speakers are very right about themselves being right. But both speakers are also very wrong about the other speaker’s wrongness. “These and those are the words of the Living God“, since “These and Those” are not mutually exclusive. Must I use the notation of symbolic logic?

Such is the dispute what was Esther’s reason for inviting the king and Haman for two meals, and in the Nefesh Hachaim’s example of Gittin Daf Vav, זה וזה גרם, obviously, since these are historical questions: what would an observer in a time machine actually see? And so on.

Or they both are almost right, see Rashi Kesubos 57a. Now, it’s clear from Rashi, both sides cannot be right.

Here’s the Rashi:

הא קמ”ל, דהיכא דאשכחן אמוראי דפליגי אהדדי כל חד אליבא דנפשיה ותרי אמוראי אחריני דפליגי בפלוגתא דהנך אמוראי ואית לן לפרושי מילתא בתרי לישני חדא מינייהו מיפלגי תרי אמוראי אליבא דנפשייהו שכל אחד אומר סברא שלו כגון רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע ואינך תרי אמוראי אליבא דחד לא מיפלגי אלא אמרי חדא מלתא וחדא מן לישנא מיפלגי תרי אמוראי אליבא דחד כגון רב דימי ורבין ומשויא מלתא דתרי אמוראי קמאי חדא מלתא שבקינן ההיא לישנא דמיפלגי תרי אמוראי אליבא דחד ונקטינן ההיא דמיפלגי תרי אמוראי אליבא דנפשייהו דכי פליגי תרי אליבא דחד מר אמר הכי אמר פלוני ומר אמר הכי אמר פלוני חד מינייהו משקר אבל כי פליגי תרי אמוראי בדין או באיסור והיתר כל חד אמר הכי מיסתבר טעמא אין כאן שקר כל חד וחד סברא דידיה קאמר מר יהיב טעמא להיתירא ומר יהיב טעמא לאיסורא מר מדמי מילתא למילתא הכי ומר מדמי ליה בעניינא אחרינא ואיכא למימר אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הם זימנין דשייך האי טעמא וזימנין דשייך האי טעמא שהטעם מתהפך לפי שינוי הדברים בשינוי מועט.

Translation by Claude:

This teaches us: that where we find Amoraim who disagree with each other, each one according to his own view — and two other Amoraim who disagree about the position of those first Amoraim — and we have to explain the matter in two versions (lishni): in one of those versions, two Amoraim disagree each according to his own view, meaning each one states his own reasoning (as with R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua), while the other two Amoraim [in that version] do not disagree according to their own views but say the same thing — and in the other version, two Amoraim disagree according to [the view of] one [earlier authority] (as with Rav Dimi and Ravin), which makes the matter of the first two Amoraim a single position —

we abandon that version in which two Amoraim disagree according to one [earlier authority], and we take that version in which two Amoraim disagree each according to their own view.

Why? Because when two [Amoraim] disagree about what one [earlier authority] said — one says “so-and-so said this” and the other says “so-and-so said that” — one of them is lying. But when two Amoraim disagree about a law, or about prohibition and permission, each one saying “this seems to me to be the correct reasoning” — there is no lie here. Each one is stating his own reasoning. One gives a rationale for permitting, the other a rationale for prohibiting. One compares the matter to some case in one way, the other compares it in a different way. And one can say: “both these and these are words of the living God” — for sometimes this rationale applies and sometimes that rationale applies, since reasoning shifts according to small changes in circumstances.

End.

So… If hypnotized by “Elu Va’elu”, you accept (as you must) that Rashi is also right, then Rashi is surely right, and he says you’re wrong, so now, if you are right about Rashi, you’re just plain wrong concerning Elu Va’elu (like how the sectarians accept the written Torah — which in turn destroys the sectarians!). Q.E.D/Game Over.

Truth is singular.

But what do you do with the famous Medrash? Ritva Eruvin 13b is representative:

אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים, שאלו רבני צרפת ז”ל האיך אפשר שיהו אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים וזה אוסר וזה מתיר ותרצו כי כשעלה משה למרום לקבל התורה הראו לו על כל דבר ודבר מ”ט פנים לאיסור ומ”ט פנים להיתר ושאל להקב”ה על זה ואמר שיהא זה מסור לחכמי ישראל שבכל דור ודור ויהיה הכרעה כמותם ונכון הוא לפי הדרש ובדרך האמת יש טעם סוד בדבר.

Yes, a few Rishonim quote this homily (or similar examples). But did you notice they only do so on Eruvin 13?!

OK, why is that?

Because that’s the only Gemara in Shas that doesn’t match simple logic, Ayen Sham! The rest of Shas neither demands nor de facto manages with this bit of Derash/mysticism. It is only certain Achronim who wish to paint everything with this Medrash!

And “שבעים פנים לתורה” only was only ever stated regarding Kabbalah, not Halacha (The Gra [common knowledge]).

Appeal to the Simplest Explanation: Economics

You don’t need psychology if you have something better.

Why is discord greater among more similar groups? Freud (inspired by Ernest Crawley) called this “Narcissism of small differences”. I call it “Product differentiation”.

I win!

The ‘Nothing’ Option Is Understandably Hard to See

Krugman Assumes One Must Act

Krugman writes:

the opponents of a strong stimulus plan don’t really have an alternative to offer.

Here’s an alternative: nothing. Like when a nervous mom takes her precious 12-month old to the doctor because he has a cold, the best thing the doctor can do is nothing. Maybe a placebo. So too for the economy.

They don’t even have a really coherent critique; as Brad DeLong points out, if you believe that a surge in private spending would raise employment — and even the critics agree on that — it’s very hard to explain why a surge of public spending wouldn’t have the same effect.

The difference between an increase in private investment spending, and government spending, is like the difference between pushing an old lady down and pushing her out of the way of a runaway train. private investment is the result of millions of individuals making decisions based on their wealth and profit expectation; the other is simply someone spending other people’s money to help other people get jobs.

In a complex system, injecting more of an endogenous quantity that is correlated with something good invariably causes feedback effects, most bad, because complex systems tend to be optimized, and so the ‘total derivative’ in futzing with some input is usually negative (though the first partial often highly positive). This is why we do not suggest one take serotonin supplements, even though higher levels of serotonin are correlated with success and high status. Testosterone is known to have many positive qualities for men, but the best ways to generate a higher level of testosterone is to exercise regularly, including weight training, avoid insulin spikes, get your body fat low, and get good sleep. A bad way would be to inject it into your bloodstream. This is because the latter invites your body to decrease the amount it makes, and the net effect is usually negative.

Similarly, taking money away from some people for make-work projects creates jobs, but these are taking away money spent on something else, so the net is often negative. Further, unlike natural demand, the incentives of the workers are not necessarily so good for ‘natural’ jobs we would like them to eventually get.

It’s funny how many economists do not really believe in the Invisible Hand, except for trivial applications.

Stop Distorting Chanukah: Judaism Is NOT Pacifist!

The Idiocracy has arrived.

Listen to the following “question and answer” on “Al Hanissim” (I’m in a pious mood, so I won’t quote the source):

Q: The phrase “גבורים ביד חלשים” amplifies the wonder, as does “רבים ביד מעטים”, but why do we add “רשעים ביד צדיקים” to the description of the Chanukah miracle?

A: The very righteousness of the righteous should lead to their defeat, because, by definition, their higher moral standards hamstring them in battle. It’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Aside from the stupidity of the very premise, and in ignoring the rest of the list; “טמאים ביד טהורים וזדים ביד עוסקי תורתך”, the claim reflects the further Christianization of Judaism in other fields (except that those who say “turn the other cheek” don’t actually mean it). And to actually distort the very holiday and liturgy meant to teach (among other things!) the very opposite (like this here)…

Yes, otherwise-scholarly people actually go for this nonsense. See more here: גם אנחנו רוצים עצמאות יהודית – אבל אסור להגיד את זה.

(Likewise, another ostensible Jewish authority commented on the famous Mishna in Sukkah (end of chapter 4):

ולמנסך אומרים לו, הגבה ידך, שפעם אחת נסך אחד על גבי רגליו, ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן.

That the reason the Jews stoned him (Yannai?) with Esrogim (and not stones) was not that that was all they happened to hold in their hands at the moment. Oh no. It was because they wished to be gentle…)

Rabbi Eliezer Papo’s Unwritten Book

Rabbi Eliezer Papo is best known for his inspirational and friendly sermon-like “Pele Yoetz“.

In the entry entitled “Asufa”, (or “Halachic Compendiums”) he says something puzzling. After initial elaboration on the great need and benefit derived from these works, he subsequently qualifies his praise by adding the following –

אמנם הבעלי אסופות שמאספים קצורי דינים צריכים ליזהר הרבה שלא יכנסו למלאכה זו אא”כ יכולים לעשות אותה על מתכונתה כי היכי דלא תפוק מינה חורבה דהיינו שיהא להם ספרים הרבה מהראשונים ואחרונים ותשלוט עיניהם בכולם בעיון יפה יפה ולא יסמכו על הכלל העולה כי יש פתח טועה ולא יטעו לרשום היפך ממה שכתוב בספר כאשר נמצא לפעמים באלו הקיצורים.

ולכן אמרו שאין ראוי לסמוך על הקיצורים להקל או להוציא ממון מיד המוחזק עד שילמד חיפוש מחיפוש ועד שיראה הדין בשורשו ושמעתי אומרים שאף על פי שהרב מעם לועז עשה מלאכה גדולה וזכה וזיכה את הרבים לא היה רוח חכמים שבדורו נוחה הימנו על שכתב הלכות פסוקות ורבים מעמי הארץ שאין יודעים לקרות אלא ספרו ומקבלים דבריו כנתינתם מסיני ואין חוזרים לשאול פי חכם וסומכין עליו בין להקל בין להחמיר ופעמים המצא ימצא איזה דין שנתחדשו בעת ספרים שחולקים על דבריו ומחמירים וכן ראוי להחמיר.

ולכן יש להזהיר ללועזים שלא יסמכו על ספרי הלועזים להקל באין שאלת חכם. ודיין להם שספרי הלועזים יעוררום ליכנס לבית הספק כרי לשאול לחכם (יש את לבבי לכתוב ספר אסיפת דינים בקיצור אך לא אכתוב אלא מה הוא אסור ולא אזכיר את המותר למען לא תצא תקלה כזו). כו’

Translation by Rabbi Eli J. Mansour:

However, the authors of halachic compendiums, who gather concise and shortened laws together, must be very careful not to engage in this work unless they are able to do it properly, lest some tragic error result thereby. I mean to say that they have many works of the medieval and later scholars, and their eyes will master all of them through rigorous analysis. Nonetheless, they must not rely on the general principle they derive from them as there is room for a mistake, and they might err by recording the exact opposite of what is written in those books, as is sometimes found in compendiums of this type.

Therefore, the contemporary sages said that it is not proper to rely on the concise halachic compendiums for leniencies or to extract money until one has thoroughly studied the topic and sees the actual source of the law. I have heard those who say that even though the author of “Mayam Loez” did a giant service and brought a great deal of merit to the masses, the “spirit” of the sages of his generation were not pleased that he wrote definitive halachot. Many common people, who can only read his book, accept his word as if it came from Sinai, and therefore do not consult a rabbinic authority. They rely on his decision, whether he is lenient or stringent. Nevertheless, sometimes there are laws in which later authorities have disagreed with his ruling and are more stringent. In these cases, it is correct to be more stringent.

Therefore, one should admonish speakers of foreign languages that they should not rely on the works written in their native tongue, without first consulting a rabbinic authority. It is sufficient that these works make them aware of questions in order that they should go to ask a sage. (I have a dream to write a work of concise halachot. However, I will only write that which is forbidden, and I will not mention that which is permitted, in order to avoid this kind of a mistake.)

What do you think of the concept? Do any of our readers know if such a book was ever published by Rabbi Papo (or anyone else, for that matter)? Perhaps Rabbi Papo regretted the idea; the concept is not exactly “Politically Correct”‘… Does anyone else wish to take on the mission?

Rabbi Papo actually did publish a kind of abbreviated Shulchan Aruch called “Chessed La’alafim”. As far as I can gather, he lists all the laws, bound as he is to the subject matter of the book he proposes to abridge.

On a personal note, this piece fascinates me because I once considered writing a book with the opposite goal; to list laws which are surprisingly lenient…

Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com