Search Results for: popular

Rabbi Yichya Kapach – A Short Introduction

86) A TRADITIONAL SCHOOL OF YEMENITE RATIONALISM:

 
Rabbi Yichya Kapach  (1850-1931)

INTRODUCTION:

While the common perception is that Sefardim and Yemenites are more inclined towards the mystical traditions of Judaism than their Ashkenazi coreligionists, this is not necessarily the case.

Yemenites, firstly, are a distinct group from the Sefardim and Ashkenazim.

Secondly, there has always existed a very rational segment of the Yemenite community which opposed mysticism.

They were generally known asTalmidei HaRambam (the ‘students of Maimonides’) or more recently, as theDor Deah (the ‘Generation of Reason’), or simply as Yemenite rationalists.

ORIGINS:

These rationalists were originally a major sector within the ancient Yemenite community. They based their teachings directly on what they considered to be the most accurate representation of Judaism. For them this was Talmudic Judaism (10-500 C.E.) as transmitted by the Geonim (650-1038) and early Rishonim (1038-1500) – particularly the teachings of Rambam (1135-1204).

While the rest of the Jewish world certainly acknowledges and studies Rambam, he is not regarded as the final authority on halachik matters. As a general rule, most adhere instead to the codification of the law as per the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), who lived some three hundred years later.[1]

For the Dor Daim, however, what happened in the halachik world after Rambam is of little consequence to them. They maintain that there was too much interference and influence particularly from the Jewish mystics in the post Rambam era, which introduced what they considered to be superstitious practices into Judaism – and shaped a modern system that little resembles the Judaism of Rambam. Even Rabbi Yosef Karo, in their view, was influenced by some mystical practices which he introduced into his Shulchan Aruch and which are not found in earlier Talmudic sources.

One of the reasons why they follow Rambam so closely was because he had collected the most accurate Talmudic texts and manuscripts at the time, and he based his writings on those. Therefore the best way to get a window into authentic Talmud was through the portal of Rambam, especially his Mishneh Torah, which was a most comprehensive anthology of all Talmudic literature.

The fact that some Yemenites were traditional rationalists was already recorded in the writings of Ramban (Nachmanides 1194-1270) who was born just forty nine years after Rambam.

However around the 1600’s the spread of Kabbalah took on a new impetus and it reached Yemen where many Yemenites were tremendously influenced by its mysticism.[2]

 
Rambam Tzitzit with 13 knots

The Yemenite community then split into two groups: The Baladi (‘from the country’) or traditional rationalists – and the Shami (‘from the north’, i.e. Palestine), who adopted a more sefardic approach and accepted Rabbi Karo and his Shulchan Aruch over Rambam and hisMishneh Torah.

The Rambam-faithful Baladi Jews, however, remained true to the vision of their master. They are also known technically as mekori’im, (‘originalists’) or ‘Rambamists’[3].

They prayed from a shorter version of the (Rambam’s)siddur (because he didn’t want to ‘burden the community’).[4] They Yemenites tie their tzitzitdifferently, with 7 or 13 chulyot or knots and an ‘open space’ between each knot, according to the custom of Rambam.  They also wear a tallit on Friday nights.

THE RATIONALIST YEMENITES:

About a century ago many of the traditional Baladi or Maimonidean rationalists became known asDor Daim. They felt their community was becoming so superstitious and fatalistic to the extent that they even questioned the legitimacy of their Judaism. They believed an over emphasis of mysticism was contributing to an overall decline in the social and economic status of their society.

In order to intellectually and economically uplift his community Rabbi Yichya Kapach (1850-1931) started a new religious schooling system which included some secular studies. (In this sense he may be regarded as the Shimshon Rephael Hirsch of the east.) Rabbi Kapach made it his life work to acquire and collect as many of Rambam’s original manuscripts, and even fragments of manuscripts, as possible.

Rabbi Kapach went so far as to teach that the Zohar was a forgery which even contained aspects of idolatry! Rabbi Kapach referred to those steeped in mystical traditions as ‘ikshim’ or ‘people who withhold knowledge from their contemporaries’. He systematically set out his views in a book called Milchamot HaShem which criticizes the very foundations of contemporary mysticism.

These Yemenite rationalists were specifically opposed to the kabbalistic concept of zeir anpin[5], which if taken in a literal sense, assumes certain G-dly powers and could be conceived as an entity somewhat separate from G-d.[6]

Many of their objections were based on their interpretation of Rambam’s prohibition of ‘ribbuy reshuyot’ or multiplicity of spiritual reigning powers.

They quoted Rambam: “There is one simple Essence in which there is no complexity or multiplicity of notions, but one notion only…”[7]

Neither did they entertain the kabbalistic concept of reincarnation, and cited Rav Saadiya Gaon (892-942) who regarded this idea as foreign to Judaism.

The Dor Daim also rejected the practice of asking tzadikim or even angels to intercede with G-d on behalf of another. In a similar vein they disagreed with the popular concept of visiting gravesites of holy people, as they claimed this resembled idolatry. They say that for this reason we were never told where Moshe is buried.

Interestingly enough, they do not reject the more ancient form of secret mysticism known asMa’aseh Bereshit as practiced in Talmudic times – but firmly held that in no ways did it remotely resemble the modern interpretations of popular kabbalah of contemporary times.

REACTION FROM OTHERS:

Many take great umbrage to the Dor Daim’s open distrust of mysticism which has to a large extent become normative the modern Torah world. And, as to be expected, many disagree with the idea of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah superseding Rabbi Karo’ s Shulchan Aruch.

Some halachik authorities – while themselves in disagreement – do nevertheless tolerate their pro-Rambam and anti-Zohar position. Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, for example, disagreed with Rabbi Kapach but did not consider his works to be heretical.

Others, like Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, have gone so far as to declare some of the writings of Rabbi Kapach as heretical.[8]

Today, many Dor Daim are secretive about their rational Maimonidean leanings for fear of ostracism by the wider community[9].

This – because of or despite – the fact that they probably represent the most accurate depiction of Rambam’s halachik and theological worldview, in living reality today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Yemen History and Culture, by P. Ram

Tema, Journal of Judeo-Yemenite Studies

 

[1] Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) is regarded as an early Acharon (1500-present day), although he was born towards the end of the period of the Rishonim (1038-1500).

[2] A similar phenomenon also occurred with some eastern Sefardim who followed the Ben Ish Chai, who allowed the kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak Luria to sometimes override Rabbi Yosef Karo’ sShulchan Aruch. Sefardi Chief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef tried to ‘wean’ some Sefardim off the Ben Ish Chai for this very reason.

[3] Not to be confused with modern-day groups who go by this name.

[4] This followed the version as presented in Rambam’s Sefer Ahavah.

[5] Also known as ‘the lesser countenance’.

[6] See Sefer HaBrit 29:15 and Yosher Levav p. 4

[7] Moreh Nevuchim 1:51

[8] Nezer Chaim p. 176

Rabbi Dessler and Rabbi Gedalia Nader (1923-2004, a leading student of Chazon Ish) do not consider questioning the authorship of the Zohar to be heretical. Even the Nodah BiYehudah maintains that the break from Rashbi (who is considered to have authored the Zohar), to the time when the Zohar was popularised, is too long for its authenticity to be undeniably accurate (Derushei HaTzlach).

[9] Rabbi Yosef Kapach (1917-2000), grandson of Rabbi Yichya Kapach, and a highly respected world authority on Rambam, may have been pressured to remove himself from his grandfather’s anti-Zohar stance before he could take up a position of leadership. Although he did say that it was better to draw spiritual sustenance from the writings of Rambam himself.

The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah according to Ktav Yad Teiman, with commentary by Rabbi Yosef Kapach

From Kotzk Blog, here.

Ideology Isn’t Everything, It’s the Only Thing

Here follows an article by Dr. Walter Block, interspersed with my critical comments. Background: WB is an atheist Jew, an economist and a libertarian.

This article was chosen for critique not because it is unique. To the contrary, it is emblematic of countless others. Yes, countless. The central premise inherent is: premises do not matter. I owe an unpayable debt to wise men such as Yeshayahu Leibowitz for teaching me this: the foundation of wisdom is to know the opposite is the case. Only once man grasps the foundation, may he gain wisdom.

The Importance of Ideology

June 7, 2002

When I was young and foolish (the two don’t necessarily go together), I used to believe that rationality, common sense, and pragmatism would overcome ideology. That is, I thought that when push came to shove, and it became clear that our economic or political system was not working, when people were actually dying as a result of it, that it would be jettisoned in favor of something that could actually work, and thus save lives.

In 2002 he is still foolish. If he knew the first thing about philosophy, he would know it is inescapable. There is no neutrality. This is why Wikipedia’s NPOV fails. Walter regards his own decrepit atheistic humanism (a tautology, yes) as a blank canvas, tabula rasa. But “pragmatism” to what end?! And “working” for whom? So when will he see that atheism leads to adverse results? Never, likely. It, too, fits under the scare-word of “ideology”.

So he pounds that X will “save lives”. Wait, am I supposed to fall and prostrate myself in worship before the Almighty Life of the Individual Rational Self of Man? To each man anything but what he chooses is unthinkable.

1. My first rude awakening from this naïve and complacent view concerned the ideology of socialism-communism. The economic system of the USSR killed millions of people — this is entirely apart from millions more of actual murders also perpetrated in the name of the proletarian revolution — and yet it was allowed to persist for some seven decades. One could, perhaps, dismiss this occurrence on the ground that these people were, after all, foreigners, and the ordinary rules of rational human behavior do not apply to such persons, but for the fact that there were also legions of commie sympathizers cheering them on from the good old U.S. of A., in accents that were as American as apple pie.

You say that individual man is paramount, but your humanistic-atheistic buddies in the USSR said Mankind is. Man or Mankind? This is not a scientific question. Each of these options falls under the same scare-word of “ideology”. As Lenin said, “You have to break some eggs to make an omelet”. (Lenin wrote plenty about “exterminating” enemies. Maybe you should read him more often.) Bottom line: indifferent reality does not force anyone else to choose like you do.

2. The second ideology involved the AIDS — Red Cross — blood transfusion episode. In the early days of this debacle not only did not the Red Cross refuse to accept blood donations from gay men, it even declined to single out their donations for special testing. This would be an insult to the gay community. Yet, such was the prestige of this organization that they were able to stay in business, despite having in this way killed thousands of hemophiliacs, and other recipients of poisoned blood transfusions. (Since then I have resolved never to financially support the Red Cross, even indirectly as when it appears under the umbrella of groups such as the United Way.)

Here, again, was the triumph of ideology over rationality, morality and common sense. Gays, after all, are “good”; at the very least it is a mortal crime and sin to do anything that has even the slightest chance of insulting these people, and they insult easily. This holds even when actual lives are not only at stake, but, even, had already been lost.

“Rationality” is that which individual men use as a scale to know how to wield “common sense” in pursuit of “morality” determined by prior ideology. Nothing else.

A third episode which impacted my thinking is of recent origin. On 9/11/01, a day that will forever live in infamy, when 19 men, 15 of them Saudi Arabian males between the ages of 25-40, killed about 3,000 innocent civilians. This horrendous event has triggered several further ideologies, each of them still operational.

3. One of the new ideologies is the utter and total evil of racial profiling. Given that these murderers commandeered commercial airplanes, it is only natural that attention would be paid to Saudi Arabian men in their twenties to forties, in an effort to preclude a repetition of this tragedy. Has this been the case? It has not. Instead, while greater efforts have indeed been made to monitor passengers, none of it has focused on this age-gender-ethnic cohort. Indeed, the very opposite has occurred. That is, efforts have been made not only to search other groups too — such as black grandmothers, white children, Orientals — but to reduce coverage of the very type of person responsible for the events of 9/11/01.

And yet, because of ideological sensibilities, we have shown ourselves as a country willing to take on extra risks of a repeat of the World Trade Center catastrophe, merely so as to not be seen as treading on racial toes. For shame.

Huh? Why cannot patriots value US national cohesion above much else? Destroying arrogant WASP unity is not important? Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer! Etc., etc. And why ought they care if more terror strengthens the nation-state’s control?! Why not a proactive policy of  “never let a crisis go to waste”?

4. Next, gun control. The perpetrators of 9/11/01 did their evil deed based on the threat of no more than razor sharp box cutters. (There was also the fact that previously, air plane hijackers were not suicidal, so pilots were told to submit in order to save lives). Well, there is one way to obviate future such occurrences: arm, if not all passengers, then at least the pilots and staff. No more crashing into buildings, then, nor the need to shoot down a future hypothetical airliner for this purpose. In any rational world, anxious to avoid a repetition of 9/11, this is exactly what would take place. But ours, alas, is beset by destructive ideologies. Earnest entreaties by pilots’ associations to this effect, signed by literally tens of thousands of them, have fallen on deaf Department of Transportation ears. Instead, they have contented themselves with meticulous searches for box cutters, nail clippers and nail files; talk about the Maginot Line.

According to the ideology now prevalent amongst our masters, we are to entrust the landing and takeoff skills of pilots with our very lives, but dare not rely upon them to be armed, even when specifically qualified to do so, as a last line of defense against evil doers. And this despite the best efforts of John Lott and other researchers who have shown that gun legalization saves lives.

You value the stateless society; others value the one-state universe, with a small society of overlords. Ergo, disarm all slaves, even at the cost of reduced labor. Value is subjective.

5. Now consider Saudi Arabia, from whence emanated most of the terrorists. It is all well and good to seek out and punish the perpetrators of the events of 9/11 in Afghanistan, if that is where they are hiding. But business as usual with Saudi Arabia? Not even a strongly worded diplomatic note of protest? Not only do the monsters hail from that country, but so does Osama bin Laden, the arch criminal mastermind. Instead, President Bush puts out the welcome mat at his ranch in Texas for the head of this nation.

Why? It is difficult to reject the hypothesis that the U.S. is dependent upon oil from that corner of the globe. But if our purchases of this mineral even indirectly enable the financing of terrorism, why do we not seek out alternative energy sources, for example in our own country, e.g., in Alaska?

You silly, naive boy! Ever heard of lofty “Reasons of State”? The phrase even contains your beloved buzzword; ‘reason’. I am not even going to try and explain this to you. And whaddaya mean “Alaska”? The sacred “environment”, hello!?

Let’s take the troops out of Saudi Arabia, indeed from the whole region, and stop the foreign aid and other meddling, including the murderous sanctions on Iraq. We can’t solve ancient hatreds, but we can follow the example of Switzerland, and mind our own business. Thus we may even avoid further terrorist attacks.

Just how crazy are you? Stopping foreign “aid”? Ceasing sanctions?! How then might “our” empire sustain its hegemony? And what planet do you hail from anyhow? You need to read the lying NY Times!

6. The failure to develop oil in Alaska is due to the power of yet another powerful ideology, left wing environmentalism. It would appear that not only are bald eagles, spotted owls, snail darters and various types of salamanders and frogs more important than human wellbeing, but this applies, also, to land itself. Case in point: the pristine nature of the Alaska wilderness, plus, perhaps, inconveniencing a few brothers of ours of field and stream, such as the caribou.

Let it be said once and for all, loud and clear, however; private property rights are not the enemy of a clean and safe environment. Indeed, the very opposite is the case. Free market environmentalism is not an oxymoron. Just go and ask the environmentalists on the other side of the Iron Curtain about how well socialist governments treat the land, air and water. As long as private property rights include the right to sue trespassers, e.g., perpetrators of mud slides, oil spills, and wayward dust particles (air pollution), this system is the last best hope for a sound ecological system.

What, and give up the Total State, our only true fascist, historically-inevitable national identity, the lightening-rod of our group Highest Aspiration?! Walter Block is an Enemy of the State! And who is to say if that is good or bad?

7. But this does not at all exhaust our tour of pernicious ideologies. What of the much vaunted Immigration and Naturalization Service, which a half year after the tragedy was still granting papers to terrorists who had already committed suicide? Has the INS lost profits and been forced into bankruptcy? It has not. Has this bureaucracy even had its wings clipped administratively? Had its budget cut? Been supplanted by a more efficient government agency, better able to sift through immigration applications, and prevent terrorists from arriving upon our shores? To ask this question is to answer it.

“Pernicious”? Block is bonkers.

8. And this is to say nothing of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The failure of the FBI to protect the American public was horrendous. Records are even now coming to light indicating that the lower level operatives of this “intelligence” community had foreknowledge of an impending World Trade Center attack. But the organizational apparatus was so inept no use could be made of this information. Yet the popular, nay, exalted status of the FBI is such that it, too, paid no penalty for its abject failure. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the FBI’s reputation remains untarnished in the aftermath of 9/11.

What?! Get rid of the FBI?! What will action film plots consist of? What occupations will impressionable youngsters daydream about? What is more genuinely American than vicious homegrown FBI thugs?

9. Worse, far worse, is the statolatry (worship of government, for the uninitiated) which has taken deep root in our society. For victims of this particular ideology, the government simply can do no wrong. Or, if it can, then the motto of the people is, “My state, right or wrong.”

“Victims”? Why is “statolatry” worse than your own idolatry, Walter? Hey, at least we have holidays – and even sharp badges! What do you libertarian atheists have? Eh? Nothing! And how is that any different from the common “Me myself and I, right or wrong”?!

Consider the facts. For years the U.S. government has been poking its snout into hornet’s nests the world over. The American state has a standing army, contrary to its own constitution. Nor does it leave these men under arms within its own borders. Much to the contrary, it stations them abroad, in the seas and on the territory of foreign nations. It has more soldiers abroad than the combined numbers of all other countries taken together (and most of them, e.g., from the United Kingdom, are there at the behest of Uncle Sam).

Unhappily, the government of the United States has not adhered to the advice given to it by George Washington, in his “Farewell Address,” to avoid entangling alliances. It has spurned the dictum of President Adams to the effect that we wish all other nations their freedom but will fight only for our own.

“Ah, nothing like the vicarious pleasure of world domination! Elites are preordained. Nothing like the smell of imperial glory in the morning! If only…” Sorry I interrupted, were you busy saying something?

Finally, finally, a few of the hornets from abroad we have disturbed in their own lands have struck back in a big way. Does the American public blame its government for its unconstitutional meddling into the affairs of others? Not a bit of it. George Bush’s approval ratings have shot through the roof. A wave of “patriotism” sweeps the nation. But this is not the patriotism that befits a free country, one that minds its own business, one that limits itself to a defensive posture in world affairs. This is the jingoism of a veritable empire. Let’s face it. Were any other country to have acted as we have done in world affairs, say, a triumphant Nazi Germany, or a super bellicose China (now that is an oxymoron) or a reinvigorated bad old U.S.S.R., the only one with massive numbers of troops stationed abroad, and people in this country would know full well how to accurately label such an entity: as an Empire, not a Republic. According to the famous Peanuts cartoon, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.” The U.S. has become the Darth Vader of the earth. It is our country which is now out of control. Yes, the perpetrators of 9/11 were terrorists, in that they targeted innocent civilians. But they were hardly the first to engage is so heinous an act.

You, Sir Blockhead, are so confused. Let me just comment, in passing, that “terrorist” by court-academic definition is “Non-state actor”. So there. Walter sounds like what is now called by statists a “domestic terrorist”.

Let us hope and pray for a return of the U.S. to sanity on the world stage. But if this is to occur, we must renounce the evil ideologies of socialism, communism, obeisance to homosexualism, opposition to racial profiling, gun control, to the claim that Saudi Arabia is not a “rogue” state, to left wing environmentalism to the INS, the FBI, and most important, to the notion that the U.S., the first of the modern “rogue” Empires, is really a completely innocent victim of oppression.

Eh. By the way, “pray” to whom?! I locate religious language in atheist writings all the time, but atheistic language in religious writings never (although there is occasional lack of faith)! Atheists, such as Walter Block, are schizophrenic.

According to that old saw, the reason disputes amongst the professoriate in academia are so vicious is that there is so little at stake. But if our analysis is correct, this is about as far from the truth as it is possible to be. For faculty members at universities inculcate their charges with ideology, and there is scarcely anything more important for the future of the human race. Professors are in charge of nothing less than the ideological development of the entire next generation of leaders and scholars.

The end.

Ha! The sadly confused man just admitted that there is no good, objective description of “sanity”, contradicting his own penultimate paragraph. He himself is a “professor”, a “faculty member”! He himself is busy – as above, “inculcating” his charges with “ideology”. But his own ideology is invisible to him; background, gravity, tapestry, oxygen, white-space.

(And yes, Block is right about that old saw being incorrect.)

By the way, we referenced the above article in our free, special ebook on answering atheists. To receive the full Hebrew ebook, subscribe to Hyehudi’s Daily Newsletter here.

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.