Search Results for: popular

‘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.

How The IDF Lies To Us

Don’t Believe Their Lies

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed

Rav Eliezer Melamed

Question: Rabbi, what is your reaction to the violent incidents which took place Monday night in the Shomron against the Brigadier Commander, Deputy Brigadier Commander, and soldiers?

Answer: I don’t know exactly what happened, but one thing I am sure: Whatever the media reports is extremely exaggerated. The media and the I.D.F.’s dubious reputation have been acquired over many years. Till this day, there hasn’t been one story which I was familiar with that was reported correctly. And I’m not talking about a slight inaccuracy due to human error, or even bias owing to a reporter’s leftwing viewpoint making it difficult for him to identify events accurately. Rather, we’re speaking about scandalous and intentional bias.

The I.D.F. spokesmen operate in this method because this is the nature of an army. The army uses all the means in its possession to defeat the enemy – including manipulation, fraud, diversion, etc. Woe unto us if the army did not prepare itself in such a way against the enemy, and woe unto us that in recent years the government and the Minister of Defense use the army and its methods against the settlers – the loyal representatives of the Jewish nation throughout history.

The erroneous reporting in the media stems from an obvious concerted attempt to malign the settlers by all possible means, in order to destroy the settlements in Judea and Samaria.

Now as well, the motivation to defame the settlers and to spread division amongst their ranks by inciting a wave of condemnations within the camp is clear – to open the way for the destruction of the outposts. And behold, the scheme has succeeded. According to reports, the Prime Minister, from the Likud Party no less, has assembled the security forces, directing them to deal with an ‘iron fist’ against so-called “Jewish terror” – in other words, to plan a wild destruction of houses in the outposts.

This position of mine is based on long, personal experience. Many of you remember the defamation spoken against me when the Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, decided to remove Yeshiva Har Bracha from the Hesder program. But now, let me recount one example out of many others.

The “Broken Leg” of Guy Hazut, Battalion Commander of the Paratroopers

On the eve of the last day of Pesach 2006 while staying at Kfar HaRo’eh, I heard the news on the radio that a serious confrontation had occurred between settlers in Har Bracha and soldiers, and that settlers had closed the settlement’s gate on the commander’s leg, and broke his leg. I was hurt and angry. How could people from our community dare do such a thing! I was realized that the media does not like us, but never in my mind did I imagine they would make-up a story that didn’t actually happen. Familiar with the heavy iron gate of the community, I thought that a group of people had confronted the battalion commander, and as he tried to enter the settlement, they forcefully closed the gate on his foot.

The true story was quite different. The gate in question is a small, flimsy, three foot-high goats’ pen fence, located on a hilltop two kilometers from the community. The Battalion Commander was chasing after a boy, who he suspected of previously throwing stones at an Arab vehicle, some four kilometers away from the community. During the chase, the Battalion Commander ran into a small post of the gate, hitting his foot. The supposedly injured Battalion Commander managed to wander around the area for another half an hour, cursing the settlers, and ordering his troops to close the two roads leading to the settlement, which at the time numbered a hundred and fifty families. And all this on the eve of the holiday! What’s more, a number of residents with health problems returning from medical check-ups were not allowed to go home for quite a long time. Along with all this, in three different incidents, Battalion Commander Hazut’s soldiers threatened settlers with their cocked weapons.

It should be noted (as the Jews in exile would point out when they attempted to persuade the authorities to treat them leniently) that amongst the community and Yeshiva, there were more over two hundred and fifty soldiers serving in both regular and reserve duty at the time. They and their families were threatened by the soldiers with cocked weapons.

Guy Hazut’s Media Expertise

When it comes to the media, Guy Hazut is quite proficient. Every event that he participated in reached the media in ‘real time’, according to his perspective, of course. After concluding his altercation with the residents, he went to the hospital to have his leg examined, while, simultaneously spreading lies to the media that the settlers had broke his leg. At the hospital, the Battalion Commander’s leg was found to be fine, and he was released immediately. Residents from the community contacted various reporters to deny the story, but the media continued to broadcast the lie, as if the settlers had beaten and injured the commander.

The bad name that Guy Hazut gave the settlement and the residents was difficult to cleanse. There was no point in arguing — no one would listen. All that can be said is – do not believe the media and the army spokesmen. No matter how much you think they’re lying, you’ll still be wrong – they lie even more.

Lies in Hebron

I give this example because, thus far, Guy Hazut has not yet apologized. Incidentally, he is presently the Hebron Brigade commander, and in the area under his command, one of his soldiers accidentally killed Rabbi Dan Marzbach ztz”l. But as is customary in the army and with Guy Hazut, on that very morning, a smoke screen of lies, falsification, and defamation against Rabbi Marzbach were spread in the media, as if he was guilty of his own killing.

Two months earlier, also in Hebron, I.D.F. spokesmen brazenly lied about the murder of Asher Palmer and his infant son Jonathan, saying they died in a car accident in which the father was guilty, having allegedly fallen asleep at the wheel. Only after a hard struggle by family, friends and public figures was the truth proven that they were killed due to Arab stone throwing – while this truth had already been known from the start. Even the I.D.F. was aware of it – the fact is that towards that very Shabbat, the army canceled the vacations of the soldiers in Judea and Samaria for fear of settler response.
“Injured” Policemen

While we’re on the subject, in every demonstration in which civilians are injured, immediately, one of the police commanders orders some of the policemen to lie on stretchers and claim they are injured, to be photographed for television, and sent to the hospital. Later on, you hear on the news: “In the demonstration, thirteen policemen were injured, as well as seven protesters.” Doctors have told me that most of the cops who come to hospitals after the demonstrations were pretenders; nothing actually happened to them, they apparently have to carry out orders to act like they’re injured and be hospitalized.

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed is the Dean of Yeshiva Har Bracha and a prolific author on Jewish Law. Rabbi Melamed is one of the most active leaders amongst the religious-Zionist public. This article was translated from his popular weekly column “Revivim” which appears in the “Basheva” newspaper. According to official media surveys, his column is the most widely read editorial amongst the religious and ultra-Orthodox public in Israel.

Rabbi Melamed’s articles also appear at: http://revivimen.yhb.org.il/

From Honenu, here.

The Vilna Gaon – A Short Bio

19 Tishrei Yarzheit Vilna Gaon

Painting of the Vilna Gaon from Yesodei Hatorah School corridor wall
Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna – The Vilna Gaon – Leader of Lithuanian Jewry, Torah scholar and kabbalist. Born: Vilna, Lithuania, 1720 Died: 19 Tishrei Vilna, Lithuania,1797
Popularly referred to as the Vilna Gaon, the Gra (initials of Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu), or simply as the Gaon. Considered to be the greatest Torah scholar of the past two centuries.
Even as a child Eliyahu of Vilna amazed the congregation when, at the age of 7, he delivered a learned discourse in the Great Synagogue in Vilna. By 10 years of age he had surpassed all his teachers, and, studying by himself with total concentration, he acquired knowledge of the vastness of Torah in both its revealed and mystical aspects. Every minute of his life was devoted to Torah study. He never slept more than two hours in a 24-hour period; he never accepted any rabbinic post or leadership of a yeshivah. He taught few disciples, selected from the foremost Torah scholars of his time. He also mastered astronomy, mathematics and music.
Known for fierce opposition to Chassidut, which was initiated in 1736 by the Baal Shem Tov, he and his followers in this anti-Chassidic Movement were known as “Mitnagdim,” or opponents. Their opposition was based on the beliefs, vigorously denied by Chassidic leaders, that Chassidut took liberties with the Oral Law, that it substituted emotion for intellect in the Study of Torah, that its form of prayer departed too far from the traditional form of prayer, etc.
The Vilna Gaon cleared a new path to Talmud study, focusing on gaining a clear understanding through keen analysis of the principals and approaches of the early authorities. His methodology stood in sharp contrast to the pilpul system of the Polish yeshivahs, an intricate system of creating a complex framework with which a series of questions would be answered. He toiled hard on emending the the talmudic and midrashic texts. Subsequent discoveries of ancient manuscripts confirmed the soundness of his corrections, which appear in the Vilna edition of the Talmud [Haga’ot Hagra].
His works which were recorded and published by his disciples, include Aderet Eliyahu, a commentary on the Torah; a commentary on Ecclesiastes; Shenot Eliyahu, a commentary on the Mishna, Order of Zeraim; Biur Hagra, a commentary on Shulchan Aruch; a commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, a kabbalistic work; and many other works.
His commentary on the Torah is filled with interesting allusions that show the oneness of the Written Torah and the Oral Law, demonstrating their common source in Divine revelation.
The Vilna Gaon was revered in Vilna and throughout the world for his phenomenal knowledge and saintly character. One of his most outstanding disciples was Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, the founder of the yeshivah of Volozhin. Following the Gaon’s approach to learning, this institution spread Torah for more than a 100 years. Today most yeshivas follow the study pattern of Volozhin, keeping alive the approach to Torah pioneered by the great Vilna Gaon.

Communism – A Personal Account

A friend keeps saying the finest popular book in Jewish observant circles to grant a basic understanding of non-socialist economics is “Go My Son”. I agree.

The author masterfully illustrates the contrast between various economic regimes, shows how the division of labor works and breaks down, notes the illogical nature of communism and its tragic effects, and more, all this only in passing, and in stoic prose.

The true story of a yeshiva student’s adventure-filled odyssey through both war-torn Europe and Asiatic Russia. The author describes his many dramatic, and sometimes humorous encounters, as he flees from the Nazis, in a vivid and engrossing personal memoir.

Here it is on Amazon.