העורך Editor

מבית כולל בית הבחירה – כרמי צור…

Quoting Rabbi Brand’s sefer “Let Us Search Our Ways” p. 11 (emphasis added):

…

When I went to one of the great rabbis of the generation and told him that I strongly challenge the customary sale of chametz because the non-Jew does not truly intend to commit himself, he replied to me: “We also allow Heter Iska even though we know that the other party doesn’t actually conduct any business at all.”

I answered him: “ערבך ערבא צריך (A guarantor requires a guarantor)!”

Behold, Heter Iska is built upon the fact that iska (business partnership) was mentioned in the Gemara, and then they created Heter Iska, where they devised stratagems so that the borrower would pay even if he didn’t profit from the business. And then only the Heter remained without the actual Iska (business), and upon this they built the subsequent notion that it’s possible to make far-fetched stratagems throughout the entire Torah.

And there are those who go in the opposite direction, learning far-fetched Heter Iska from the sale of chametz. And even though the matter actually contradicts itself — for with chametz one needs to obligate the non-Jew to pay even though we know that he certainly won’t pay and doesn’t commit himself to anything, while with Heter Iska the matter is reversed: at the root of the matter the borrower doesn’t need to pay when he hasn’t profited, yet in practice he must pay even though he hasn’t profited. So these two Heterim contradict each other — the only common element between them is that the words of Torah are in our possession to work them and shorten them and expand them according to our will, as it says in the Yom Kippur piyyut: “For behold, like clay in the hand of the potter, when he wishes he expands and when he wishes he contracts,” and here they add: “So too the words of Torah are in our hands” etc.

The main thing is that the page starts with the words of Torah as they were supposed to be, and then we manipulate it according to our own will even though this is exactly the opposite of what the Creator wants. And the main thing is that we give fancy names to the action — this one is called “Iska” and this one is called “Mechira.” It’s like when talking forbidden business on Shabbos, one says “נישט שבת’דיג גערעדט (Not for Shabbos-speaking)”, or נישט לשון הרע’דיג גערעדט (Not for Lashon Hara-speaking)”. No need to elaborate further on this because the heart is torn and broken and cannot express all that is within it.

And see Gemara Shabbos Perek Beis regarding the matter of the three converts where Hillel said to one of them: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow — this is the entire Torah, and the rest is commentary; go and learn.” And Rashi wrote there: “Your friend and your father’s friend do not forsake” – meaning the Holy One Blessed be He is called “Your friend.” So we learn here that one must behave toward the Holy One Blessed be He as we would want others to behave toward us. That is, one must understand what the Creator wishes.

For example, if someone is making a cake and lacks sugar and asks another: “Bring me a bag of sugar,” and he brought him an empty bag without sugar, and the requester claims: “I asked you for a bag with sugar!” He replied: “You told me a bag of sugar, not a bag with sugar, and I brought you a bag.” The requester became angry and said to him: “You need to understand that I didn’t request the bag but the sugar, and the bag is only the means by which the sugar is usually found inside the bag.” Certainly the one who brought it violated the words of our Sages: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” So it’s possible to understand how to behave toward the Holy One Blessed be He, and not to take shallow action devoid of all content.

Similarly it is said (Malachi 1:6): “A son honors his father and a servant his master; if then I am a father, where is My honor…?” says the Lord of Hosts to you priests who despise My name. And you say: “How have we despised Your name?” You offer polluted bread upon My altar. And you say: “How have we polluted You?” By saying: “The table of the Lord is contemptible.” When you offer a blind animal for sacrifice, is there no evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is there no evil? Present it now to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor?” etc. It is clear that the prophet’s complaint was that they didn’t learn to behave toward the Creator of the World as they behave toward an important person, and certainly one must learn not to behave toward the Creator of the World in a way that even toward a simple person one wouldn’t behave.

The rest of the aforementioned sefer is here.

The book “ביום הראשון תשביתו” is against the customary sale of chametz mentioned above, see here.

In connection with yesterday’s post on suspending certain timely prohibitions for the sake of ascending the Temple Mount, I copy a related teshuva by Rabbi Brand regarding The Nine Days:

כתבתי:

האם מותר להתרחץ בט’ הימים, עם שמפו, חמין וכו’ לצורך?

והאם יש לחלק בין מי שעולה בקביעות ומי שלא?

תודה!

והרב השיב:

בפשטות מי שנטמא מותר להתרחץ כדרכו כמו אשה נדה שמטהרת מנדותה, ולא משנה אם עולה בקביעות או לא, כי מאי נפקא מינה, לכולם יש מצווה

End.

This should be publicized far and wide, especially for those who are particularly stringent about bathing and suffer accordingly. ומתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה…

קבלתי – הדדליין להכפלה עד חצות הלילה:

פנה אליי אחד מרבותי הרב הלל ווקסמאן שליט”א, ראש ישיבת “נחלת ישראל יצחק”.

שנים רבות הרב ווקסמאן שוקד על הרבצת תורה בשכונת רמה א’ בבית שמש. ולאחרונה הוא פתח מחדש את הישיבה שלו כישיבה ייחודית הנותנת מענה לעולים ארה”ב אשר עולים עם נערים בגילאי הישיבה.

אחת ההתמודדויות הקשות לאלה אשר עולים בגיל כזה הוא ההבדל בין עולם הישיבות הישראלי והאמריקאי. (גם בני עולים יכולים לה קל בקושי מסויים להסתגל לעולם הישיבות הישראלי).

קושי זה גורם לא אחת לנשירה מעולם הישיבות וירידה מדרך התורה, דבר אשר מרתיע בני תורה אחרים בארה”ב מעלייה לארץ מחשש שבניהם ירדו מדרך התורה. לחלופין, הנערים נשלחים חזרה ללמוד בארה”ב וכיוון שכך הם נתקעים חזרה בטומאת ארץ העמים.

מה שהרב ווקסמאן עושה, הוא שישיבתו קרובה באמת לסגנון האמריקאי של הישיבות, אך הוא גם דואג לתת להם כלים להסתדר בארץ, למשל, מי שצריך הולך לאולפן בערב [מקום שלומדים עברית] וכדו’…

היום הם עושים התרמה עם הכפלת התרומה (כלומר כל אחד התורם סכום כלשהו יש תורם שיתרום כנגדו).

לקחתי על עצמי להתרים סכום של 5000 דולרים.

אשמח אם כל אחד כאן יוכל לתרום ולהתרים, וכך לעזור למעשה ממש בהעלאת בני התורה מחו”ל.

https://causematch.com/nyy/menachem_starck

באהבת ישראל
מנחם אליהו שטארך

The following is adapted from our short, subscriber-exclusive Hebrew ebook (far better and more accurate in my opinion).

Do animals and infants believe in God? Yes.

How do we know? The same way we know all humans do: from action.

Babies move and cry. A cow knows its owner (Yeshayahu 1:3). Not only “Man acts” in economics, but all “Life” does. Volitional action (goal-seeking behavior, not mere reflexes or conditioning) means the being recognizes patterns and causality, expects the future to resemble the past, and expects one location to resemble another. They expect their actions to affect reality. They expect laws, which means they tacitly believe in a Law-Giver.

Birds, babies, and biologists all demonstrate they believe in the Law of Induction, the scandal of atheism. They constantly act as if the world is constant and intelligible. (Animals also have a degree of Da’as, including even “כונה להזיק”, which is why they are liable for nezek.) So, atheism is not just foolish (which would make it possible for the fool, at least), but ontologically impossible. Incidentally, it’s not clear the Torah even mentions atheism, only denial of Divine Providence (אין אלהים). We are commanded to gird faith and reveal belief, recall miracles past and present, honor God, and reinforce knowledge, not reason our way toward it.

Atheists either contradict themselves outright or later smuggle God in the back door, whether as “Reason”, “History”, “Will”, “Structure”, blah blah. Not only can’t they “fully” justify induction, they can’t justify it partially, either. And when they say they believe in induction because it pragmatically works, they either contradict themselves or fall into circular reasoning. (And then they say, “Well, humans aren’t perfectly rational”. Of course, we already know that from observing people claiming to be atheists!)

The whole secular philosophical enterprise is self-refuting. A common evasion is that induction is just “useful”. But if it’s useful, in this case, that means it reflects reality, and thus truth.

Living Beings Claiming (Even Pondering) Atheism = Living, Live-Action Performative Contradiction.

Bottom line:

• 1: Atheism doesn’t exist.
• 2: Babies and animals do exist.
• Ergo, 3: Animals and babies aren’t, God forbid!, atheists.

Here’s a maximally stuffy symbolic logic formulation, courtesy of Claude (and don’t feel bad, I can’t read it either!):

Definitions:

• Let A(x) = “x is an atheist”
• Let E(x) = “x exists”
• Let B(x) = “x is a baby”
• Let N(x) = “x is a non-human animal”
• Let D = “the domain of all existing beings”
• Let ℱ = “God forbid” [moral/theological operator]

Premises:

1. ∀x ∈ D: ¬A(x)
   [For all x in the domain of existing beings, x is not an atheist]
2. ∃x ∈ D: B(x) ∧ E(x)
   [There exists at least one x such that x is a baby and x exists]
3. ∃x ∈ D: N(x) ∧ E(x)
   [There exists at least one x such that x is a non-human animal and x exists]

Inference: 4. ∀x ∈ D: (B(x) ∨ N(x)) → ℱ(A(x)) ∧ ¬A(x)
[For all x, if x is a baby or animal, then God forbid x should be an atheist, and indeed x is not an atheist]

Conclusion: 5. ℱ(∃x: (B(x) ∨ N(x)) ∧ A(x)) ∧ ¬∃x: (B(x) ∨ N(x)) ∧ A(x)
[God forbid there should exist babies or animals who are atheists, and indeed no such beings exist]

∴ Q.E.D.