העורך Editor

Since mercantilism is as popular as ever, and if Trump sticks around, we will have to hear more about it, I thought we could do with a definition:

Tariff

A tax imposed on goods imported from outside the country that is not imposed on similar goods from within the country. Import tariffs may be levied on an ad valorem basis, i.e., as a certain percentage of the estimated market value of the imported item; or on a “specific” basis, i.e., as a fixed dollar amount per unit imported. Import tariffs (or “duties”) may be imposed mainly for the purpose of raising revenues because they are relatively cheap and easy taxes for a small or poorly organized government to collect, but more usually in developed industrial societies they represent a tiny fraction of revenues and are imposed primarily for other reasons of economic policy. “Protective” tariffs allow domestic producers of the good in question an artificial competitive advantage over their foreign competitors (largely at the expense of domestic consumers of these products) by making it impossible for the foreign producer to sell his goods as cheaply as he otherwise would — thus allowing favored domestic producers to enjoy higher prices, a bigger market share, and bigger profits.

From A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, here.

You already know the story of the two women who came before King Shlomo, both claiming motherhood over a baby.

Every time the non-Jewish fifth column (read: ‘Arabs’) uses the season to set fires all over Israel, Moshe Feiglin makes the same point. But it bears repeating because it’s not merely true, it has the ‘star quality’ of great political rhetoric:

If it was their land, they wouldn’t be burning it down, would they?!

Here’s a quick refresher on the economic problems with central banking (with some current references that add nothing) by Ron Paul.

Anti-Zionists enjoy pretending their views have no influence upon the actions of the state of Israel. “We oppose the whole thing”, they say. “We are not in any way partisans of a particular policy!”

Um, no. Much as they might like the state to go away (note: anti-Zionists are not, in fact, anarchists…), for its duration, there is a certain set of actions taken by state actors for which anti-Zionists can be blamed, like it or not.

Rabbi Brand explains:

ידוע שהפסק של הגאון הרב עובדיה יוסף זצוק”ל על ‘שלום תמורת שטחים’ הוא בצירוף שיטת האדמו”ר מסטמר זצ”ל בעל ויואל משה, שלא נתן שום ערך לכיבוש ארץ ישראל מהשנים תש”ח ותשכ”ז, כמבואר בתשובה של הרב עובדיה יוסף זצוק”ל שעשה מזה צירוף, (עי’ תחומין ח”י עמוד 42), ושיטת סטמר בנוי על יסוד שבכלל לא נוהג צבא בזמננו, שמעת חורבן בית המקדש, אסור להפעיל צבא, ורק משיח יכבוש א”י בלי שום צבא רק ברוח פיו, בקיצור אין עוד צבא בתורה וממילא אין מדינה של ישראל בתורה, עי’ כל זה ב’ויואל משה’.

משל למה הדבר דומה, אחד שיש לו ספק אם יש שבת בתורה או לא, ועכשיו בא לפניו שאלה אם יש בישול אחר בישול בדבר לח, והוא פוסק להתיר מדין ספק ספיקא, אולי אין שבת בתורה, ואת”ל שיש שבת בתורה אולי הלכה כדעה שאין בישל אחר בישול בדבר לח. וכן כאן יש היתר של נתינת שטחים, שאולי בכלל אין דין צבא ומדינה נוהג בזמננו, ואת”ל שכן, מוצא עוד כמה צירופין לתת שטחים. [ושיטת סטמר שנתבטל מצוות צבא מן התורה היא מופרכת לגמרי וכתבנו כמה חיבורין על זה ואכמ”ל].

Translation by Claude:

It is known that the ruling of the Gaon Rabbi Ovadia Yosef zt”l on ‘land for peace’ uses a “tzeruf” with the approach of the Admor of Satmar zt”l, the author of Vayoel Moshe, who ascribed no halachic validity whatsoever to the conquest of the Land of Israel in the years 5708 (1948) and 5727 (1967), as is explained in the responsum of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef zt”l in which he incorporated this position as one component of his ruling (see Techumin, vol. 10, p. 42). The Satmar position, in turn, is built on the foundational premise that the laws of military warfare are entirely inapplicable in our times — that from the time of the destruction of the Temple, it is forbidden to deploy an army, and only Mashiach will conquer the Land of Israel without any army, solely ‘by the breath of his mouth.’ In short, there is no longer any ‘army’ in the Torah, and consequently, there is no State of Israel in the Torah either — see all of this in Vayoel Moshe.

To what may this be compared? To a person who has a safeik whether Shabbos exists in the Torah at all, and now there comes before him a question of whether there is a prohibition of re-cooking a cooked liquid substance, and he rules leniently on the basis of a ‘sfeik sefeika’ (double doubt): perhaps there is no Shabbos in the Torah, and even if you say there is Shabbos in the Torah, perhaps the halacha follows the opinion that there is no prohibition of re-cooking a cooked liquid substance. So too here — there is a basis for permitting the transfer of territories: perhaps the laws of army and statehood do not apply in our day at all, and even if you say they do… Rabbi Ovadia finds several additional factors to combine [as a “tzeruf”] in permitting the ceding of Israeli territories. [The Satmar position — that the Torah commandment of military engagement has been nullified in our era — is utterly untenable, and we have written several treatises on this matter, but this is not the place to elaborate.]

Let me give an example. If a soldier deserts the battlefield in full view of his fellow soldiers, he is not making a decision as to the war. Nothing of the sort. He is getting his side’s men killed by injecting their hearts with his own cowardice. I don’t need to prove a matter of logic, but here’s the Rambam who says the same, anyway (Melachim 7:4):

ואחר שחוזרין כל החוזרין מעורכי המלחמה מתקנין את המערכות ופוקדים שרי צבאות בראש העם ומעמידין מאחור כל מערכה ומערכה שוטרים חזקים ועזים וכשילין של ברזל בידיהם הרוצה לחזור מן המלחמה הרשות בידן לחתוך את שוקו שתחלת נפילה ניסה במה דברים אמורים שמחזירין אנשים אלו מעורכי המלחמה במלחמת הרשות אבל במלחמת מצוה הכל יוצאין ואפילו חתן מחדרו וכלה מחופתה.

Why is Eitan Cabel a leftist? Because it’s what’s left over from his Yeshiva days. Why do Charedi MKs vote with the Arabs? Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach. Who encourages the state to expel Jews from their land and hand it over to their non-Jewish enemies (the definition of ‘Mesirah’, and then some)? Some rabbis.

Just as environmentalists destroy mankind to “save it”, so do the Jewish enablers of the left enable them with fake Torah.

So when you hear their ignorant rhetoric about wanting to save innocent Jewish lives, keenly remember: these folks are indirectly responsible for dead Jews.