העורך Editor

Goyim do not exist for their own sake, contra Goyim and universalistic rabbis. They exist to serve us Jews (or sincerely convert to Judaism). But Jews don’t exist for their own sake, either, contra Jewish auto-idolaters. Jews exist solely in order to keep mitzvos.

So, Goyim need Jews to be “saved”, and not the other way around. OK, neither side is doing that so well, but one day we both will.

Yeshayahu 49:23 (Rabbi Touger’s translation):

והיו מלכים אמניך ושרותיהם מיניקתיך אפיים ארץ ישתחוו לך ועפר רגליך ילחכו…

And kings shall be your nursing fathers and their princesses your wet nurses; they shall prostrate themselves to you with their face on the ground, and they shall lick the dust of your feet…

A similar idea was derived in Berachos 6b:

מאי כי זה כל האדם אמר רבי אלעזר אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא כל העולם כלו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה רבי אבא בר כהנא אמר שקול זה כנגד כל העולם כולו רבי שמעון בן עזאי אומר ואמרי לה רבי שמעון בן זומא אומר כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא לצוות לזה.

Shemos Rabbah 48:1 does not refer to Goyim, but it’s the same general idea:

שאו מרום עיניכם וראו מי ברא אלה בזכות מי נבראו אלה תולדות השמים והארץ ובזכות מי הם עומדים בזכות אלה שמות בני ישראל ואלה בזכות מי הם עומדים בזכות אלה העדות והחקים והמשפטים.

Yeshayahu 56:7 (with Rabbi Touger’s translation) is cheerfully quoted out of context:

 והביאותים אל הר קדשי ושמחתים בבית תפלתי עולתיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא לכל העמים.

I will bring them to My holy mount, and I will cause them to rejoice in My house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon My altar, for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.

How lovey-dovey! But…

Rashi ad locum was censored (and remains partially so on several Torah databases!).

Well, here is what Rashi used to say:

לכל העמים, ולא לישראל לבדם כי אף לגרים.

“For all peoples: Not only for Israel but also for the proselytes.”

Indeed, our mini-Parsha ends at 56:9:

כל חיתו שדי אתיו לאכל כל חיתו ביער.

To which the uncensored Rashi again explains:

כל חיתו שדי, כל גרי העכו”ם, אתיו והתקרבו אלי, ותאכלו את כל חיתו ביער, את גבורי העכו”ם שאמצו את לבם מלהתגייר.

“All the beasts of the field: All the proselytes of the [nations] come and draw near to Me, and you shall devour all the beasts in the forest, the mighty of the [nations] who hardened their heart and refrained from converting.”

My condolences to anyone upset by all this.

A Jew once visited a famous rabbi [this story is told of various rabbis; pick one].

Petitioner: Please give me a Beracha for Parnassah (livelihood).

Rabbi: “Is that what you need a Beracha for?”

Petitioner: Yes.

Rabbi: “You mean you don’t have money?”

Petitioner: Correct.

“Wait”, said the rabbi. “If you don’t have money, how did you manage to get past the gatekeepers?!”

An excerpt from Rabbi Herschel Schachter:

The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim – both opinions are the words of the Living G-d.” although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she’ha’Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She’b’al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah.

The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether – according to their perspective – the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim.”

This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions simply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v’eilu.

Even when we do apply “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim” it does not mean that halacha l’ma’aseh one has the right to follow whichever opinion he wishes. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v’eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, “Beis Shamai b’makom Beis Hille eina Mishna“, i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don’t even consider the views of BeisShamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d’hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b’chutz la’aretzm, even when dealing with a d’oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l’hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l’ma’aseh. (See my sefer, B’Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.)

…

Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v’eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v’eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does not mean that it has ramifications halacha l’ma’aseh.

See the rest on Torah Web here.

ציטוט מדברי הכלכלן הקיינסיאני אמיר כהנוביץ:

“לגליזציה – ממנה ישראל יכולה לצפות למיסים בהיקף של כמיליארד שקל בשנה. לאור הצהרות מפלגות רבות בעד לגליזציה, ייתכן שכבר בקרוב האוצר יוכל להתחיל לצפות למקור נוסף של הכנסה ממיסים על לגליזציה. מדינת קולורדו עשתה לגליזציה ב- 2014, ובשנת 2018 היא גבתה מיסים בהיקף של 266.5 מיליון דולר – כמעט מיליארד שקל. מצד אחד, אמנם קולורדו אופיינה ביותר תיירים מישראל, אך מצד שני, האוכלוסייה בישראל גדולה יותר (8.7 מיליון תושבים בישראל מול 6 מיליון בקולורדו). כך שאפשרי שגם בישראל יהיה מדובר בהיקפי גבייה דומים, מה שיוכל לחסוך הטלת מסים אחרים”.

Find the deep article here.

(A text version of the latter part of the article can also be found here.)