ללא מחבר No Author

Bli’os Are Not ‘Real’

Matos-Masei

Hechsher and Tevilas Keilim

“כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר אך במי נדה יתחטא וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים” (לא:כג)

 

Hechsher keilim is the alef-beis of a kosher kitchen.  In addition to purging a used utensil bought from a Goy of its non-kosher blios, there is also the din of tevilas keilim which is learned from here.  It is a machlokes Rishonim if tevilas keilim is a derasha gemurah d’Oraysah, or if it is an asmachta d’Rabbanan.

Regarding geirus, there are two steps (nowadays): milah and tevilah.  That is the order the Gemara puts it in.  There is a machlokes, though if the order is l’ikuvah.  The Ramban holds that even if the tevilah was done before the milah, it still works.  However, the Rashba holds that it doesn’t work.  His reason is based on that which Chazal say, “Ha’poreish min ha’orlah k’poreish min ha’kever”.

For Jews, lack of bris milah does not effect the inherent kedushas Yisrael.  There were communities in Europe that wanted to enact that children not given a bris milah would not be registered as Jews in the official communal archives.  However, Reb Chaim (Brisker) said that you cannot do that.  It is wrong.  He is still a Yid.

When it comes to a Goy, though, the Rashba holds that the lack of bris milah is inherently contradictory to tevilah.  For a ger, it’s not just a particular mitzvah.  So long as he still has orlah, according to the Rashba, the tevilah cannot take effect.

Interestingly enough, the Ritva at the end of Maseches Avodah Zarah says that the same machlokes would apply to tevilas keilim.  That, according to the shitah of the Rashba, being baluah with non-kosher taam makes it that tevilahcannot take effect on the kli.

The Ramban asks, why is it that this issue of hechsher keilim only arose now by milchemes Midyan?  Why wasn’t it addressed by the conquest of Sichon and Og, wherein there was quite a lot of spoils of war?

The Gemara learns out from “batim m’lei’im kol tuv” that during war it is mutar to eat maachalos asuros.  The Rambam holds that this is true regarding any war being waged within enemy territory (“gvul Akum”), but only if they don’t have kosher food available to eat.  The Rambam puts this together with the din of yefas toar, that it is also a function of “lo dibrah Torah elah k’neged yeitzer hara”.  The Rambam also includes yayin nesech in this heter.

The Ramban, though, argues on all three points.  He holds that the heter is only regarding kibush Eretz Yisrael.  It is even if they have kosher food; it is simply hutrah.  It is not “dibrah Torah k’neged yeitzer hara”; it is heter gamur.  Also, the heter does not apply to yayin nesech, since yayin nesech is not just non-kosher, but it also has a din of biur avodah zarah.

L’shitaso, the Ramban resolves his question.  Eretz Sichon v’Og did not have to be conquered now; it could have waited until l’asid lavoh.  However, inherently it is part of nachalas Eretz Yisrael.  Therefore, once Sichon and Ogattacked, and it became necessary to conquer them and their land, it had a full-fledged din of kibush ha’Aretz.  Therefore, the heter of eating non-kosher food applied.  As such, there was no necessity to worry about blios either.  However, milchemes Midyan had nothing to do with kibush Eretz Yisrael – it is chutz la’Aretz – and the heter did not apply there.  That is why it was the very first time that they needed to deal with the dinim of hechsher keilim.

The Achronim ask on the Ramban, even though the heter of maachalos asuros applied in the war against Sichon and Og, why didn’t they have to be concerned for blios of yayin nesech, which the Ramban holds is not included in the heter?!  Many answer – and it is a correct, lomdisheh teirutz – that the din of biur avodah zarah does not apply to taamwhich is baluah inside of keilim.  It so happens, that the same thing is true regarding taam of chametz inside of keilim, that there is no din of tashbisu.  The whole reason the heter of “m’lei’im kol tuv” does not apply to yayin nesech is because of the din of biur avodah zarah; so, regarding taam of yayin nesech inside of keilim, where there is no din of biur, the heter does apply.

There is yet another question that we can ask on this Ramban.  Why didn’t the din of tevilas keilim apply by milchemes Sichon v’Og?  Rav Yerucham Gorelick said over a teirutz in the name of Reb Chaim: the din of tevilas keilim is only when you bought it from the Goy, but by milchemes Sichon v’Og they were zocheh in the keilim from the cheirem.  That is what Reb Chaim said, but I am not sure exactly what it means.

From Vayigdal Moshe [Defunct].

We Get Socialism From the Incas…

The Ancient Incas and the Collectivist State

machu.PNG

07/12/2017

Examples of government control over social and economic life are as old as recorded history, and they always have features that are universal in their perverse effects regardless of time or place. One of the most famous of these collectivist episodes was that of the Incas and their empire in South America.

The Inca Empire emerged out of a small tribe in the Peruvian mountains in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Theirs was a military theocracy. The Inca kings rationalized their brutal rule on the basis of a myth that the Sun god, Inti, took pity on the people in those mountains and sent them his son and other relatives to teach them how to build homes and how to manufacture rudimentary products of everyday life. The later Inca rulers then claimed that they were the descendants of these divine beings and therefore were ordained to command and control all those who came under their power and authority

The Inca Empire of Conquest and Collectivism

The fourteenth and especially the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries saw the expansion of the Incas into a great imperial power with control over a territory that ran along the west coast of South America and included much of present-day Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, and parts of Argentina and Colombia. The Incas were brought down in the 1530s by the Spanish conquest under the leadership of Francisco Pizarro.

The Inca kings, asserting to be both sons and priests of the Sun god, held mastery of all the people and property in his domains. And like most socialist systems throughout history they combined both privilege and egalitarianism. When the invading Spaniards entered the Inca capital of Cuzco, they were amazed by the grandeur of the palaces, temples, and homes of the Inca elite, as well as the system of aqueducts and paved roads.

But having an economy based on slave labor, there had been few incentives or profitable gains from the development of machines and tools to raise the productivity of the work force or reduce the amount of labor needed to perform the tasks of farming and manufacturing. Methods of production were generally primitively labor-intensive. Thus, the Spaniards, in comparison, were far better equipped with more advanced instruments of war to defeat the Incas.

The Inca Elite and the “Communism” of the Common People

The Inca rulers imposed on almost all in society a compulsory equalitarianism in virtually all things. In The Socialism Phenomena (1980), the Soviet-era dissident, Igor Shafarevich, (1923–2017) explained:

The complete subjugation of life to the prescriptions of the law and to officialdom led to extraordinary standardization: identical clothing, identical houses, identical roads. … As a result of this spirit of standardization, anything the least bit different was looked upon as dangerous and hostile, whether it was the birth of twins or the discovery of a strangely shaped rock. Such things were believed to be manifestations of evil forces hostile to society.

To what extent is it possible to call the Inca state socialist? … Socialist principles were clearly expressed in the structure of the Inca state: the almost complete absence of private property, in particular of private land; absence of money and trade; the complete elimination of private initiative from all economic activities; detailed regulation of private life; marriage by official decrees; state distribution of wives and concubines.

The Rigid and Detailed Planning of Everyday Life

An especially detailed description of the nature and workings of the Inca state is found in the classic work, A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru (1927), by the French economist and historian Louis Baudin (1887–1964). The Incas ruled through a cruel and pervasive system of command and control over everyday life. Baudin explained:

Every socialist system must rest upon a powerful bureaucratic administration. In the Inca Empire, as soon as a province was conquered, its population would be organized on a hierarchical basis, and the [imperial] officials would immediately set to work. … They were in general in charge of the preparation of the statistical tables, the requisitioning of the supplies and provisions needed by their group [over whom they ruled] (seeds, staple foods, wool, etc.), the distribution of the production of the products obtained, the solicitation of assistance and relief in case of need, the supervision of the conduct of their inferiors, and the rendering of complete reports and accounts to their superiors. These operations were facilitated by the fact that those under their supervision were obliged to admit them to their homes at any moment, and allow them to inspect everything in their homes, down to the cooking utensils, and even to eat with the doors open …

The Inca bureaucracy cast its net over all those that it ruled and soon transformed them into docile and obedient subjects through a “slow and gradual absorption of the individual into the state … until it brought about the loss of personality. Man was made for the state, and not the state for the man,” Baudin said. The Incas tried to banish “the two great causes of popular disaffection, poverty and idleness. … But by the same token, they dried up the two springs of progress, initiative and provident concern for the future.” The Inca government did all the thinking and planning for their subjects, with the result that there was a “stagnation of commerce … lack of vitality and the absence of originality in the arts, dogmatism in science, and the rareness of even the simplest inventions.”

The Inca Welfare State and Human Inertia

This inertia was fostered through the institutions of the welfare state. “As for the provident concern for the future,” Baudin asked,“ how could that have been developed among a people whose public granaries were crammed with provisions and whose public officials were authorized to distribute them in case of need? There was never a need to think beyond the necessities of the moment.”

In addition, the Inca welfare state undermined the motive for charity and any personal sense of responsibility for family or community:

But what is even more serious is that the substitution of the state for the individual in the economic domain destroyed the spirit of charity. The native Peruvian, expecting the state to do everything, no longer had to concern himself with his fellow man and had to come to his aid only if required by law. The members of a community were compelled to work on the land for the benefit of those who were incapacitated; but when this task had been performed, they were free from all further obligations. They had to help their neighbors if ordered to do so by their chiefs, but they were obliged to do nothing on their own initiative. That is why, by the time of the Spanish conquest, the most elementary humanitarian feelings were in danger of disappearing entirely.

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.

Rabbi Nosson Kamenetsky OBM: ‘Daas Torah Says to Use Your OWN Brain!’

Rav Nosson Kamenetsky, zt”l

BY  · 

WWII Truths: Churchill NOT a Hero, Chamberlain NOT An Appeaser, and Truman Did NOT Need to Nuke Japan!

World War II: A Revisionist Reading List

By 

Mises.org

June 6, 2019

The dominant view of World War II is that it was the “good war.” Hitler bears exclusive responsibility for the onset of war because he aimed to conquer Europe, if not the entire world. The United States tried to avoid entering the war but was forced into the fight by the surprise Japanese attack on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.

The authors on this list dissent. For them, Responsibility for the war was mixed, and Roosevelt provoked Japan’s attack. Allied conduct of the war, furthermore, was characterized by grave ethical misconduct.

Alperovitz, Gar. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb  Comprehensive study that shows dropping the atomic bombs was not needed to bring about Japanese surrender.

Baker, Nicholson  Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization Stresses the violations of the norms of civilized war in World War II, with full attention to the role of Winston Churchill.

Barnes, Harry Elmer, ed. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace A collection of essays by leading revisionist historians, concentrating on Franklin Roosevelt’s policies.

Beard, Charles A.  President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 Beard, one of the foremost twentieth-century American historians, argues that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Buchanan, Patrick J.Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Argues that the British guarantee to Poland in March 1939 was a mistake because there was no feasible means of fulfilling it.

Chamberlin, William H., America’s Second Crusade. A highly critical account of American policy during World War I. America failed to learn the lesson of intervention in World War I.

Crocker, George, Roosevelt’s Road to Russia. Emphasizes the extent to which American involvement in the war led to a pro-Soviet policy.

Cowling, Maurice, The Impact of Hitler A detailed study of British cabinet politics in the 1930s, countering the view that Chamberlain sought peace at any price with Hitler.

Doenecke, Justus Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941.  A detailed study of the American anti-war movement, showing the diversity of arguments used to oppose Roosevelt’s bellicose policies.

Fussell, Paul. Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War Vivid portrayal of the deleterious effects of the war on human psychology and behavior. Refutes the romanticized picture of the “good war.”

Garrett, Garet. [ed. Bruce Ramsey] Defend America First: The Antiwar Editorials of the Saturday Evening Post, 1939-1942. Garrett, a leading figure of the Old Right, argued that coming to the aid of the Allies would weaken America. We should concentrate on home defense.

Glaser, Kurt, Czecho-Slovakia, A Critical History. A good account of the minorities problem in Czechoslovakia.  Emphasizes the unrealistic policies of the Beneš government.

Greaves, Bettina, Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy. A detailed account of Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, based on the research of Percy Greaves.

Hoover, Herbert. Freedom Betrayed.  A very detailed account of Roosevelt’s foreign policy by his predecessor in the White House. Based on careful documentation.

Jaksch, Wenzel, Europe’s Road to Potsdam. An account of the Sudeten situation in the 1930s, critical of Czech policies under Beneš. The author was head of the Sudeten Social Democrats.

Kirschbaum, Joseph M. Slovakia: Nation at the Crossroads of Central Europe.  An informed account of Slovak policies in the 1930s. Good on the breakup of the Czech state after the Munich Conference.

Klein, Burton H. Germany’s Economic Preparations for War. Argues that Germany in the 1930s did not plan for a long war. The author is a leading Chicago School economist.

Kubek, Anthony, How the Far East Was Lost. The first chapter, based on pioneering work by Stephen H. Johnsson, shows the influence of pro-Communist officials in pushing for US provocation of Japan before Pearl Harbor.

Mahl, Thomas E. Desperate Deception: British Cover Operations in the United States. 1939-1944 An account of British propaganda and intelligence activities aimed at involving America on the side of Britain in the war.

Morgenstern, George. Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War One of the first revisionist studies of Pearl Harbor and still one of the best. Highly detailed and very well written.

Neilson, Francis, The Churchill Legend. Includes a devastating analysis of Churchill’s multi-volume history of the war.

Newman, Simon  March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland. British policy under Chamberlain was not based on weakness but on a long term strategy of confronting Hitler.

Raico, Ralph, Great Wars and Great Leaders. Written by a great classical liberal historian, the book includes a mordant account of Winston Churchill.

Russett, Bruce, No Clear and Present Danger. Argues that the prospect of an Axis-dominated Europe failed to pose a sufficient threat to the United States to justify American intervention

Sanborn, Frederic, Design for War. Contains material on the US efforts to provoke a Japanese attack not readily available elsewhere. The author was a distinguished international lawyer.  

Sargent, Porter, Getting US Into War. Stresses the role of British propaganda in pushing America toward war.

Schroeder, Paul, Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Relations 1941.  Contends that America foreign policy toward Japan was unduly rigid.

Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. 1939–The War That Had Many Fathers. Detailed account of German foreign policy in the 1930s, arguing that responsibility for the war does not rest exclusively on Hitler. The author is a retired German general.

Sledge, E.B. With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa A searing personal memoir of the horrors of war.

Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt deliberately sought war with Japan and denied information to the Army and Navy commanders at Pearl Harbor.

Suvorov, Viktor  The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II.   Contends that Stalin was preparing to launch an invasion of Germany, but Hitler beat him to the punch.

Tansill, Charles C. Back Door to War.  A comprehensive survey by one of the leading twentieth-century American diplomatic historians. Shows how Roosevelt succeeded in involving the US in the war in Europe by provoking a war with  Japan.  Contains valuable material on the European diplomatic situation in the 1930s.

Taylor, A.J. P. The Origins of the Second World War.  Argues that World War II came about through accident and miscalculation rather than by design.

Topitsch, Ernst, Stalin’s War. Topitisch, a philosopher sympathetic to the Vienna Circle logical positivists, contends that Stalin sought a European war and that Hitler’s invasion of Russia in 1941 preempted a Soviet attack.

Trachtenberg, Marc The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. The book contains a careful analysis supporting the “back door to war“ theory, i.e., that Roosevelt sought war with Japan in order to secure American entry into the war in Europe.

Veale, F. J. P. Advance to Barbarism. Discusses the Allied responsibility for mass saturation bombing.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.