Ron Paul: The Personal Is Political

Political Immorality and Personal Immorality

By 

Ron Paul Institute

December 27, 2017

Many Americans have been shocked by recent revelations of the extent of sexual harassment in Congress. However, no one should be too surprised that those who spend their lives defending and expanding the welfare-warfare state engage in immoral personal conduct. It is only natural that an immoral system, like the welfare-warfare state, tends to attract individuals likely to practice personal immorality.

The welfare-warfare state is built on a foundation of taxation and fiat currency controlled by a secretive central bank. While some type of taxation may be necessary to fund the few legitimate functions of government, taking people’s money to fund a redistributive welfare state at home and a global empire abroad is nothing more than theft. The Federal Reserve’s erosion of purchasing power is also a form of theft.

The welfare-warfare state relies on violence. Every law preventing us from living our lives as we choose — whether forbidding us from working for below minimum wage, preventing us from smoking marijuana or drinking raw milk, telling private business owners who can and cannot use what restroom, or requiring us to purchase government-approved health insurance — rests on the threat of force being used against those who refuse to obey.

The warfare side of the welfare-warfare state is obviously rooted in violence. War inevitably leads to deaths, including the deaths of innocents. A permanent warfare state is also the quickest way to lose our liberties. This is why the Founding Fathers counseled against standing armies and foreign entanglements.

The neocons and “humanitarian interventionists” who control our foreign policy have disregarded the wisdom of the Founders. They actually promote endless wars not to protect our security but to promote “democracy” and “universal human rights.” They are impervious to evidence of the failure of military interventions to achieve these goals and indifferent to the human and fiscal costs of endless war. They dismiss the loss of innocent lives — including the deaths of children — as unavoidable “collateral damage,” while using their influence in the media to spread pro-war propaganda. They also smear their opponents as aiding America’s enemies and sympathizing with terrorists.

No one holding political power wants to admit the system he supports is immoral and a failure. Therefore, defenders of the welfare-warfare state rely on lies and deceptions. They ignore all evidence of the failure of big government to accomplish its ends, instead pretending they can fix the system with a few reforms. They also work with allies in the media to promulgate the lie that without the welfare state the masses would remain poor and uneducated, and without the warfare state, we would be overwhelmed by those who hate us for our freedoms. They never mention that many foreigners hate America because of the suffering caused by our hyper-interventionist foreign policy.

The welfare-warfare state is built on violence and deceit. It is thus inevitable that many of those participating in this immoral system will combine their immoral politics with immoral personal conduct. Hopefully, the revelations of sexual misconduct among the welfare-warfare state’s Capitol Hill and media defenders will lead more Americans to question the morality and the wisdom of allowing the federal government to run the world, run the economy, and run our lives.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

The Jews’ Excuses to Jeremiah: Sound Familiar?

Jeremiah 44:15-20:

ויענו את ירמיהו כל האנשים הידעים כי מקטרות נשיהם לאלהים אחרים וכל הנשים העמדות קהל גדול וכל העם הישבים בארץ מצרים בפתרוס לאמר.
הדבר אשר דברת אלינו בשם השם איננו שמעים אליך.
כי עשה נעשה את כל הדבר אשר יצא מפינו לקטר למלכת השמים והסיך לה נסכים כאשר עשינו אנחנו ואבתינו מלכינו ושרינו בערי יהודה ובחצות ירושלם ונשבע לחם ונהיה טובים ורעה לא ראינו.
ומן אז חדלנו לקטר למלכת השמים והסך לה נסכים חסרנו כל ובחרב וברעב תמנו.
וכי אנחנו מקטרים למלכת השמים ולהסך לה נסכים המבלעדי אנשינו עשינו לה כונים להעצבה והסך לה נסכים.

When we try to convert nominally “Observant” Jews to observance, they say all the same things:

  • קהל גדול… לאמר: The many make the right.
  • וכל הנשים: Women are supposed to possess unfailing intuition as to Hashem’s will.
  • בשם השם: We deny the very sources, or interpret them differently.
  • אשר יצא מפינו: We cannot lose face now.
  • אנחנו ואבתינו: This is clear Masores.
  • מלכינו ושרינו: The state decreed so. Do you promote chaos and treason?
  • בערי יהודה ובחצות ירושלם: It’s the local Minhag everywhere.
  • ורעה לא ראינו, ומן אז חדלנו לקטר למלכת השמים… חסרנו כל ובחרב וברעב תמנו: Those who vote for Shas\Gimmel are blessed; those who uncover their hair at home are “cursed”. Etc.
  • המבלעדי אנשינו עשינו: We follow God-given hierarchy and leadership.

Even Beis Din Doesn’t Invade Private Property

Note well the careful language used b the Shulchan Aruch at the end of Hilchos Yom Tov:

חייבים ב”ד להעמיד שוטרים ברגלים, שיהיו משוטטים ומחפשים בגנות ובפרדסים ועל הנהרות שלא יתקבצו שם לאכול ולשתות אנשים ונשים, ויבואו לידי עבירה, וכן יזהירו בדבר זה לכל העם, שלא יתערבו אנשים ונשים בבתיהם בשמחה ולא ימשכו ביין, שמא יבואו לידי עבירה, אלא יהיו כולם קדושים.

They “search” public property but only “ensure” regarding private property.

Avraham Rivkas: How NOT to Learn Halacha from History

A Rabbi named Peter?

We find several Tosafists (“Ba’alei Tosafos”) with peculiar names, the most surprising being, perhaps, “Rabbenu Peter”, see Tosafos Gittin 8a. Needless to say, Peter is not a Jewish name.

Although it is true that many Rishonim had additional secular names for legal and other reasons, it is not likely these would be mentioned in their own Torah books, unwarranted and unrequired. Here, the convention is to mention the ‘religious’ Hebrew name throughout the book (and often the patronymic name on the title page). Most Tosafists are, in fact, identified by their Hebrew names, either in full or in acronyms. Take Rabbi Yitzchak (Ri), Rabbi Shimon ben Meir (Rashbam), Rabbi Moshe (Haram), etc.

Several Poskim have discussed the name Peter as regards the laws of names in Gittin (Jewish Divorce) based on this Tosafos. They (tentatively) wish to establish the name as a legally Jewish one in this respect. No, not any assimilated Peter, but anyone hypothetically named after this Rabbi would be written on a Get as פטר; not פעט(ע)ר!

I once heard a better explanation from Rabbi Yechiel Sternberg, chief editor of Yeshurun, a well-regarded Torah journal. He noted there are also Rabbenu Tam, Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor, Rabbi Porat, and probably others, none of whom are referred to by their real name.

It is therefore quite likely that Rabbenu “Peter”, too, is merely a “Term of Endearment” for a Tosafist who was a firstborn as per Exodus 34:19 see Rashi ad. loc. and Numbers 3:12). He also mentioned another option I can’t remember. Either way, his name is not to be enunciated as “Pea-ter” but as “Pet-ehr”. פטר is no name at all, just a nickname.

Now let’s get back to the other Tosafists (I’m sure you all know the rest, but still).

“Rabbenu Tam” is known to be a reference to Rabbi Yaakov, a grandson of Rashi and uncle to Ri the Elder, c.f. Tosafos sub voce “Amar” Beitza 17b.

I once read a theory that this title is a reference to the story in Tosafos Kesubos 47b where he “neutralized” the interpretation of “Vetam Larik Kochachem”. In my opinion, this is unlikely. Had this been true, that same Tosafos would have mentioned as much.

The standard explanation for the nickname is this verse describing his biblical namesake Jacob —

ויעקב איש תם ישב אהלים

In this context, “Tam” means either “perfect” or “innocent”, an honorific deemed to fit Rashi’s esteemed grandson.

By the way, Rabbenu Tam is not the only Tosafist named Yaakov. Another is Rabbi Yaakov of Orleans, c.f. Tosafos Pesachim beginning of 8b (and many other places). In the recently published Tosafos on Shabbos there is a “new” Tosafist called simply “Tam” (not to be confused with Tom!). His first name must have been Yaakov too!

As for Rabbi Yosef “Bechor Shor”, here both the true name and the nickname are recorded together. Note Tosafos s.v. “Tevuos” Sanhedrin 42a, that “Bechor Shor” is an allusion to Yosef. Go on; tell us your own theory for the reference!

“Rabbi Porat”, too, must be a Yosef, just as the “original” Joseph was called (Genesis 49:22) —

בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין

(“Porat” here means charm or glory, check commentaries ad. loc.)

Tosafos Nazir 10a s.v. “Parah” quotes a “Rabbi, Rabbenu Yosef”, and Tosafos ibid. 37b s.v. “Migi’ulei” mentions a Rabbi Yossi, both from Jerusalem. A certain modern author wonders how come two Tosafists both termed Joseph were living in Jerusalem at a time when not many Jews at all were located in Israel. Legally speaking, Yosef and Yosi are definitely not the same name, nor is Yossi the truncated form of Yosef.

Ah, but could ‘Yossi’ be merely a nickname for Yosef?

This train of thought solves an additional problem as well. Various scholars have wondered at our newfound ‘Custom’ of giving compound names. Some have tried to point out the Tosafist “Rabbi Yaakov Israel” as evidence of this being somewhat common even before our time (see Tosafos s.v. “Hani” Chulin 112a). Then again, who is to say this is not simply another example of Tosafists receiving “pet names”?

Maybe his real name is either “Yaakov” or “Israel”, and his title became “Rabbi Yaakov Israel” as a reminder of the verse in which our forefather Jacob had an alternative name gifted him by an angel he defeated, see Genesis 32:29 —

ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל

(Perhaps Rabbi Y. won a fearsome battle…)

Clearly, some of this is mere speculation, but the point here is not to decide matters but to avoid a decision, showing how they might also be resolved without reaching newfound Halachic (and quasi-Halachic) conclusions.

This post is not just for those few editors doing work on the Tosafos, but to remind us of something we often forget. Just like when using logic to reach Halachic conclusions, attempting to learn Halacha from history, too, must be done carefully and painstakingly. Yes, this is an extreme example, but the point is still valid.

P.S. I am very well aware there is more to be said on several of the issues addressed in this post.

Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com