Year: 2018

Chazal’s Limits of Refined Speech

Clean Language

What does the word “Kevastan” mean? It is twice referred to in Shas and nowhere else (if we are to trust the computer).

A, Kiddushin 26b.

B, Sanhedrin 55a.

The “Aruch” by Rabbi Nosson of Rome (Entry קבס) explains –

פירושו מכעיס.

ר”ח ז”ל פירש גנבת דעתינו, כדאמרינן נמצא גנב או קוביוסטוס, והוא בלשון יון מטעה בני אדם בדברי מרמות כגון גנב בעצמו.

פירוש אחר בתשובות, קבסתן בלשון ישמעאל גיתתנו ברפה ולא בדגש, כאדם שמראה את חבירו דבר מטונף והוא אומר הפכת כל האוכלין במעי עד שהגעתני להקיא, ומשל זה אומרים למי שאומר ומדבר דברים רחוקים ודחוקים, כלומר היאך יוכל האדם להערה עצמו. ועיקר לשון זה האדם המרבה במאכל ואוכל אכילה גסה ומצטער ומגיע לו שלשול מלמטה וקיא מלמעלה, נקרא בלשון ארמי קיבסא.

The context and etymology make clear the speaker is accusing his interlocutor of doing evil to him. The only question is what that negative deed is.

The Aruch offers three possible translations of Kevastan:

  1. ‘You anger me’
  2. ‘You deceive me’
  3. ‘You disgust me’

Two problems bother me at this point.

Firstly, if you read the original Aruch in Hebrew (and not just my summary), you will notice certain unmentionable descriptions in his account of #3; descriptions that, ironically, appear to achieve the same deplorable “disgust” being referenced. See Pesachim 3a on the great importance of using clean language in Chazal’s view. How could Rabbi Nosson – a Rishon, no less, express himself in this graphic fashion?

Secondly, assuming his third interpretation is truly correct, how could Chazal speak this way? Again, see Pesachim above. Even without their spelling things out, as the Aruch does, the phrase itself appears dreadful. How is “Kevastan” different than “You make me p***”? To make matters worse, Rashi, as well, (on both the aforementioned Sugyos) agrees with the Aruch’s third commentary.

Indeed sometimes, the words of Torah, themselves, are not “pretty”, see Yalkut Shimoni 5:990 –

ר’ שמואל בר יצחק פתר קריא בפרשיותיה של תורה אף על פי כן שנראות כאלו כעורות ושחורות לאמרם ברבים כגון הלכות זיבה ונגעים אמור הרי הם ערבות לפני, כו’

R’ Shmuel bar Yitzchak interpreted the verse [“Black as a raven (Song of Songs 5:11)”] metaphorically to refer to those portions of Torah which, although they seem too ugly and ‘black’ to be taught in public, such as the laws of discharges and skin diseases [Zivah, Nega’im], say: They are pleasing before G-d etc.

In truth though, there is no connection between Yalkut Shimoni and our discussion. This is not Torah itself, but avoidable expressions by sages in the course of a discussion concerning actual Torah. There is no reason to assume a compelling cause to express thoughts this way.

See also Megillah 25a regarding idol worshippers, an exception that proves the rule.

I am no expert on Aramaic, Greek or Arabic, but using a form of “outside” logic, it would seem either #1 or #2 is correct. I deem it probable Chazal would use a more refined form of speech; ergo that is what the unknown Kevastan means. Is that a logical fallacy…?

However, am I right in assuming this language is improper in the first place?

In his “Orchos Yosher”, Rabbi Chaim Kanievski (in the Chapter entitled “Hadras Panim”) quotes the Chazon Ish using the same terminology (after quoting the letter – Collected Letters of the Chazon Ish 1:198, saying he is “Soled”, or “recoils”, from shaving of the beard) –

ואמר מרן ז”ל שכשנכנס אליו אדם שמוריד זקנו או שמגדל בלורית נהי’ לו כ”כ לא טוב עד שעומד לו להקיא

Our teacher [the Chazon Ish] of blessed memory said that when he meets a man who removes his beard [entirely] or grows a front-lock [?] he feels so ill that he has the urge to vomit.

I wonder: was this first said in Yiddish? If so, what expression might have been used exactly? The above Hebrew quote is very unwieldy.

P. S. The Aramaic-to-Hebrew dictionary by E.T Melamed quotes both the first and third options in the Aruch –

הכעסתני, הגעלתני (גרמת לי להקיא, ערוך)

I assume he has good, scholarly reason for doing so.

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

The Marshall Plan Myth

The Marshall Plan Isn’t the Success Story You Think it Is

germany.JPG

06/05/2018 

To this day, the Marshall Plan, that enormous government program for foreign aid and wealth redistribution, is still held up as a model of good government planning, and of the benefits of forcibly redistributing the taxpayers’ money.

In American politics, this opinion has nearly risen to the level of ultimate truth. For example, while domestic welfare programs are often met with derision from American conservatives, the Marshall Plan, which is founded on the same ideological foundation as the American welfare states, receives almost universal approval from Americans left and right.

Thus, it is not surprising that politicians and pundits continue to invoke the Marshall plan to push for more modern day programs based on the idea that if governments spread around the wealth, then prosperity will naturally result.

Tuesday in Europe, for example, European Parliament President Antonio Tajani invoked the Marshall plan to push for more EU spending programs in Africa designed to attract wealth there via sweetheart deals between European regimes and African contractors. Many of those firms, of course, are likely to be European-owned. And the scheme is reminiscent of the Marshall Plan, so it’s sure to be a success!

Not coincidentally, Tajani delivered his remarks on the 71st anniversary of Secretary of State George Marshall’s June 5, 1947 speech calling for what became the Marshall Plan. He outlined the plan to flood Europe with government welfare checks in order to help Europe overcome the fact that much of the continent’s capital had been destroyed in World War II.

The money spent totaled over 100 billion dollars in today’s dollars. And given that the American economy was but a small fraction of what it is today, this was an enormous sum.

The rhetoric behind the idea was nothing new. In 1947, it was routine to claim that government spending of the New Deal and World War II had ended the poverty of the Great Depression. That’s not the reality, of course. As economic historian Robert Higgs has shown, the New Deal made the Depression worse. Nor did World War II end the Depression. But at the time, this was a common misperception.

So, if redistributing the wealth worked so well to end poverty in the 1930s, why not do it all again in post-war Europe?

Moreover, it was a winning political strategy for President Truman. As noted by Charles Mee in his book The Marshall Plan:

[Truman needed] some large program that would let him recapture the initiative, something big enough to enable him to gather in all the traditional factions of the Democratic Party and also some middle-of-the-road Republicans, and at the same time, something that would hamper the Republican phalanx.

So, the US government set to work funneling taxpayer dollars to both foreign regimes and to American corporations who could leverage their political influence with foreign regimes to get some of that money.

But here’s the rub. There’s not actually evidence that this worked.

As Thomas Woods notes in this lecture on foreign aid, it’s easy to see why the Marshall Plan has the reputation it does. After all, the Marshall Plan was implemented in the late forties, and during that time, the economies of Western Europe greatly recovered.

But this is a case of mere correlation being woefully insufficient to prove causation.

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.

Why Can’t We Judge Judaism by the Jews?!

In the Q&A section in Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky’s Jerusalem Gems, the last questioner wonders why we cannot judge Judaism by the Jews. His question is far better than the answer given. At least Rabbi Orlofsky, unlike others, admits the question is valid.

Let’s refine the difficulty.

While one most certainly cannot even begin to compare the social ills of observant Jews to those merely of Jewish descent, still, we hardly model the genuineness Judaism insists on so firmly.

Rabbi Orlofsky notes: “We have a lot to improve in Hilchos Shabbos, but at least we keep Shabbos”. Small comfort. True, one can’t find [available] Chametz in Jewish homes on Pesach (as per the example brought from the story about Rebbe Levi Yitzchak of Berditchov), but the best-kept Mitzvos are almost the exception to prove the opposite rule.

While we do, indeed, go to hear the Rabbi speak every week in Shul, that is hardly because “the system works”, and “people want to become better”. When is the last time you heard a speech focusing on the uncomfortable aspects of our day-to-day behavior?

A Rabbi who would dare dwell publicly on such matters would quickly be labeled as an “extremist” (who, by the way, don’t address their own community’s deficiencies either, just others’ deficiencies; so-called Zionism, etc.). The topic is usually the Parshah, or some other equally ‘safe’ topic, and if any criticism is delivered at all, it’s usually hinted at in a very vague and general manner.

Is it intellectually honest to call our behavior sincere ‘trying to be better’ as claimed in the book? Being better also includes change, although the general impression gained from the perusal of any sefer written lately is that “Chadash Asur Min Hatorah”, even when our ‘Minhag’ contradicts the whole Torah.

[Adapted from an unanswered letter I wrote to the author a long time ago]