Year: 2019

OH, NO: Kedushas Tzion Again Calls for a ‘Halachic State’. Include Me Out!

When I once noted Hyehudi is allied with, but not fully agreed to Kedushas Tzion, I was swamped at once with queries to explain why and wherefore.

I think the following Open Letter from Kedushas Tzion to Knesset Member B. Smotrich, makes this clear.

Download (PDF, 2.42MB)

Sic.

There is very good reason almost no one has ever or will ever claim the “Halachic State” mantle; the term is an oxymoron!

We explained this many times (but always have new readers!). The goals of the modern State, let alone the means, are most all illegitimate. You can have national autonomy without a parliament. All that required in this country was allowing the British Mandate to expire, and not putting anything in its place.

“Medinat Halacha” is “lip service” for the so-called radical Right (Source: Yeshayahu Leibowitz), and as a fundraising vehicle for Meretz (which only pretends to support the separation of religion and state — unlike Zehut. What they really support is using the State to bash religious Jews even harder).

The idea uttered by Smotrich, and supported by the above Open Letter, namely the pig-lipstick of introducing some (some!) Torah law into the goyishe Israeli courts, is discredited every day anew – and it doesn’t fool religious Jews any better than Mohammed’s attempts to give Mohammedanism a Jewish veneer, either (I hope).

Some of the things the regime does are already the exclusive responsibility of Beis Din it inexcusably shirks, so the addition of a state entity is superfluous, while it would be the responsibility of Beis Din to actively stop other things, such as central banking, prisons, the army draft, centralized water supply, etc.

Yes, let’s get serious about applying Halacha to every walk of life (but not like this). This entails, as a very first measure, abolishing the state. Legislative “reforms” are always and everywhere a sad joke. Is Kedushas Tzion endorsing the coercive methods of Brit Hakanna’im“?!

And it’s easier to secede in a million ways little and large and then lead the seculars our way by shining example (not war!) than to get the Knesset to vote on its dissolution, like the USSR (Heh!). At least they aren’t into political activism yet…

In this connection, see this past article, too.

And speaking of vital disagreement with Kedushas Tzion, I see current Judaism’s ailment as far deeper than “missing kosher Zionism”, so my general strategy is, too, accordingly different.

To quote myself:

… I notice the Kedushas Tzion writers take care not to name their opponents. This is probably due to the Gra on בנפל אויביך אל תשמח.
Myself, I have a different strategy. See, if these topics were merely about ABCD, then surely we should guard the dignity of the mistaken (for many reasons). But in this case, “The issue is never the issue”. The specific issues are supposed to be a hook to get the reader to re-examine everything else he learned from his rabbis.
I want him to think: If they could be wrong on so basic and obvious a matter as ABC, what else could they be wrong about?

Rabbi Meir Mazuz Tries Defending Israel’s ‘Court-Rabbis’ From Criticism

Hyehudi.org has posted several treatises against state-rabbinic “religious” institutions, and their so-called halachic rulings, in matters of Choshen Mishpat and Even Ha’ezer, especially coerced Gittin. Find them here.

Rabbi Mazuz has seen (at least) “Gitei Hakazav” (abridged here), and “Dayanei Hakazav“, and he doesn’t like what he sees.

Bayit Ne’eman, 162#, Bechukosai 5779 p. 4, footnote 28:

היום אנשים כותבים חוברות אנונימיים בלי שם, ”גיטי הכזב“ ”דייני הכזב“, ושם יורדים על הדיינים של ארץ ישראל. אני מכיר לפחות חלק מהם, ויודע שהם צדיקים וישרים ושומרים קלה כבחמורה ועושים תענית כל ערב ראש חודש, ולפי דעת בעלי החוברות האלה הם פושעים ארורים ומוכתבים מהבג“ץ וכדו‘, אבל זה לא נכון. וגם אם יש לכם השגות תכתבו בכבוד, לא כותבים בצורה כזאת. והבעיה שבעלי החוברות האלה לא חותמים את שמותיהם, אבל אם אתם אומרים דברי אמת ברורים תחתמו את זה, מה יעשו לכם?! כאן יש ”דמוקרטיה“ וכותבים מה שרוצים, אנשים צוחקים על ראש הממשלה ועל נשיא המדינה וכדו‘, אז תכתבו שהרב פלוני טעה, מה יש בזה?! אלא שהם יודעים שיש תשובות על דבריהם, ולכן הם יורדים ומתנפלים בעילום שם, כדי שיוכלו לומר: לא אמרתי, התכוונתי אחרת, זה ראשי תיבות אחרות וכדו‘. זו מדה רעה, ואסור לעשות דבר כזה (ועיין באו“ת סיון תשע“ט סי‘ קי“א).

I offer a defense of the offense:

First of all, the authors are hardly anonymous. 5 minutes on Google will tell you who wrote them (Hint: “Bechadrei” forums). A careful reading between the lines confirms this. And I suspect perusing Hyehudi will tell you who vastly helped edit these works (don’t worry, it’s not me!).

As to whether anonymity is justified in this case, well COME ON! Does anyone think the authors won’t be prosecuted if caught (if only on “unrelated” charges)?! There is a “benevolent” anti-Torah pseudo-law against those insulting “public servants”, which includes the kept-rabbis under discussion. So, there is a vast difference between empty name-calling which just rolls off pols and pertinent criticisms which would undermine the faux-legitimacy of these רבנים-מטעם.

This is no inactive Dead Letter legislation, either. Does the name Elitzur Segal (prosecuted for writing this) ring a bell? Ever heard of the prosecution of the publishers (and some contributors) to “Baruch Hagever“? And so on. “The midday sun requires no testimony.”

I note even Rabbi Mazuz’s transcribers placed the word “democracy” in parentheses, as well they should (this is true of democratic government in all times and places, by the way). There is no prohibition of מכה רעהו בסתר in the case of a גברא אלימא, etc.!

Rabbi Mazuz says גם אם יש לכם השגות תכתבו בכבוד. Is this an admission the rabbi has absolutely no pertinent answer to the halachic arguments? (Or must we wait patiently for או“ת סיון תשע“ט סי‘ קי“א?)

Please note: One of the rabbis behind Gitei Hakazav, Mishpetei Yisrael, etc. intends to write his own rebuttal for Hyehudi once he gets to study the aforementioned Sivan issue of the Ohr Torah journal.

חמדת ממון (מותרת) – עמוד העולם, סוד הקידמה, וצינור השפע

ספר יד הלוי על סה”מ לרמב”ם ל”ת רס”ה אות א’:

“התאוה הוא בלב לבד, שמתאוה בלבו לדבר מהדברים, והחמדה הוא ההשתדלות והתחבולות שעושה כדי להשיג אותו הדבר שמתאוה, ושתי אלו הן מעמודי העולם והם הצינורות שמשפיעין כל היקום והפרוגרס הכללי, כידוע לכל משכיל, ואינם מגונים כלל אם נשתמש בהם במדה הנחוצה לפנים מגבולי הצדק והיושר, אמנם מה שהזהירה תורה הוא לבל נפרוץ גדרות עולם ולבל נשלח אותם חפשי להתאות ולחמוד מאשר לזולתנו שמשתמש בהם לעצמו ואינו עומד למסור לאחר, כאשתו ביתו שורו וחמורו וכל אשר לרעהו עצמו…”

מקור והמשך ניתן לראות כאן.

וכן דברי קהלת (ד’ ד’):

“וראיתי אני את כל עמל ואת כל כשרון המעשה כי היא קנאת איש מרעהו, גם זה הבל ורעות רוח.”

וז”ל הרב אב”ע, רוב עמל האדם גם כשרון מעשיהם בעבור בני האדם שיקנאו זה בזה וירצה להתפאר על חברו ושלא יהיה הוא חסר ממנו בדירתו ומלבושיו ובניו ומאכלו וחכמתו וטוב השם, עכ”ל.

בראשית רבה ט’ ז’:

רבי נחמן בר שמואל בר נחמן בשם רב שמואל בר נחמן אמר, הנה טוב מאד זה יצר טוב והנה טוב מאד זה יצר רע. וכי יצר הרע טוב מאד, אתמהא, אלא שאלולי יצר הרע לא בנה אדם בית ולא נשא אשה ולא הוליד ולא נשא ונתן, וכן שלמה אומר כי היא קנאת איש מרעהו.

The Real Problem and Real Solution Both Reside OUTSIDE Politics

Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Grandson Speaks Out

By Tzvi Fishman – 8 Adar II 5779 – March 15, 2019

Meir Ettinger – a grandson of Rabbi Meir Kahane, Hy”d – has been tagged by the Israeli establishment as a religious ultra-nationalist and head of a Jewish terrorist gang that has never been named (and which Ettinger maintains doesn’t exist).

After the fatal torching of an Arab home in the village of Duma in 2015, Ettinger – then 23 – was arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for 10 months before being released without being charged. Banned from entering Judea and Samaria for “being a danger to peace,” he now lives with his wife and son in Beit Shemesh.

The Jewish Press recently spoke to him about a recent op-ed he wrote in Hebrew opposing the Trump administration’s peace plan, which is set to be unveiled after Israel’s elections on April 9.

The Jewish Press: Considering President Trump’s staunch support for Israel, won’t his deal favor the Jewish state? Why are you attacking it?

Ettinger: In order for the plan to have any chance of being accepted by the Arabs, it will have to include territorial concessions, an economic pay-off, connecting the Arab population of Gaza with that of Judea and Samaria, and the framework of a future Palestinian state.

Still, why not wait until the plan is revealed before attacking it?

We have to prepare now…. Over the last decade, the political Right has succeeded in silencing talk of further settlement evacuations and seemingly buried the dream of a two-state solution, but it has failed to put the goal of “Greater Eretz Yisrael” on the national agenda, and it has totally forgotten about returning to Shechem, Jenin, and Jericho – let alone Gush Katif – thus accepting the tenets of the Oslo Accord as tablets forged in heaven.

When the country’s leaders don’t foster an ardent love for the entire homeland, a lack of passion develops – even among settlers – toward problematic places like Shechem and Jenin, along with a willingness to surrender them to the Arabs.

How do we prevent that?

There is only one way. We have to act now to expand the borders of every yishuv and to establish new ones wherever we can – on every hilltop – while at the same time educating the nation about the supreme importance of keeping the entire Land of Israel under Jewish control.

We have to create more and more facts on the ground while bringing massive numbers of visitors and new residents to the length and breadth of the land in order to reawaken our love for our homeland and our yearning for its redemption in all of its biblical borders.

The more Jews reside in the settlements, the more difficult it is to evacuate them.

Hysteria has broken out recently over the merger between The Jewish Home and Otzma Yehudit. What’s your reaction?

It’s “make-believe hysteria” – part of a political struggle where all sides try to paint the other as extremists. The people who champion leftist ideology don’t differentiate between The Jewish Home and Otzma Yehudit. To them, both rightist parties are racist.

Your grandmother, Rebbetzin Kahane, recently told The Jewish Press that she regrets the falsehoods the leftist media disseminate about your grandfather. Why do so many people distort his ideas?

The Zionist movement was founded on a basic flaw. On the one hand, Zionist leaders championed a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. In the same breath, they identified themselves with Western principles of democracy where everyone is considered equal.

Rav Kahane explained that these contradict one another, and he emphasized the necessity of being loyal to our own Jewish roots and identity as the foundation for a true Jewish state – a medinat Yehudit in contrast to a medinat Yisrael. He wanted us to understand who we really are and to take the steps necessary to ensure that the state remained Jewish rather than becoming a battleground of conflicting cultures and national aspirations.

Again and again on the floor of the Knesset, he pointed out that democracy could lead to an Arab majority in the country and an Arab prime minister. All of the lovers of democracy in the Knesset – on the Left and Right – blacklisted him for that because it exposed the national schizophrenia upon which this country is based.

It’s ironic that it was the champions of democracy who banned your grandfather and his Kach Party for his political ideology.

It wasn’t only his political ideology they sought to stamp out. Rabbi Kahane’s message called upon every Jew to internalize his Jewishness and his mission in the world. This is a difficult challenge since it demands that a Jew choose to be a Jew first and not adopt the ways of the nations – just as it is difficult for a person to give up his temptations and passions and cling to the Torah and its commandments.

Some people insist that after your grandfather entered the Knesset, he would have achieved greater results if he had played along with the political game and hidden some of his more strident beliefs.

I don’t believe that hiding the truth brings true benefit in its wake. The Gemara says “there is a short way that is long.” In the beginning, the shortcut seems to save time, but it can end up distancing you from reaching the goal. The way of truth is “the long way that is short.” It seems like a lengthy process in the beginning, but, when all is said and done, it proves to be the most effective path.

You have said in the past that you are not cut out for politics, but isn’t being a member of the government the best way to effect change?

If being in the government means not speaking the truth and throwing dust in the eyes of the public, then this is not a course that can lead to real change. Today, education and outreach play an important role in edifying the nation. We have seen, time and again, how social activism and grassroots groups lobbying for social change can have a greater national impact than politicians.

If Rabbi Kahane were alive today, and still outlawed from the Knesset, which party do you think he would vote for in the upcoming election?

I don’t know, but I am sure he would invest great energy to create a public movement, beyond the realm of politics, that would foster a revolution in Jewish thinking.

What do you mean?

Just like we are witnessing today a great wave of [personal] teshuvah, where more and more people are returning to Torah and mitzvah observance, we need a political and cultural teshuvah that will alter the essence of the state by infusing it with its true Torah soul.

Clarifying the meaning and purpose of a Jewish state in the world will require strength and steadfastness, and the willingness to sacrifice – similar to the mesirut nefesh that characterized the Zionist enterprise leading to the establishment of Israel.

From The Jewish Press, here.

Gary North: The Gold Bug View

The Gold-Plated Sting

By Gary North

March 3, 2007

Any American over age 50 probably remembers The Sting, the 1973 movie starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford. Their characters were a pair of penny-ante crooks who got even with a murderous criminal by setting him up for a scam. Like most scams, it appealed to greed. They persuaded him that he could get something for nothing. Then they stripped him of his money.

It was a great movie. All you had to do was ignore the ending, which violated an incontrovertible truth that had been revealed in a less well-known movie, The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight (1971). That truth was announced by Big Momma, the Italian mother of an incompetent gang: “If it ain’t in the Daily News, there ain’t-a no murder.”

Compared to what central bankers have done to the general public, The Sting was a con job run by amateurs.

So successful has their sting been that it has taken in 98% of the gold bugs.

THE GOLD BUG’S CREED

I am a gold bug. In early 2001, there were hardly any of us remaining.

What is a gold bug? It is a person who believes the following:

The gold standard was good for world trade, 1815 to 1914.

The gold standard was good for individual liberty.

A gold standard reduces the likelihood of monetary inflation.

Gold was a good investment, 1976—1979.

Gold is still a good investment, despite 1980—2001, when it fell 70% while consumer prices doubled.

The problem has always been this: there is almost no agreement among gold bugs as to what features a gold standard should always have. Should a gold standard be

Guaranteed by law?

Whose law?

Enforced by which government agency?

With the gold in which form?

Stored where?

At whose expense?

With what restrictions on entry?

With what competition from government-issued money?

With what competition from central bank-issued money?

At what price?

Then there is the question of silver. Gold bugs are usually also silver bugs. So, all of the above questions apply to silver.

There were gold coins in circulation in my parents’ youth. There were silver coins circulating in my youth. These coins used to be money, all over the industrial West. No longer. What happened?

The sting happened.

In June, 1914, you could have walked into a bank anywhere in the West and handed over the national paper money in exchange for either gold coins or silver coins. You could have purchased these coins at a fixed price: a specific quantity of paper money per coin. You would have paid nothing for the transaction, other than standing in line.

The gold standard was therefore a free lunch. So was the silver standard.

Problem: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”

So, there was something rotten in Denmark — also in England, France, the United States, and every other gold standard country. There was at least one fundamental flaw in the international gold standard, which was also a series of national gold standards. All of them rested on a lie: “something for nothing.”

Whenever you are offered something for nothing, keep your hand upon your wallet and your back against the wall.

THE FRAUD OF THE GOLD STANDARD

The gold standard as it actually operated, 1815—1914, was a gigantic fraud. That fraud was revealed every time there was a major war. Commercial banks suspended gold redemption on demand, and governments always legalized this violation of contract.

The gold standard in wartime wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

In late 1914, Europe’s banks suspended payment when World War I broke out. But this time the central banks in each country confiscated the gold that the commercial banks had just confiscated from their depositors.

After World War I was over, in 1925, Great Britain re-established gold coin redemption on demand, but at the pre-war, pre-wartime inflation price. This meant that gold withdrawals would strip the Bank of England of its gold unless it shrank the currency supply, which it feared to do. In 1931, gold withdrawals threatened the Bank of England’s gold horde. The Bank, with the government’s approval, suspended payment. It has never been re-established.

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt imitated the Brits. He went even further. He made it illegal for American citizens to own gold bullion or gold bullion coins.

Central banks could redeem gold for dollars at the U.S. Treasury after 1934 at $35/oz — not the previous $20. That policy ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon unilaterally broke the government’s contract with foreign central banks.

So. . . .

The gold standard was a restraint on governments . . . until the governments grew tired of the restraint.

The gold standard was a restraint on privately owned central banks after governments turned their nations’ gold over to the central banks . . . until the central bankers grew tired of the restraint.

The modern gold standard was therefore from day one a gigantic con job. Governments and later national central banks made this offer to the public:

“Bring your gold coins to your local commercial bank. Your bank will give you paper money in exchange. Paper money is light. It’s easy to carry. Any time you want gold coins rather than paper money, just bring in paper money, and your friendly banker will give you government-guaranteed gold coins at a fixed, government-guaranteed price. This way, you can store your gold free of charge. Think of the convenience. It’s a no-risk deal. Trust us.”

Something for nothing! The public bought it. In every nation, the public bought it. In every gold standard nation, the governments allowed the central banks to confiscate the public’s gold and never return it.

Silver, too.

THE STING

The mark of a successful sting operation is that the victim never knows that he has been stung.

I know of no more successful sting operation than the bait-and-switch scam known as the gold standard.

Not only did the general public in every nation shrug its collective shoulders when the governments confiscated their gold “in the name of the people,” the voters re-elected the politicians who turned over the government’s gold to the privately owned, barely regulated central banks.

The public still had one possible recourse: to go to the local bank and demand paper money. That act is deflationary. Every dollar withdrawn in the form of paper currency and not redeposited in another bank shrinks the money supply by nine to one. Paper currency is not fractionally reserved. Deposits are. Paper money is the bottom of the inverted pyramid of money.

That threat no longer exists. The February 17th issue of The Economist ran a cover story: “The End of Cash.” The cover featured a picture of dinosaurs.

Today, the only institutional restraining factor to protect the public from mass inflation is the bond market. If long-term rates climb in response to price inflation, bonds’ prices fall. That threatens institutional investors.

The sting has removed the ability of the public, person by person, to penalize the commercial banks by withdrawing money and not re-depositing it.

The public is unaware of any of this.

The politicians are unaware of any of this.

The media are unaware of any of this.

Academic economists are vaguely aware of some of this, but they don’t really care. They do not mention any of this in class or in their textbooks. They approve of central banks’ efficiency. Those few who do voice objections do not receive tenure, and surely not in any of the high-prestige universities.

Most amazing of all, the vast majority of gold bugs are unaware of any of this. Authors still write their unread book-long defenses of the gold standard, 1815—1914, as if the system had not been designed and implemented by the Bank of England to further the British Empire’s commercial interests and the interests of the commercial banks that served commerce.

And the beat goes on. And the beat goes on.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.

One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.

Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?

There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.

There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.

There is no organized movement today to establish either free banking or 100% reserve banking. There has never been a movement to impose 100% reserve banking. It has been well over a century since a handful of economists and pamphlet writers recommended free banking.

Anyone who tells you that it would be easy to switch over to a gold standard has either no understanding of the politics of money and banking or else has been smoking some funny-smelling leaves.

To switch by official decree to a non-governmental banking system would require the wholehearted co-operation of central bankers, commercial bankers, politicians, academic economists, and political parties, all of which have a vested interest in controlling the money supply at the expense of the public. They fear above all the depositors’ ability to bring down the entire international cartel through bank runs.

These bank runs would create massive deflation, international depression, and the collapse of the division of labor.

IMPLEMENTING THE SOLUTION

If a free market gold standard ever arrives, it will be the result of an unplanned response by men and women to a disaster created by the existing central bank cartel. This would require that the switch be preceded by massive inflation, followed by deflation, producing the bankruptcy of the existing banks and brokerage houses.

Problem: Where will we buy our gold coins? With what?

In the summer of 1963, I began buying silver coins at face value at a local bank. By 1964, there were no more silver coins to buy at banks. The run on silver coins had begun. Only in tiny coin stores could you buy silver coins at a premium over face value.

Where could you buy numismatic U.S. gold coins in 1963? At those same little coin shops.

For example, you could buy gold coins from Camino Coin Company in Burlingame, California. Today, over four decades later, you can still buy coins there. It is still tiny. The same guy owns it and runs it. I was 21 back then. I am 65 today.

The more things don’t change, the more they stay the same.

An international gold standard requires widespread access to gold coins or digital warehouse receipts to gold coins. There is no network of easily accessible local dealers. Banks do not buy and sell them. More important, it requires widespread awareness of the government-restraining aspect of gold coins.

Problem: the sting was completely successful. Almost no one today understands the power of gold coins and silver coins in relation to the rival power of governments to buy votes. Among those who think they understand — the gold bugs — almost none of them really do understand. They are advocates of stage one of the sting operation, as if time could run back. They want a return to the good old days when governments issued honest money and central bankers were public-spirited seekers of legitimate profits.

That’ll be the day.

CONCLUSION

Gold coins once provided a degree of personal liberty because governments were forced by public opinion regarding the money supply to maintain convertibility of paper money into gold coins. But war by war, central bank by central bank, economic emergency by economic emergency, textbook by textbook, central bank insiders have persuaded politicians to authorize the removal of gold from the public’s bank accounts. They have also persuaded academic economists and the media to re-shape the public’s opinion regarding gold:

“A barbarous relic.”

It all goes back to the original lie: something for nothing. It also goes back to the lie’s corollary: guaranteed by law. Those two lies made possible the creation of a government-guaranteed gold-plated gold standard. They were part of the sting.

March 3, 2007

From Lewrockwell.com, here.