Hyehudi’s MOST-READ Articles in the Month of November

  1. Shlomo Wrubel Marks Rabbi Kahane’s Yahrtzeit
  2. Venishmartem
  3. השאלות של אדיר זיק לגבי רצח רבין
  4. The Logical Limits of Altruism
  5. Torah Scholars & the Rich: Who Envies Whom?
  6. מי שאינו יודע חשק אשה אינו יכול להיותו אוהב וחושק באלוה
  7. Tavlaot Chazara
  8. מכתבי מחאה חדשים נגד ה’בית דין הבינלאומי’ המתירים אשת איש לעלמא בלא גט
  9. ‘Nisyonos UPLIFT Us’ – Rabbi Yosef Sholom Rabin of Kedushas Tzion

Enjoy!

שימושי: כיצד לברר גירסאות – הרב מאיר מאזוז שליט”א

ראה עלון “בית נאמן” האחרון כאן בענין שיטת הרמב”ם לגבי הנץ החמה.

הנה הקטע הרלוונטי:

השבוע היה לי ויכוח עם חכם אחד… הוא טוען שבג’רבא ובבבל התפללו ע”פ דעת הרב בית דוד (סימן ל”ו), שנץ החמה שעה לפני שרואים את השמש.

החכם הנ”ל מסתמך ע”ד הרמב”ם (פ”א מלכות קריאת שמע הי”א) שכתב: “ושיעור זה [של הנץ החמה] כמו שיעור שעה קודם שתעלה השמש”, וא”כ צריך שיעור שעה לפני הנץ. אמרתי לו: מרן הכסף משנה (שם) כתב שבספרים מדוייקים כתוב “עישור שעה”. ומה שהמעתיק טעה בזה כי הוא לא רגיל במלה הזאת “עישור” (וכמו שכתוב “עשירית האיפה” ולא עישור האיפה), ולכן כתב שיעור שעה, ובאמת לא יתכן לגרוס “שיעור שעה”, כי א”כ לשון הרמב”ם מגומגם “ושיעור זה כמו שיעור שעה”, למה כתב את המלה “שיעור” פעמיים?! ובדקנו וראינו בהרמב”ם בשני מקומות: מקום אחד, בהלכות חנוכה (פ”ד ה”ה) כותב: “שכח או הזיד וכו’ מדליק והולך עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק. וכמה הוא זמן זה? כמו חצי שעה או יותר”, ולא כתב כמו שיעור חצי שעה. ועוד מקום אחר, בהלכות מאכלות אסורות (פ”ט הכ”ח) כותב: “מי שאכל בשר בתחילה לא יאכל אחריו חלב, עד שיהיה ביניהם כדי שיעור סעודה אחרת (זה לשון הגמרא חולין ק”ה ע”א), והוא כמו שש שעות”. ולא כתב והוא כמו שיעור שש שעות. ובשביל מה כאן יחזור על המלה פעמיים? “שיעור-שיעור” למה לי? אלא מוכרח שהגירסא הנכונה “עישור”. והנה מרן כותב שזו הגירסא האמיתית. הוא טוען שמרן בבית יוסף (סי’ נ”ח) לא כתב שזו הגירסא האמיתית. אבל מה נפשך, אם מרן כתב בית יוסף לפני כסף משנה, אדרבה הכסף משנה בתרא ומאוחר יותר. ואם כתב בית יוסף אחרי כסף משנה וחזר בו מגירסת עישור, למה לא כתב בבית יוסף “ולא כאותה גירסא שגורסים עישור”?! וגם יש כמה מקומות שמוכח בבירור שכסף משנה נכתב אחרי בית יוסף 12.אבל לא כל כסף משנה. הרב חיד”א (שם הגדולים ח”ב ערך כסף משנה) כותב שיש מקומות שדבריו בבית יוסף נכונים יותר, ויש מקומות שדבריו בכסף משנה נכונים יותר, וצריך חוש ביקורת כדי לדעת אם זה אמת או שקר. לכן לא להיות מרובע ולומר: בית יוסף השפה האחרונה והוא לא כתב שגירסת עישור היא האמיתית.

The Yom Kippur War: When ‘Stupidity’ Is That Great, It’s Time to Consider ‘Malice’…

What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War?

 

Moscow

Here in Moscow I recently received a dark-blue folder dated 1975. It contains one of the most well-buried secrets of Middle Eastern and of US diplomacy. The secret file, written by the Soviet Ambassador in Cairo, Vladimir M. Vinogradov, apparently a draft for a memorandum addressed to the Soviet politbureau, describes the 1973 October War as a collusive enterprise between US, Egyptian and Israeli leaders, orchestrated by Henry Kissinger. If you are an Egyptian reader this revelation is likely to upset you. I, an Israeli who fought the Egyptians in the 1973 war, was equally upset and distressed, – yet still excited by the discovery. For an American it is likely to come as a shock.

According to the Vinogradov memo (to be published by us in full in the Russian weekly Expert next Monday), Anwar al-Sadat, holder of the titles of President, Prime Minister, ASU Chairman, Chief Commander, Supreme Military Ruler, entered into conspiracy with the Israelis, betrayed his ally Syria, condemned the Syrian army to destruction and Damascus to bombardment, allowed General Sharon’s tanks to cross without hindrance to the western bank of the Suez Canal, and actually planned a defeat of the Egyptian troops in the October War. Egyptian soldiers and officers bravely and successfully fought the Israeli enemy – too successfully for Sadat’s liking as he began the war in order to allow for the US comeback to the Middle East.

He was not the only conspirator: according to Vinogradov, the grandmotherly Golda Meir knowingly sacrificed two thousand of Israel’s best fighters – she possibly thought fewer would be killed — in order to give Sadat his moment of glory and to let the US  secure its positions in the Middle East. The memo allows for a completely new interpretation of the Camp David Treaty, as one achieved by deceit and treachery.

Vladimir Vinogradov was a prominent and brilliant Soviet diplomat; he served as ambassador to Tokyo in the 1960s, to Cairo from 1970 to 1974, co-chairman of the Geneva Peace Conference,  ambassador to Teheran during the Islamic revolution, the USSR Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. He was a gifted painter and a prolific writer; his archive has hundreds of pages of unique observations and notes covering international affairs, but the place of honor goes to his Cairo diaries, and among others, descriptions of his hundreds of meetings with Sadat and the full sequence of the war as he observed it unfold at  Sadat’s HQ as the big decisions were made. When published, these notes will allow to re-evaluate the post-Nasser period of Egyptian history.

Vinogradov arrived in Cairo for Nasser’s funeral and remained there as the Ambassador. He recorded the creeping coup of Sadat,  least bright of Nasser’s men, who became Egypt’s president by chance, as he was the vice-president at Nasser’s death. Soon he dismissed, purged and imprisoned practically all important Egyptian politicians, the comrades-in-arms of Gamal Abd el Nasser, and dismantled the edifice of Nasser’s socialism. Vinogradov was an astute observer; not a conspiracy cuckoo. Far from being headstrong and  doctrinaire, he was a friend of Arabs and a consistent supporter and promoter of a lasting and just peace between the Arabs and Israel, a peace that would meet  Palestinian needs and ensure Jewish prosperity.

The pearl of his archive is the file called The Middle Eastern Games. It contains some 20 typewritten pages edited by hand in blue ink, apparently a draft for a memo to the Politburo and to the government, dated January 1975, soon after his return from Cairo. The file contains the deadly secret of the collusion he observed. It is written in lively and highly readable Russian, not in the bureaucratese we’d expect. Two pages are added to the file in May 1975; they describe Vinogradov’s visit to Amman and his informal talks with Abu Zeid Rifai, the Prime Minister, and his exchange of views with the Soviet Ambassador in Damascus. Vinogradov did not voice his opinions until 1998, and even then he did not speak as openly as in this draft. Actually, when the suggestion of collusion was presented to him by the Jordanian prime minister, being a prudent diplomat, he refused to discuss it.

The official version of the October war holds that on  October  6, 1973, in conjunction with Hafez al-Assad of Syria, Anwar as-Sadat launched a surprise attack against Israeli forces. They crossed the Canal and advanced a few miles into the occupied Sinai. As the war progressed, tanks of General Ariel Sharon  crossed the Suez Canal and encircled the Egyptian Third Army. The ceasefire negotiations eventually led to the handshake at the White House.

For me, the Yom Kippur War (as we called it) was an important part of my autobiography. A young paratrooper, I fought that war, crossed the canal, seized Gabal Ataka heights, survived shelling and face-to-face battles, buried my buddies, shot the man-eating red dogs of the desert and the enemy tanks. My unit was ferried by helicopters into the desert where we severed the main communication line between the Egyptian armies and its home base, the Suez-Cairo highway. Our location at 101 km to Cairo was used for the first cease fire talks; so I know that war not by word of mouth, and it hurts to learn that I and my comrades-at-arms were just disposable tokens in the ruthless game we – ordinary people – lost. Obviously I did not know it then,  for me the war was a surprise, but then,  I was not a general.

Vinogradov dispels the idea of surprise: in his view, both the canal crossing by the Egyptians and the inroads by Sharon were planned and agreed upon in advance by Kissinger, Sadat, and Meir. The plan included the destruction of the Syrian army as well.

At first, he asks some questions: how the crossing could be a surprise if the Russians evacuated their families a few days before the war? The concentration of the forces was observable and could not escape Israeli attention. Why did the Egyptian forces not proceed after the crossing but stood still? Why did they have no plans for advancing? Why there was a forty km-wide unguarded gap between the 2d and the 3d armies, the gap that invited Sharon’s raid? How could Israeli tanks sneak to the western bank of the Canal? Why did Sadat refuse to stop them? Why were there no reserve forces on the western bank of the Canal?

Vinogradov takes a leaf from Sherlock Holmes who said: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. He writes: These questions can’t be answered if Sadat is to be considered a true patriot of Egypt. But they can be answered in full if we consider a possibility of collusion between Sadat, the US, and Israeli leadership – a conspiracy in which each participant pursued his own goals. A conspiracy in which each participant did not know the full details of other participants’ game.  A conspiracy in which each participant tried to gain more ground despite the overall agreement between them.

Continue reading…

From CounterPunch, here.

Why Exactly ‘Seven Wisdoms’ (Trivium+Quadrivium=7 Liberal Arts)? No Reason!

Should one study secular subjects, independently of Torah?

Summary: Is the Maharsham correct that a talmid chacham should gain all secular knowledge from Torah, parallel to the menorah which was beaten out of one piece of molten gold?
Post: The following gem, from Revach.net, relevant to parashat Terumah:

Parshas Truma: Maharsham – A Talmid Chochom Must Have Worldly Wisdom
The Menora had seven branches, but needed to be made out of one solid piece of gold that was hammered into shape. Why was this so essential? Why couldn’t it be made out of separate chunks of gold to make it easier to make? 
The Maharsham (Tcheiles Mordechai) explains that these seven branches represent the seven secular wisdoms of the world. The Menora represents Torah and a talmid chochom must know all these wisdoms. If each branch was developed separately and then added to the menora, one would think that a talmid chochom must study each one of these subjects independently in order to complete his wisdom. 
Hashem cmmanded Moshe to make the seven branches by shaping it out of one piece, the Torah. One must study Torah, and from plumbing the depths of the Torah he can know all the wisdom of the world, if he is willing to work hard and bang and shape himself.

You can see this Maharsham inside, in Techelet Mordechai on parashat Terumah:

“In Shemot Rabba and in Rashi, that Moshe had difficulty with the form of the menorah, and Hashem showed him a menorah of fire. And there is to say that behold, this that it was made all of molten gold, and was not made piece by piece, but was rather hammered with a sledgehammer — it appears to me that the seven branches of the menorah hint at the seven branches of wisdom. And that it should not arise in one’s mind that a talmid chacham needs to learn each one by itself. This is not so, for in the Torah is hidden all wisdom, and if he merits it, he will attain all of it from the Torah. And in Shas, in the first perek of Bechorot (8a), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya derived the gestation period for a snake, something which the scholars of philosophy were unable to attain! And since the snake caused sin to come to the world and brought death to the world, and the Torah is the Tree of Life, to fix the sin of the snake, whose gestation is seven years, therefore the Menorah was made of gold and hammered with a sledgehammer to hammer out {להפשיט} the seven branches. And this is what is stated {Yirmeyahu 23:29}:

כט  הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ, נְאֻם-ה; וּכְפַטִּישׁ, יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע.  {ס}29 Is not My word like as fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? {S}

And Moshe did not understand the intent behind this. Therefore he showed him the menorah of fire, which is like a hammer which breaketh the rock in pieces, and out of which all spreads.”

This ends the Maharasham.

Yet, I wonder if that is indeed true. Here is a non-comprehensive list of Tannaim and Amoraim who did not get their all their secular knowledge from the Torah, but rather by study or consulting secular experts, from the book Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud, by Fred Rosner:

More than that. It is funny how everyone always cites this gemara about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya as comprehensive proof that you can get all knowledge from the Torah. While this may indeed be the intent of the statement, as a matter of fact, the gestation period of the snake is NOT seven years. And the gestation period of other animals listed in that gemara are also off! See here and here.

Furthermore, we have practical experience of rabbis who did NOT gain their knowledge from secular study, but from the Torah. The result is a gadol who believes that Jews have a different number of teeth than gentiles. And people who believe as a matter of faith, based on a Malbim and a Chasam Sofer, that a pomegranate has exactly 613 seeds. Torah scholars do need to study secular subjects, in order to be familiar enough with metzius to pasken.

Nowadays, we have the luxury of studying secular subjects in a kosher Torah atmosphere, and it need not be a threat to our faith. The Maharsham, Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, did not have this luxury. He had to contend with haskalah and early Reform. But it would be an error to take a polemic written in one intellectual and social environment and blindly apply it to our own.

The seven branches of wisdom he is referring to, by the way, are the trivium and the quadrivium. These are:

    • grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy.

But those are a result of a historical accident, not because there are intrinsically precisely seven subjects.