Year: 2021

קול החינוך גליון 147#

יו”ל ע”י ‘ועד הורים’ – בהכוונת גדולי התורה שליט”א

[קול החינוך עוסק במלחמת מדינת ישראל בחינוך יהודי עצמאי.]

* למסירת מידע ומשלוח מסמכים בס”ד 03-691-5752, טלפקס: 6915752@okmail.co.il

Download (PDF, 1.93MB)

Reprinted with permission.

Iggros Moshe Says Something… Now, Where To Find the Alternate Views??

Psichas HaIgros – Seforim in Review

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l writes that cornflakes are shehakol. But others disagree.

Rav Feinstein zt”l ruled that Tefilah b’Tzibbur is only when there are ten people who are davening together –in other word four who davened already is not called Tefilah b’tzibbur. He brings a proof from the Chayei Adam. Do others disagree? Do others read the Rambam in a manner that would consider it tefilah b’tzibbur – not like Rav Feinstein?

A man hit his wife and demanded that she abort the child claiming that he never wanted children. She claims she would never have married him had she known this. Can the marriage be annulled? Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l felt that there were grounds to do this. Rav Asher Weiss Shlita (Minchas Asher Vol. I #73) disagrees.

Where should one look when one wants to see alternative views to those of Rav Moshe zatzal?

A MUST HAVE SEFER

Every so often a sefer comes along that becomes a “must have” when dealing with a particular halachic area. The aptly named, “Psichas haIgros” by Rabbi Yonasan Rosman is just such a sefer because it opens up the halachic issues underlying a number of rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l in his monumental Igros Moshe. Rav Rosman’s work is nearly exhaustive and he deserves a yasher koach for penning this very useful sefer. It is useful for Poskim who are dealing with contemporary halachic issues, Talmidei Chachomim delving into a sugya, and just about anyone who wishes to understand issues on a deeper level.

On the other hand, it is this author’s view that the work could have been written in a more deferential tone. Not that it is disrespectful per se, but there are subtle nuances in which the sources were cited that could have been tweaked.

Rav Moshe Feinstein’s Igros Moshe represented the most far-reaching halachic work since the Mishna Brurah, even though it is a collection of responsum. Psichas haIgros discusses the other opinions. Certainly, the best way to fully understand the implications of novel and deep ideas is to consider the alternatives.

Rav Rosman, a Kollel yungerman in his upper thirties studies in the Kollel in Willowbrook in Staten Island.

Its 697 pages are packed with very valuable information wherein almost every sefer, journal article, and even website that discussed Rav Feinstein zatzal’s position and perhaps took issue with Rav Feinstein’s position is discussed. The author claims that it was merely busy work on his part, but in fact, it is not. He displays a remarkable erudition in discussing the underlying issues. This is not to say that he takes the position of those who argue per se. Rather he has unearthed the other positions, collated them, classified them and presented the relevant information well. The author, at times, demonstrates how Rav Feinstein, in fact, responded to the critique. Here too, the author demonstrates great erudition.

This is not to say that the author is not controversial. He often quotes the highly disrespectful m’aneh l’igros, controversial blogs, and even a JTS publication.

FASCINATING APPENDICES

The book contains six appendices. The first deals with errors in understanding of the underlying science. The second deals with how to deal with some of the apparent contradictions in the Igros Moshe. Starting on page 664, the author lists some 54 discrepancies or contradictions in Rav Moshe Feinstein’s writings. In the third appendix the author demonstrates that Rav Feinstein did not consider any of the newly unearthed texts or manuscripts and attributed them to an erring student. In the fourth appendix, Rabbi Rosman discusses Rav Feinstein’s approach and usage of Rishonim and Acharonim. Rav Feinstein generally did not delve significantly in Acharonim, with the exception of the Mishna Brurah and the Aruch haShulchan. He cites another source that Rav Feinstein’s view was that when the Aruch haShulchan argues with the Mishna Brurah the halacha was with the Aruch HaShulchan.

In appendix five, Rabbi Rosman compiles a list of thirty different principles of Psak Halacha that are found in the Igros Moshe. Examples are: A Posaik can decide the halacha in accordance with a lone opinion, if he sees that view as compelling (YD III #69). One should be stringent in accordance with a lone opinion if his view is compelling (YD III #53). A matter discussed in the Zohar is obligatory if there is no contradiction to it from the Talmud or the known Midrashim, but we do not compel people to do so (OC V 20:31). He disagrees with the Mishna Brurah who ruled like the Pri Magadim against the Vilna Gaon and the Yaavetz (OC V 9:9).

In Appendix six, Rabbi Rosman lists a number of innovative ideas found in the Igros Moshe.

The author of the review can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com.

From YWN, here.

Conspiracy Theory: Correcting a Common Misunderstanding

Skepticism-skeptics think a true conspiracy must use the best possible plan, or thereabouts. But most conspiracies are carried out by quasi-state elements, so we can expect “good enough for government work”… And have you read court transcripts of private criminal conspiracies? Those are “stranger than fiction”, too (and often hilarious!).

Here is an example of typical criticism:

… when you read a couple of conspiracy theories, you start to notice a common flaw in most of them (apart from the fact that they’re usually driven by paranoia rather than fact). The flaw is that they fall apart if you reverse them. Usually, people take an event and work backwards to form a theory about what group planned it as a conspiracy. However, if you work from the opposite direction by taking the alleged group and asking if the event is the best way to fulfill their aims, the answer is almost always no. That’s how you debunk most conspiracy theories, simply reverse the process and work from plan to event, rather than an event to plan.

The smartest people are in the private sector. And there are always multiple, conflicting conspiracies (not all of them known). Conspiracism is driven not by paranoia but by cold logic (call it praxeology, not paranoia). And there are often multiple goals (not all of them known). Some conspiracies involve dupes or secretly assisting ostensible enemies (beyond just stifling foreknowledge).

For example, take one of the most famous conspiracy theories, the idea that the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre was an inside job by the US government. The theory is that the planes themselves could not demolish the Twin Towers, so explosives were planted inside them by the US government in order to provide a justification for the War on Terror. Now reverse the theory and work from the planning to the event. Imagine you are President Bush and you want to go to war in Iraq. To be honest, America isn’t exactly the most peaceful of nations and has been at war for most of its history so this isn’t too hard of a sell. No offence to any Americans reading this, but it’s not Sweden or Switzerland, invading a third world country isn’t much of a new step.

That’s just silly. The Spanish-American War needed casus belli, too. First, you write the Patriot Act, buy the bombs. And then “Never allow a crisis to go to waste“.

Nor is it clear why planes are essential to the plan. Surely when devising this plan they checked as to whether or not a plane actually can destroy the Twin Towers. If, as the conspiracy theorists claim, it cannot, why would they still use planes? If (as the meme mocks) jet fuel can’t melt steel beams, why would the CIA do it anyway and hope no one noticed? If explosives are the only way to destroy the building why not just claim that the terrorists planted the explosives?

Once again, it’s easier to secretly help the opposition succeed. This way, the basic story is unimpeachable.

If the whole point of 9/11 was to provide an excuse to invade Iraq, then why not use terrorists with an actual connection to Iraq? Why have 15 (out of 20) Saudi terrorists, if it’s really Iraq and Afghanistan you want to invade? Invading Iraq is by no means the natural conclusion from 9/11 so if it really was a false flag, they were making quite a leap of faith.

You work with what you have. And it didn’t end with Iraq, either.

The other bits of supposed evidence, when reversed, actually weaken the claim that there was a conspiracy. Another question that theorists ask is how did building 7 collapse if it wasn’t hit by an airplane? Actually, this proves that there was no conspiracy, because why would the CIA destroy a building and just hope that no one noticed there was no reason for it to collapse? Surely if they are going to fake an attack, they’ll fake an explanation too? Conspiracy theorists seem to view the CIA as evil geniuses and complete idiots at the same time.

Exactly! Conspiracy theorists do view “the CIA” as evil geniuses and complete idiots at the same time. Thank you!

And sloppy, half-baked plans by different groups, with improvisations on the fly, are exactly what we expect. (There is plenty of great material out there on Building Seven, for those interested.)

Then there is the matter that in order to execute this plan, you need to get the co-operation of the main security agencies pretty much as soon as you assume office. You will then need thousands of people to carry out the plan and hope that not a single one of them reveals your plans or has any qualms about murdering thousands of their fellow citizens. You will need everyone to completely ignore basic physics and engineering (if it is true that building don’t fall like that and planes alone couldn’t make them fall).

This criticism ignores the history of many proven conspiracies, including genocides, etc. kept quiet (or even universally ignored once known, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident — now known to be faked, CIA wars, CIA drug-pushing, etc.) and stovepiping. It ignores all the people killed for knowing too much. It ignores the extended screening and soul-corrupting process of even being in a position to know details.

Do you have any idea how many people had to keep quiet about the Manhattan Project? (And funnily enough, the extreme secrecy was counterproductive, causing the Soviets to start their own atomic bomb project.)

Often, the more brazen the actors, the sillier the lies. As if to say: “Oh yeah? Well, what are you going to do about it?!” (Even assuming people really care in the long term.) Besides, the government’s account of events wins by default, for obvious reasons.

And forget about the science of engineering. How about recorded TV reporting on the collapse of the towers before it even happened, huh?

To be clear, I am no expert on 9\11 or other, similar examples, but it’s impossible to know the full story behind most events, anyway (and who cares?). What is important here is the general perspective of realism, honest ignorance coupled with distrust of known liars (both certain actors and state institutions), contempt for academia, and “media criticism” gained by yet another illustration, yet another official story full of holes.

(This deserves more, but something is better than nothing.)

אמר רב י”ח חדש גדלתי אצל רועי בקר – פרסומת לכולל דרישת ציון של הרב אברהם צוויג

באתר הידברות כאן…

ציטוטים נבחרים:

העשייה בפועל גרמה לנו ללימוד הסוגיה בצורה מעמיקה הרבה יותר, וגילתה לנו פרטים שעד שמגיעים למעשה לא מבינים, לא יודעים ולא זוכרים. ההמחשה המרתקת גם חיברה את האנשים אל הלימוד ומשכה את ליבם. ויותר מכל השיטות לזיכרון, החוויה פשוט חרטה את הפרטים ההלכתיים בתוכנו. הופתעתי מאד מהתגלית הזו.

עד אז חשבתי שהתנסויות כאלו הן בסך הכול כלי חווייתי לאוורור”, מבהיר הרב צוויג את מה שהתחדש לו במהלך הפעילויות: “ופתאום הבנתי שהן מהוות השלמה חשובה ללימוד העיוני. ההמחשה בפועל הופכת את הלימוד עצמו למפורט, מעמיק ועם זאת מובן הרבה יותר. בעקבות המסקנות החלטנו להמשיך עם פרויקטים כאלו של המחשת הסוגיות כדרך נוספת לזכירת הלימוד.

…

אני נזכר שכאשר למדנו בכולל את נושא פרה אדומה, כבר ידענו שאחר כך נלך ונראה פרות אדומות במציאות. הידיעה הזו השפיעה עלינו במהלך הלימוד עצמו, כאשר לא וויתרנו לעצמנו על אף פרט: מהי גומה, ומהו האדום שנראה כמו חום כהה, מהו שלא עליה עול, ומהן שתי השערות החשובות. ואכן, לאחר הלימוד נסענו לחבל לכיש ופגשנו פרות מזן מסוים שרווח בהם מאד הצבע הכהה. בחנו את הפרות אחת אחת וראינו בדיוק כיצד תנאי ההלכה כולם נחוצים לקביעת פרה אדומה כשרה או לאו. ההמחשה במציאות תרמה לנו להעמקת הלימוד, הרבה יותר מאשר לקבוצת ילדים שהיו הולכים לטיול במרעה, ונהנים רק מעצם החוויה.

לקריאת יתר הכתבה…

Explain the Term: ‘Corporate Welfare’

From Wikipedia:
Corporate welfare is often used to describe a government‘s bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

The definition of corporate welfare is sometimes restricted to direct government subsidies of major corporations, excluding tax loopholes and all manner of regulatory and trade decisions, which in practice could be worth much more than any direct subsidies.

“Privatizing profits and socializing losses”

“Privatizing profits and socializing losses” refers to the idea that corporations want to reserve financial gains for themselves and pass along losses to the rest of society, potentially through lobbying the government for assistance. This practice was criticized in the Wall Street bailout of 2008.

United States

Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.

Some economists consider the 2008 bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare. U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve System to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare. The term gained increased prominence in 2018 when Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill, singling out Amazon and Walmart in particular, to require a company with 500 or more employees to pay the full cost of welfare benefits received by its workers.

Independent

Daniel D. Huff, professor emeritus of social work at Boise State University, published a comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare in 1993. Huff reasoned that a very conservative estimate of corporate welfare expenditures in the United States would have been at least US$170 billion in 1990. Huff compared this number with social welfare:

In 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.

Huff argued that deliberate obfuscation was a complicating factor.

United Kingdom

In 2015, Kevin Farnsworth, a senior lecturer in Social Policy at the University of York published a paper in which he claimed that the government was providing corporate subsidies of £93 billion. This amount includes the role of the government in increasing trade, tax relief for businesses that invest in new plants and machinery (estimated by Farnsworth at £20 billion), not charging fuel duty on fuel used by railways or airlines, green energy subsidies, a lower corporation tax rate for small companies, regional development grants and government procurement for businesses (which Farnsworth suggests often favours British businesses even when these are not the best value option available). However, The Register wrote that Farnsworth’s figure for tax relief for investment was incorrect and that he had made mistakes in his calculations, noting that he was not an accountant. It also stated that not charging businesses taxes under certain circumstances (when the reliefs applied) was not the same as giving them a subsidy. Fuel duty is not charged on airlines due to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (a UN agency) which specifies that aeroplanes should be exempt from fuel duties.

India

It was observed by The Wire that the effective tax rate was low for the larger corporations which meant companies making smaller profits are competing in an unequal environment against bigger companies with substantial taxation benefits, with the gap in effective tax rates widening over the years. Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi criticised this practice and said

“Why is it that subsidies going to the well-off are portrayed in a positive manner? Let me give you an example. The total revenue loss from incentives to corporate tax payers was over Rs 62,000 crore… I must confess I am surprised by the way words are used by experts on this matter. When a benefit is given to farmers or to the poor, experts and government officers normally call it a subsidy. However, I find that if a benefit is given to industry or commerce, it is usually an ‘incentive’ or a ‘subvention’.”

See also