העורך Editor

Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky’s Explanation of a Now-Gone Shabbos Chazon ‘Minhag’

At least I think it’s gone…

Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky in his “Emes Leya’akov” on Pirkei Avos p. 67-68 argues the new decree of “אין קורין לאור הנר” arose only due to a decrease in awe for the laws of  Shabbos over time. Likewise, differing customs are due to the needs of different eras and locations. This is why each locality must respect its own customs even though they are unique (unless the minhag is halachically improper). See inside.

Rabbi Kamenetsky adds that the local minhag (instituted by rabbis, says he) in some places against wearing Shabbos clothes on Shabbos Chazon was due to the decrease in mourning in those places for the Churban because the Jews there were rich and at peace. And Vilna was different, so the Gaon changed the custom.

In my humble opinion, it seems there is an actual prohibition here, above time and space. The Gaon was, of course, more interested in Talmudic truth than justifying “מנהגי פוליש”. Why even assume an empirical difference in wealth between davka Vilna and ALL OTHER places in THAT EXACT generation?!

(We have written of a slightly better approach to the topic by the Aruch Hashulchan.)

Jewry’s debt to the Gaon and his followers is unpayable.

It’s a Joke, but It’s a BITTER Joke, So It’s Timely

Three people, one of them a member of the Israeli Defense Forces, were shipwrecked and landed on a remote cannibal-infested island. They were captured before long, and as cauldrons of water were being hoisted onto the fire, the natives offered to grant each of their captives one last wish.

The first doomed man requested a pen and paper and penned a farewell note to his family. The second person asked for a five-course –non-human-meat – final meal. The Israeli asked that the tribal leader punch him in the face. A strange request, but in their final moments on earth, people don’t always think coherently… As soon as the Chief socked him, the Israeli pulled out an Uzi and mowed down the hapless captors.

“Why did you wait until he punched you before shooting them?” the two relieved friends asked.

“And have the whole world say that I was the aggressor?!”

Old joke, source unknown.

TL;DR – Media Outlets Must Sacrifice Truth for ‘Access’

So-called “hard-hitting” CNN spiked stories for decades under repressive Middle Eastern regimes (Warning: disturbing).

Now, “Mass media” is an easy target, but I think the basic problem with reporting state affairs is universal and insoluble. The more intrusive the state, the more state actions matter, but also the less easily secret and accurate information can be ferreted out while still staying in business (and I can’t think of any liberal states today). Additionally, media men are wary of alienating advertisers, and the bigger the moreso.

So, in an age of encroaching state involvement crowding out every area of legitimate human endeavor, I venture that honest, non-“infotainment” reporting of significance is prohibitively expensive. Readers can’t be told the truth (and they probably don’t want most of the truth, either, similar to my cynical take on Greenwashing).

There can only be private intelligence organizations (though they don’t call themselves that) reporting to the few and rich for investment reasons (who may have signed secrecy agreements). Even then, there are issues of mutual trust, etc.

For more, I suggest reading this: Never Trust Any Media Organization Large Enough to Gain ‘Access’!