העורך Editor

Both Chametz and Shmitta: The Fake ‘Mechira’ Ruins the Whole Mitzva

We have written and curated against each one of them. Of course, we know the one historically led to the other.

The criticism is often made that even if the Shmitta “Heter” were actually valid (Bediavad or in some cases or in some opinions or in our time), not that it is, it should still be avoided because the Torah wants Shmitta to “look” a certain way (a point made with countless examples in this book).

Vayikra Rabba 1:1:

גבורי כח עושי דברו במה הכתוב מדבר א”ר יצחק בשומרי שביעית הכתוב מדבר בנוהג שבעולם אדם עושה מצוה ליום א’ לשבת אחת לחודש א’ שמא לשאר ימות השנה ודין חמי חקליה ביירה כרמיה ביירה ויהבי ארנונא ושתיק יש לך גבור גדול מזה וא”ת אינו מדבר בשומרי שביעית נאמר כאן עושי דברו ונאמר להלן (דברים ט”ו ב’) וזה דבר השמיטה מה דבר שנאמר להלן בשומרי שביעית הכתוב מדבר אף דבר האמור כאן בשומרי שביעית הכתוב מדבר עושי דברו.

Translation (Sefaria):

“Powerful ones who fulfill His word, etc.” – about what is the verse speaking? Rabbi Yitzchak said, “The verse is speaking about those that observe the sabbatical year. It is customary in the world that a man will fulfill a commandment for a day, for a Shabbat, for a month, but for the rest of the days of the year? And this one watches his field empty, watches his vineyard empty and he gives his purse and is silent – is there one more powerful than this one? And if you would say that it is not speaking about those that observe the sabbatical year, here it states, ‘who fulfill his word’ and later it states (Deuteronomy 15:2) ‘This is the word of the Sabbatical.’ Just like regarding the word that is stated later on, the verse is speaking about those that observe the Sabbatical year, so too the word stated here, – it is about those that observe the Sabbatical year that the verse is speaking.

Well, just like the fake Shmitta “Heter” has uprooted the “face” of the mitzva, with work proceeding almost normally on the fields and availability and prices almost the same due to the many who rely on the Mechira (assuming even that much was done!), the fake Chametz “Heter” means the bakeries and factories work full-blast until the last second, people skip Bedikah in many areas, Pesach hotels (!), no one ever needs to think about Chametz which passed over Passover (flatly contradicting Chulin 4a-4b and the implied difficulty of לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי), and no one ever finds it hard to obtain whatever Chametz he wants, whether before or after Pesach (and for Meshumadim, perhaps even during), and see this.

Find Rabbi Yitzchak Brand’s [remastered] opus against the current “sale” of Chametz here…

Rabbi Brand also makes the point that since it’s impossible to predict consumer demand with perfect accuracy, without the phony-baloney “sale”, the days before Pesach would likely remind us of an approaching famine (to a degree)!

See Gittin 56a:

… קמו קלנהו להנהו אמברי דחיטי ושערי והוה כפנא.

מרתא בת בייתוס עתירתא דירושלים הויא שדרתה לשלוחה ואמרה ליה זיל אייתי לי סמידא אדאזל איזדבן אתא אמר לה סמידא ליכא חיורתא איכא אמרה ליה זיל אייתי לי אדאזל אזדבן אתא ואמר לה חיורתא ליכא גושקרא איכא א”ל זיל אייתי לי אדאזל אזדבן אתא ואמר לה גושקרא ליכא קימחא דשערי איכא אמרה ליה זיל אייתי לי אדאזל איזדבן.

הוה שליפא מסאנא אמרה איפוק ואחזי אי משכחנא מידי למיכל…

Translation (Sefaria):

In order to force the residents of the city to engage in battle, the zealots arose and burned down these storehouses [ambarei] of wheat and barley, and there was a general famine.
With regard to this famine it is related that Marta bat Baitos was one of the wealthy women of Jerusalem. She sent out her agent and said to him: Go bring me fine flour [semida]. By the time he went, the fine flour was already sold. He came and said to her: There is no fine flour, but there is ordinary flour. She said to him: Go then and bring me ordinary flour. By the time he went, the ordinary flour was also sold. He came and said to her: There is no ordinary flour, but there is coarse flour [gushkera]. She said to him: Go then and bring me coarse flour. By the time he went, the coarse flour was already sold. He came and said to her: There is no coarse flour, but there is barley flour. She said to him: Go then and bring me barley flour. But once again, by the time he went, the barley flour was also sold.
She had just removed her shoes, but she said: I will go out myself and see if I can find something to eat…

Cutting George Orwell Down to Size…

Great analysis by Gerald Frost on The New Criterion here…

An excerpt:

The contradictions have frequently been noted: he was a socialist intellectual whose finest achievements included a mordant critique of the hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the socialist intellectuals of his day; a patriot who held most of his country’s institutions in contempt; a passionate defender of historical truth who chose to write under an assumed name and who occasionally told lies; a self-styled champion of decency who backed causes that, had they prevailed, would have produced outcomes in which decency would have been difficult to discern; an atheist who decreed that his funeral should be conducted by the Church of England and that he should be buried in a rural parish churchyard. It is often the contradictions in an individual’s character that give it distinction; in the case of Orwell, these were more marked and more numerous than in most, but it is not clear whether he was even aware of them. Yet it is these which explain why he is claimed by those on opposing sides—by socialists and libertarians, by conservatives as well as radicals, by patriots and internationally minded progressives. In a sense, he is up for grabs. All sorts of people can identify with him and claim him—or almost claim him—for their own and are keen, even desperate, to do so. The “almost” is important: many of his admirers feel that if only he had fully grasped the implications of the part of his work of which they happen to approve there would be no doubt about the matter. Admirers, including this one, are eager to read the latest interpretation of his thought in the forlorn hope that this will confirm that he really would have been on their side; it is a difficult habit to kick.

…

… Seven years later, in a review of Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom in The Observer, which is curiously not mentioned in most of the Orwell biographies, he conceded that the negative part of Hayek’s thesis was correct: “It cannot be said too often—at any rate it is not being said nearly often enough—that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of. ” For good measure, he added: “Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war.” Well, that would seem to as unambiguous as you could wish for.

But Orwell’s review also dealt with a book by the Soviet sympathizer and left-wing Labour MP Konni Zilliacus, who blamed imperialism and capitalism for the two world wars and much else. Orwell had no difficulty in agreeing with Zilliacus that capitalism led to the creation of monopolies (Orwell did not seem to mind state monopolies), to food lines, and to war. It was a depressing thing: both writers were probably right. Then, equally typically: “There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.” Yet only a sentence earlier he had endorsed Hayek’s denunciation of central economic planning, which allowed no such possibility. When it came to recognizing unpalatable truths, it seems that Orwell had as much difficulty as the next man.

Such unresolved contradictions permeate Orwell’s thought and writing: they explain why he retains admirers on different sides of the political spectrum. We go on reading about him in the hope that these can somehow be resolved in a way that would finally put him irrevocably on our side; the fact that this can never be achieved only increases our desire for more. Orwell’s reputation as a moral giant survives, but the interest in him would surely not have survived if his courage in grappling with the moral and political complexities of his age had not been combined with a capacity to grasp the wrong end of the stick and hang on with great tenacity.

Read the rest here…

The State Doesn’t Actually Mind Being Quietly Fooled

It has come to my attention (not 100% confirmed, yet…) that an outsourcing contractor doing customer service and billing for the Israeli government pays an “analyst” to cook the books (on caller wait times).

Who loses? The “customers” of the phonily-privatized services.

Should we blow the whistle?

For a similar story, read this.