העורך Editor

כך טוען הרב דניאל סטבסקי כאן.

מצאתי דבר דומה אולי בספר לקו”ה [ברסלב] גזלה ה’ כ”ד:

וְזֶה בְּחִינַת חַשְׁמַ”ל בְּחִינַת חַשׁ מַל שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה לְשׁוֹן שְׁתִיקָה וְדִבּוּר בְּחִינַת עִתִּים חָשׁוֹת עִתִּים מְמַלְּלוֹת, הַיְנוּ שֶׁעִקַּר תִּקּוּן הַדִּבּוּר הוּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁחָשִׁים וְשׁוֹתְקִין תְּחִלָּה כְּאִלֵּם לֹא יִפְתַּח פִּיו רַק מִשְׁתּוֹקְקִין בְּרָצוֹן חָזָק לַה’ יִתְבָּרַךְ וּמְרַחֲמִין עַל עַצְמוֹ בְּרַחֲמָנוּת גָּדוֹל כַּאֲשֶׁר כָּל אֶחָד יוֹדֵעַ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ גֹּדֶל הָרַחֲמָנוּת שֶׁעָלָיו בְּכָל עֵת וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה דַּיְקָא נִתְעוֹרְרִין רַחֲמֵי ה’ יִתְבָּרַךְ עַד שֶׁמַּתְחִילִים לְצַפְצֵף וּלְדַבֵּר קְצָת בִּבְחִינַת וּמֵעָפָר אִמְרָתֵךְ תְּצַפְצֵף עַד שֶׁבְּרַחֲמָיו יִתְבָּרַךְ הַמְרֻבִּים נִכְמָר לֵב הָעֶלְיוֹן עַד שֶׁמַּמְשִׁיךְ מִשָּׁם דִּבּוּרִים חַמִּים כְּגַחֲלֵי אֵשׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוּכַל לִינֹק וּלְקַבֵּל מֵהַתּוֹרָה שֶׁמַּמְשִׁיכִין הַצַּדִּיקִים וְכוּ’ וְכַנַּ”ל. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה עַל חַשְׁמַ”ל חַיּוֹת אֵשׁ מְמַלְּלוֹת, הַיְנוּ כַּנַּ”ל כִּי עַל יְדֵי בְּחִינַת חַשׁ מַל שְׁתִיקָה וְדִבּוּר כַּנַּ”ל עַל יְדֵי זֶה זוֹכֶה לְדִבּוּרִים כְּגַחֲלֵי אֵשׁ בְּחִינַת חַיּוֹת אֵשׁ מְמַלְּלוֹת וְכַנַּ”ל. וְעַל כֵּן מַפְטִירִין בְּשָׁבוּעוֹת בְּמַעֲשֵֹה מֶרְכָּבָה שֶׁעִקָּרָהּ נִתְגַּלָּה מִתּוֹךְ הַחַשְׁמַל, כַּיָּדוּעַ וּמוּבָן שָׁם בִּיחֶזְקֵאל. כִּי מִשָּׁם עִקַּר.

קַבָּלַת הַתּוֹרָה בְּשָׁבוּעוֹת שֶׁאָז עִקַּר הַמְשָׁכַת הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן הוּא בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁצְּרִיכִין לְהַמְשִׁיךְ תּוֹרָה שֶׁהִוא בְּחִינַת שָׁבוּעוֹת וְכַנַּ”ל, כִּי מִתְּחִלָּה רָאָה רוּחַ סְעָרָה וְעָנָן גָּדוֹל וְאֵשׁ מִתְלַקַּחַת שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת הַקְּלִפּוֹת הַטְּמֵאוֹת שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת כְּלַל כָּל הַמּוֹנְעִים מִלְּפָרֵשׁ שִֹיחָתוֹ לִפְנֵי ה’ יִתְבָּרַךְ וּלְהַמְשִׁיךְ תּוֹרָה וְלָבוֹא לְאֶרֶץ יִשְֹרָאֵל, וּמִשָּׁם דַּיְקָא רָאָה בְּחִינַת נֹגַהּ לוֹ סָבִיב בְּחִינַת מְעֹרָב טוֹב וָרָע כַּיָּדוּעַ. וּמִשָּׁם רָאָה בְּחִינַת חַשְׁמַל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב וּמִתּוֹכָהּ כְּעֵין הַחַשְׁמַ”ל, הַיְנוּ בְּחִינָה הַנַּ”ל לְהַמְשִׁיךְ דִּבּוּרִים חַמִּים כְּגַחֲלֵי אֵשׁ עַל יְדֵי הַהִשְׁתּוֹקְקוּת וְכוּ’ שֶׁהִוא בְּחִינַת שְׁתִיקָה בְּחִינַת נֶאֱלַמְתִּי דוּמִיָּה וְכוּ’ חַם לִבִּי וְכוּ’ כַּנַּ”ל שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה רָאָה הַמֶּרְכָּבָה הַקְּדוֹשָׁה שֶׁמִּשָּׁם כָּל קַבָּלַת הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהִוא בְּחִינַת רוּחַ נְבוּאָה אֲמִתִּית, בְּחִינַת וָאֶשְׁמַע קוֹל מְדַבֵּר וְכוּ’ וְכַנַּ”ל.

On the market, in society in general, we expect and accommodate rapidly to change, to the unending marvels and improvements of our civilization. New products, new life styles, new ideas are often embraced eagerly. But in the area of government we follow blindly in the path of centuries, content to believe that whatever has been must be right. In particular, government, in the United States and elsewhere, for centuries and seemingly from time immemorial has been supplying us with certain essential and necessary services, services which nearly everyone concedes are important: defense (including army, police, judicial, and legal), firefighting, streets and roads, water, sewage and garbage disposal, postal service, etc.

So identified has the State become in the public mind with the provision of these services that an attack on State financing appears to many people as an attack on the service itself. Thus if one maintains that the State should not supply court services, and that private enterprise on the market could supply such service more efficiently as well as more morally, people tend to think of this as denying the importance of courts themselves.

The libertarian who wants to replace government by private enterprises in the above areas is thus treated in the same way as he would be if the government had, for various reasons, been supplying shoes as a tax-financed monopoly from time immemorial. If the government and only the government had had a monopoly of the shoe manufacturing and retailing business, how would most of the public treat the libertarian who now came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business and throw it open to private enterprise? He would undoubtedly be treated as follows: people would cry:

How could you? You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It’s easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes? Wouldn’t regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound? And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn’t have the money to buy a pair?

These questions, ridiculous as they seem to be and are with regard to the shoe business, are just as absurd when applied to the libertarian who advocates a free market in fire, police, postal service, or any other government operation.

― Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

Why is judging favorably vital? Because it means you are living among good people. As the Rambam – quoted a thousand times by Mashgichim – teaches, we all learn from our surroundings. (If you still don’t know it by heart, read it again here.) We can only choose which surroundings, as explained here (and also here!).

But it’s about perception, whether you judge the wicked as righteous or the righteous as wicked.

This is how Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin (somewhere in his compiled homilies on the Torah) explained the juxtaposition of acquiring a good friend and judging Jews favorably (I’m not smart enough to think of this by myself):

יהושע בן פרחיה אומר, עשה לך רב, וקנה לך חבר, והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות.

No, this doesn’t alter the specifics set forth in Ahavas Chessed, of course, but it does serve as great motivation for judging favorably in cases you must, may or ought to anyhow.

Just as with JFK, surviving witnesses keep disappearing.

Daisy Luther pulls on the threads…

The Year in Defending the Honor of the Torah: Checking in on UTJ

It’s been a year since Yahadut Hatorah (UTJ) joined the government, thus accepting upon themselves the yolk of defending the honor of the Torah.

Have they been doing their job? Let’s check out 5 legislative issues and see how they have been doing:

Issue #1: Supreme Court rules that Rabbanute Mikvaot have to open for Reform converts.

Response: R. Gafni announced that he will advance a bill designed to overturn the ruling, calling it a “serious breach” and saying “the High Court of Justice has declared war on the Torah of Israel.”

Analysis: The reason for opposing the ruling is self-evident: If a reformer dips into a mikvah, it probably makes the whole mikvah passul somehow. But R. Gafni did not go nearly far enough. Because while he may stop the reformers from frequenting official rabbanute mikvaot, what about all the other places they can go? Every ma’yan in the country has to be guarded to prevent such desecration. Not only that, but since according to Igros Moshe “bathing in the sea or the large swimming pool that are built in hotels and resorts, since the majority of them are not posul doreissa, therefore the tevila is kosher min HaTorah,” R. Gafni should be passing a law that all swimming pools, as well as all the beaches from Rosh Hanikra to Ashdod must be shut down (of course, this only applies to the mixed gender beaches- there is no concern that a reformer would ever go to the separate beaches). R. Gafni, propose this ban immediately, the waters of Eretz Yisroel depend on you!

Is the Torah’s Honor Defended? No.

Issue #2: Bill put forward by that provides for at least one female representative among the kadis (judges) serving on the courts that rule according to Islamic law

Response: R. Litzman threatened that the UTJ use theright of veto, due to concern that the bill would create a precedent that could be applied to rabbinical courts.

Analysis: Clearly this law is dangerous. If we allow to serve on their courts, then Jewish women may serve on ours, which would mean that UTJ ministers would have twice as many relatives asking them for positions. But once again, they stopped short of what needed to be done. What about other Islamic practices that could creep into Judaism? The Shahida (“La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.”), which is all that is needed to convert to Islam, requires no lengthy classes, tests of arcane knowledge, or full kabbalas ol mitzvos. If we allow this continue, the next thing you know the Tzohar rabbis will be allowing Jews to convert with a simple statement recited in Arabic as well. We need a kollel dedicated full time to studying sha’ariah law, to see which other rules may pose a threat to the Torah.

Is the Torah’s Honor Defended? No.

Issue #3: Bill put forward that declares “the State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish People, in which it realizes its aspirations for self-determination according to its cultural and historic traditions.”

Response: UTJ stated they will oppose the bill

Analysis: Obvious. No mention of Lakewood, Borough Park, or Monsey anywhere in the bill.

Is the Torah’s Honor Defended? Yes!

Issue #4: The High Court of Justice ruled that there cannot be any “deputy ministers with the status of a minister,”  (UTJ traditionally has not allowed any of its MKs to go by the title “Minister”, in order that it not be seen as party to  government decisions the party believes run counter to Jewish law, rather have called themselves “Deputy Ministers” when they run ministries, which obviously solves that problem.)

Response: The Council of Torah Sages decided to permit  R. Litzman to join the cabinet and accept the title of “minister”.

Analysis: The seculars thought they could stop R. Litzman from running the ministry by making him take this title, which for the past 60 years has been considered assur.  But that was before it would cost UTJ a ministry. But now it is mutar! Why? Because the moetzes says it is! That is keen analytical skills that we spend years in yeshiva honing.

Is the Torah’s Honor Defended? Yes!

Continue reading…

From Modest Proposals, here.