ללא מחבר No Author

We Need a Second Maccabean Revolt…

Down With Chanukah 1972

Rabbi Meir Kahane Writings (5732-33) (1971-73)

Written December 15, 1972

If I were a Reform rabbi; if I were a leader of the Establishment whose money and prestige have succeeded in capturing for him the leadership and voice of American Jewry; if I were one of the members of the Israeli Government’s ruling group; if I were an enlightened sophisticated, modern Jewish intellectual, I would climb the barricades and join in battle against the most dangerous of all Jewish holidays – Chanukah.

It is a measure of the total ignorance of the world Jewish community that there is no holiday that is more universally celebrated than the “Feast of Lights”, and it is an equal measure of the intellectual dishonesty and of Jewish leadership that it plays along with the lie.  For if ever there was a holiday that stands for everything that the mass of world Jewry and their leadership has rejected – it is this one.  If one would find an event that is truly rooted in everything that Jews of our times and their leaders have rejected and, indeed, attacked – it is this one.  If there is any holiday that is more “unJewish” in the sense of our modern beliefs and practices – I do not know of it.

The Chanukah that has erupted unto the world Jewish scene in all its childishness, asininity, shallowness, ignorance and fraud – is not the Chanukah of reality.  The Chanukah that came into vogue because of Jewish parents – in their vapidness – needed something to counteract Christmas; that exploded in a show of “we-can-have-lights-just-as-our-goyish-neighbors” and in an effort to reward our spoiled children with eight gifts instead of the poor Christian one; the Chanukah that the Temple, under its captive rabbi, turned into a school pageant so that the beaming parents might think that the Religious School is really successful instead of the tragic joke and waste that it really is; the Chanukah that speaks of Jewish Patrick Henrys giving-me-liberty-or death and the pictures of Maccabees as great liberal saviors who fought so that the kibbutzim might continue to be free to preach their Marx and eat their ham, that the split-level dwellers of suburbia might be allowed to violate their Sabbath in perfect freedom and the Reform and Conservative Temples continue the fight for civil rights for Blacks, Puerto Ricans and Jane Fonda, is not remotely connected with reality.

This is NOT the Chanukah of our ancestors, of the generations of Jews of Eastern Europe and Yemen and Morocco and the crusades and Spain and Babylon.  It is surely not the Chanukah for which the Maccabees themselves died.  Truly, could those whom we honor so munificently, return and see what Chanukah has become, they might very well begin a second Maccabean revolt.  For the life that we Jews lead today was the very cause, the REAL reason for the revolt of the Jews “in those days in our times.”

What happened in that era more than 2000 years ago?  What led a handful of Jews to rise up in violence against the enemy?  And precisely who WAS the enemy?  What were they fighting FOR and who were they fighting AGAINST?

For years, the people of Judea had been the vassals of Greece.  True independence as a state had been unknown for all those decades and, yet, the Jews did not rise up in revolt.  It was only when the Greek policy shifted from mere political control to one that attempted to suppress the Jewish religion that the revolt erupted in all its bloodiness.  It was not mere liberty that led to the Maccabean uprising that we so passionately applaud.  What we are really cheering is a brave group of Jews who fought and plunged Judea into a bloodbath for the right to observe the Sabbath, to follow the laws of kashruth, to obey the laws of the Torah.  IN A WORD EVERYTHING ABOUT CHANUKAH THAT WE COMMEMORATE AND TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO COMMEMORATE ARE THINGS WE CONSIDER TO BE OUTMODED, MEDIEVAL AND CHILDISH!

At best, then, those who fought and died for Chanukah were naïve and obscurantist.  Had we lived in those days we would certainly not have done what they did for everyone knows that the laws of the Torah are not really Divine but only the products of evolution and men (do not the Reform, Reconstructionist and large parts of the Conservative movements write this daily?)  Surely we would not have fought for that which we violate every day of our lives!  No, at best Chanukah emerges as a needless holiday if not a foolish one.  Poor Hannah and her seven children; poor Mattathias and Judah; poor well meaning chaps all but hopelessly backward and utterly unnecessary sacrifices.

But there is more.  Not only is Chanukah really a foolish and unnecessary holiday, it is also one that is dangerously fanatical and illiberal. The first act of rebellion, the first enemy who fell at the hands of the brave Jewish heroes whom our delightful children portray so cleverly in their Sunday and religious school pageants, was NOT a Greek.  He was a Jew.

When the enemy sent its troops into the town of Modin to set up an idol and demand its worship, it was a Jew who decided to exercise his freedom of pagan worship and who approached the altar to worship Zeus (after all, what business was it of anyone what this fellow worshipped?)  And it was this Jew, this apostate, this religious traitor who was struck down by the brave, glorious, courageous (are these not the words all our Sunday schools use to describe him?) Mattathias, as he shouted: “Whoever is for G-d, follow me!”

What have we here?  What kind of religious intolerance and bigotry?  What kind of a man is this for the anti-religious of Hashomer Hatzair, the graceful temples of suburbia, the sophisticated intellectuals, the liberal open-minded Jews and all the drones who have wearied us unto death with the concept of Judaism as a humanistic, open-minded, undogmatic, liberal, universalistic (if not Marxist) religion, to honor?  What kind of nationalism is this for David-Ben-Gurion (he who rejects the Galut and speaks of the proud, free Jew of ancient Judea and Israel)?

And to crush us even more (we who know that Judaism is a faith of peace which deplores violence), what kind of Jews were those who reacted to oppression with FORCE?  Surely we who so properly have deplored Jewish violence as fascistic, immoral and (above all!) UN-JEWISH, stand in horror as we contemplate Jews who declined to picket the Syrian Greeks to death and who rejected quiet diplomacy for the sword, spear and arrow (had there been bombs in those days, who can tell what they might have done?) and “descended to the level of evil,” thus rejecting the ethical and moral concepts of Judaism.

Is this the kind of a holiday we wish to propagate?  Are these the kinds of men we want our moral and humanistic children to honor?  Is this the kind of Judaism that we wish to observe and pass on to our children?

Where shall we find the man of courage, the one voice, in the wilderness to cry out against Chanukah and the Judaism that it represents-the Judaism of our grandparents and ancestors?  Where shall we find the man of honesty and integrity to attack the Judaism of Medievalism and outdated foolishness; the Judaism of bigotry that strikes down Jews who refuse to observe the law; the Judaism of violence that calls for Jewish force and might against the enemy?  When shall we find the courage to proudly eat our Chinese food and violate our Sabbaths and reject all the separateness, nationalism and religious maximalism that Chanukah so ignobly represents?  …Down with Chanukah!  It is a regressive holiday that merely symbolizes the Judaism that always was; the Judaism that was handed down to us from Sinai; the Judaism that made our ancestors ready to give their lives for the L-rd; the Judaism that young people instinctively know is true and great and real.  Such Judaism is dangerous for us and our leaders.  We must do all in our power to bury it.

From Barbara Ginsberg, here.

The CORRECT Way to Play Dreidel

The Terrible Truth About Dreidel

   Math   2 Minutes

From time to time, a journalist may face a soul-shattering dilemma. A scoop so shocking it cannot be withheld, yet so terrible it cannot be told.

And what goes for journalists, goes double for stick-figure cartooning math teachers. Thus, as one who loves truth even at its ugliest, I choose to divulge a fact sure to rattle your faith in humanity itself:

Image (2)

The game of dreidel is built on a lie.

Dreidel, of course, is a beloved Chanukah game. (Happy Chanukah, everybody!) First, each player places a chocolate coin in the center. Then, you take turns spinning a four-sided top (the dreidel), obeying the commands that appear on its ides:

Image (1).jpg

The top functions like a die, with an equal chance of landing on each side—at least, in theory.

The reality is far more sinister.

Fearless and groundbreaking research by Robert and Eva Nemiroff reveals that on the typical dreidel, not all sides are equally likely.

Image (3)

I quote here from their startling abstract:

all three dreidels tested—a cheap plastic dreidel, an old wooden dreidel, and a dreidel that came embossed with a picture of Santa Claus—were not fair… it is conjectured that hundreds of pounds of chocolate have been distributed during Chanukah under false pretenses.

It I worth asking: Why?

No, not “why does a Jewish toy come embossed with a picture of Santa Claus,” although this too is a vexing matter. I mean: Why is the dreidel unfair?

Is it shoddy craftsmanship?

A manufacturer’s deviousness?

Anti-Chanukah sabotage?

The likeliest answer: none of these. It seems that, across the board, spinning is a poor randomization process. A classic study by three Stanford researchers called Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss found that spinning coins on a table was less effective for randomization than flipping them through the air.

Image (4)

One can imagine why. The long duration of a spin, from rapid beginning to wobbly end, allows time enough to amplify a tiny difference in weight distribution. The heavier side falls down. The lighter side lands up. Invisible deviations in density become visible disparities in chocolate allocation.

What’s the solution?

One drastic measure: change randomizers. Use a tetrahedral die, or two coins (with HH, HT, TH, and TT as the four outcomes). But this would remove the dreidel from dreidel. Unacceptable. When a patient comes with chest pains, you don’t yank out her heart.

Instead, I have a different solution: each turn, you spin the dreidel three times, and interpret the outcome according to this table:

Image (5)

Each row follows the same pattern. It consists of four permutations: one without nun, one without shin, one without he, and one without gimmel. Because order does not affect the probability of a permutation, each row is therefore equally likely.

Via this system, the underlying probabilities of the dreidel itself are rendered irrelevant. Even a grossly asymmetric dreidel can be used to play a fair and balanced game.

Now, is this hyper-complicated? Yes.

Liable to confuse and alienate children? Almost certainly.

Totally unnecessary, given that nobody cares whether the four sides of the dreidel come up with equal likelihood? Perhaps.

But mathematics has never been about “understandable” or “desired.” It has always been about insinuating itself, over all manner of protests, into nostalgic memories and cherished holiday sentiments. And I refuse to let that tradition die.

From Math with Bad Drawings, here.

Those Who Make Divorce Even Worse

12/5/20 – Show 300 – Divorce process; Why is divorce so contentious

December 4, 2020

Is there a better way to get divorced? Best interest of the child? Mediation vs. Arbitration. 

***Guest Hosted by Rabbi Avrohom Kahn *** Founder, Bais Din Vaad Hadin V’horaah, Rav, Congregation Khal New City

with Betzalel Rothstein – Mediator at Shalom Family Mediation – 10:58
with Rabbi Twersky –  Av bais din of Bais din Kav Hayoshor  – 20:16
with Rabbi Yitzchock Gruenebaum – Mediator in Monsey – 35:40

מראי מקומות

From Headlines in Halacha, here.

‘Pharisaic’ Site (Hyehudi.org) ‘Retards’ Euphemism Treadmill!

Walter Williams and the Euphemism Treadmill

By 

Father Hollywood

December 3, 2020

The great economist, Dr. Walter E. Williams, died today (may he rest in peace).

Some 25 years ago, he used to debate a liberal civil rights activist named Claude Lewis on a local news show in Philadelphia. On one occasion, Lewis referred to Williams as “African American.”  Williams replied, “I’m not African American,” and laughed in his distinctive deep-throated way.

He went on to give a brilliant off the cuff history of the Euphemism Treadmill as it applied to him.

He said he used to be colored. Then he was a negro. Then he was black. Then he was African American. He told Lewis that he stopped at black and decided to get off the merry go round there.

It was delightful and illustrative.

This hypersensitivity to language, where euphemisms themselves become antiquated and considered rude in favor of other euphemisms – becomes downright Orwellian. And it is worse now than it was even when Walter Williams exited the merry go round.

Examples abound.  The word ‘toilet’ fell out of favor because it sounds rude. But it was actually a euphemism for older words. This is why we now have bathrooms with no baths, restrooms with no places to rest, and powder rooms with no powder. We also have generic ‘facilities.’ What confusion for students of English.

Here is a helpful section from Wikipedia with more detail about this very example of the Euphemism Treadmill:

Frequently, over time, euphemisms themselves become taboo words, through the linguistic process of semantic change known as pejoration, which University of Oregon linguist Sharon Henderson Taylor dubbed the “euphemism cycle” in 1974, also frequently referred to as the “euphemism treadmill“. For instance, toilet is an 18th-century euphemism, replacing the older euphemism house-of-office, which in turn replaced the even older euphemisms privy-house and bog-house. The act of human defecation is possibly the most needy candidate for the euphemism in all eras. In the 20th century, where the old euphemisms lavatory (a place where one washes) or toilet (a place where one dresses) had grown from long usage (e.g. in the United States) to synonymous with the crude act they sought to deflect, they were sometimes replaced with bathroom (a place where one bathes) washroom (a place where one washes) or restroom (a place where one rests) or even by the extreme form powder-room (a place where one applies facial cosmetics). The form water closet, which in turn became euphemised to W.C., is a less deflective form.

George Carlin did a routine tracing the history of ‘shell shock’ (WW1) to ‘battle fatigue’ (WW2) to ‘operational exhaustion” (Korea) to ‘post traumatic stress disorder’ (Vietnam).

This language game is also a way for smug, Pharisaic people to show off their sense of superiority to others. I remember when the word ‘Neanderthal’ changed pronunciation, and anyone who pronounced the ‘TH’ sound was, well, a Neanderthal.

The target is constantly moving.  When I was very young, probably about 1970, I made reference to a black guy.  My well-intentioned aunt scolded me and told me to say “colored” instead.  It turns out that she was already well behind the curve to which Dr. Williams referred.  The Overton Window had already closed on her fingers.  The boys in our neighborhood used to play a game called “smear the queer” – which was basically to throw a football around like a rugby ball and tackle and pile on the ball carrier until he gave up the ball.  There were no teams and no score.  I mentioned the game to my mom,   who told me not to say “queer” because it was rude.  Of course, today, the Acronym includes the Q for “Queer.”

The word “gay” is a classic case in point.  We still dust off its older usage when we sing “Deck the Halls.”  “Gay” used to be considered a slur, but it too is now part of the Acronym.

And at some point, Pakistan became Pah-kee-stahn for those in the know, and The Sudan and The Ukraine lost their definite articles among the truly sensitive of our species. It is also trendy to pronounce “Puerto Rico” and “Nicaragua” with a Hispanic accent, but the same people don’t pronounce “Québec” like a native, nor to they speak of getting a direct flight to “Frahnk-foort.”

The rules make no sense and follow no logic.  The word “oriental” – which simply means “eastern” – has become taboo.  Never mind the fact that the Japanese word for Japanese means people of the rising sun (which in Latin, when applied to the compass, is “oriens, orientis“), or that their flag depicts, well, a rising sun.  But “oriental” is okay sometimes.  Oriental people are not okay; oriental rugs are.  Oriental salads are a gray area.  But nobody takes umbrage with the opposite word “occidental” or its literal translation of “western” (though the idea of western civilization itself is under attack).  It’s all very confusing.

Moreover, Frenchman, Englishman, and Irishman are okay; Chinaman is not.  A professor who uses the word “niggardly” may well find himself losing his tenure and his job.  We live in Alice’s Wonderland under the capricious reign of the Queen of Hearts and the linguistic confusion of Humpty Dumpty:

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

These language games are just a merry go round designed to assert a sense of moral superiority over others, a neo-Gnostic “us vs. them” desire for cultish peer acceptance, as well as self-serving outrage – which is the gold standard of the realm in our current culture dominated by Cultural Marxism and the pseudoscience of Intersectionalism.

In 1946, George Orwell addressed the political use of language in his essay “Politics and the English Language.”  And of course, this theme of controlling thought by controlling language is one of the great themes in 1984.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.