ללא מחבר No Author

Harav Shlomo Aschkenasy: Don’t Lose Faith In Teshuvah!

Stepping Stones for the week

v . . . every effort makes an impression and leaves its mark.

v  Our job is to try! Hashem will make it succeed!

v . . . everything we are commanded to do is within our power to achieve.

v  Appreciate the Blessings Hashem has given you and Commit yourself to make the most of them.

It’s Worth Trying (Yom Kippur)

By Harav Shlomo Aschkenasy

The Beis Yisrael, zy”a, is known for his cryptic sayings, which were incisive and penetrating. His intention, like that of the Kotzker chassidim of whom he was reminiscent, was to make a point that would strike home and leave an indelible impression on the heart, mind and soul of the hearer. Most of his statements were timeless messages that can inject life and spirit into us all.

Lately I heard about a bachur who was about to leave Eretz Yisrael and met the Beis Yisrael at the Kosel. The Beis Yisrael queried him, “Do you know what Hashem’s biggest miracle is?” And the answer: “It’s the fact that He doesn’t laugh (Ehr lacht nisht)!” And without further ado the Beis Yisrael said good-bye, leaving the bachur dumbstruck, trying to figure out the Rebbe’s intention.

The bachur hurried back to Yeshivas Sfas Emes, where he found the Pnei Menachem, zy”a, who was then Rosh Hayeshivah. On hearing the Beis Yisrael’s words the Rosh Yeshivah smiled and said sympathetically, “I too heard those words from the Rebbe and was unable to fathom his intention, but I gathered up the courage to ask him.

“This was his explanation. When someone promises to do something and doesn’t do it, he will usually come up with excuses — once, twice and three times, and people still trust that he will fulfill his promise. After a few more times, though, people lose faith and will just laugh at him if he makes a promise.

“With the Ribbono shel Olam it’s not like that. We commit ourselves so many times to improve. We often say we’re going to change. We’ve begged, Selach lanu (Pardon us), and Hashiveinu (Bring us back) in an endless number of tefillos, yet we stay in our rut and continue with our wrongdoings. Hashem, however, doesn’t laugh at us. He doesn’t scoff. He patiently waits and encourages us to keep trying. He still hopes and has faith that someday we will make it happen!”

Hashem doesn’t laugh, but we do! We ridicule others and even laugh at ourselves. We don’t believe we can do it, but He does. He values our efforts even if we don’t see results. The effort itself is valuable for two reasons. First, because every effort makes an impression and leaves its mark. As Rav Chaim Shmulevitz, zt”l, so wisely noted when recounting the incident that led Rabbi Akiva to do teshuvah, Chazal say that he saw drops of water falling on a stone and remarked, “If those drops can chip away the stone and gouge out a hole in them, the waters of Torah can do the same for me and return me to its teachings.”

What was the wisdom of Rabbi Akiva that this incident highlights? Rav Chaim said that Rabbi Akiva recognized that the problem most people have is taking the first step toward changing. One step seems inconsequential and worthless. Rabbi Akiva realized that if the first step has no effect, there will not be a second step because a second step would then be like starting all over again – and so on ad infinitum. The stone does not remain the same after one drop of water falls on it; otherwise a second drop would be just like the first and the stone would never be affected. It would always remain at the same stage it was when the first drop fell.

It must be, concluded Rabbi Akiva, that the first drop leaves its mark, although it’s not discernible. So it is with teshuvah: one small step in the direction of repentance is a giant step towards sheleimus.

Regardless of its effect, Hashem values the effort itself. As Kotzk interpreted the famous Chazal, “Yagata velo matzasa…”: If you toiled and did not find fruit – “al taamin” – don’t believe it. You know why? Because the toil itself is priceless and of infinite value.

In Tehillim we read that Hashem praises the waves as they rise up, Beso galo atah teshabchem (Tehillim 89:10). The Rebbe Reb Bunim of Peshischa explained that the waves deserve to be praised for their tireless efforts. They wish to get closer to Heaven, to the Throne of Glory by rising ever higher. They’re jealous of the waters on High. They try to rise yet fall back again and again, but they never give up, driven by their craving for closeness to the Throne, and their efforts are praiseworthy. So too are ours, and we must never tire of trying because nothing is lost, every attempt is valued, and each leaves its mark.

I found a profound insight of Harav Elchanan Wassserman, Hy”d, which sheds light on the phenomenal dual value of effort. He points out that every aveirah is double-edged. First, a transgression of Hashem’s will is tantamount to heresy. When we sin we divest ourselves of Hashem’s authority, denying His kingship. Chazal equate succumbing to the dictates of the yetzer hara with bowing to an idol. The yetzer hara is called “el zar shebikirbecha, the foreign god within you.” Second, a sin damages our spiritual being. It dulls our emotions and instincts (metamtem es halev). It demolishes the G-dly image that is our essence. A crust of filth besmears its pristine state.

The efforts we make to mend our ways repair the two negative effects of sin. They express our craving to be close under Hashem’s sovereignty and that offsets the elements of heresy and idolatry. And our toil scrapes away the sheet of filth our sins created so that we can come back to our true selves and regain our spiritual essence.

*

There’s another reason not to laugh away our efforts. Hashem beckons us and promises, “Pischu li pesach kechudo shel machat…, Open for Me an opening as tiny as a needle hole and I will open up for you an entrance wide enough for wagons.” Hashem opens the gate of teshuvah for those who knock. He’s there to help, willing to assist and promises to make it happen. He knows that without His help we cannot make it. “Ilmalei ozro…, Were it not for Hashem’s help we could not overcome the mighty and wily yetzer hara.” Our job is to try! Hashem will make it succeed!

One of the most inexcusable justifications is to say, “It’s too hard; it’s impossible.” Chazal say that for an insurmountable challenge the Torah gives us some leeway (see Rashi on the topic of yefas toar hara in Parashas Ki Seitzei). Harav Yechezkel Abramsky said that we can learn from this that everything we are commanded to do is within our power to achieve; we can be confident of this because if we take a step in the right direction Heavenly assistance will lead us all the way.

I find it most apropos to reiterate the thoughts of Harav Moshe Chadash, zt”l, who inspired many bachurim in his Yeshivas Ohr Elchanan as well as avreichim like me, and we all benefited merely from being in his vicinity. On Parashah Mattos he gave an enthusiastic talk, which turned out to be his valedictory address, revealing the key to his successful life in Torah dissemination.

He reminisced that close to sixty years before, when he was a young bachur of seventeen, he was brokenhearted that he hadn’t achieved as much as he had expected. He found himself a quiet corner and poured out his heart to Hashem, asking for Divine mercy to succeed. He took upon himself some serous commitments for improvement and set himself goals. He went to Meron and cried out all of Tehillim, beseeching Heavenly help. Hashem responded and we can say that the rest is history.

He went on to point out that Moshe Rabbeinu, Yirmiyahu and Yeshayahu all claimed to be unfit and unable to speak to Am Yisrael and lead them. Hashem’s response to them all was similar. “It matters not, for you are my messengers and I will be with you so that you will succeed in all your missions.”

We all might feel the same kind of impotence to overcome the yetzer and achieve heights in Torah and closeness to Hashem. But since we are not doing it on our own but only at Hashem’s behest, we are He, so to speak, for He is in us and there’s nothing that can prevent our ascent. Heaven is the limit!

All we have to do is take one step, daven and make a true commitment. Perhaps a simple A, B, C mnemonic can serve as the first rungs on the ladder. Appreciate the Blessings Hashem has given you and Commit yourself to make the most of them. Acknowledge in tefillah that He is the Source of everything and have Bitachon that He’ll help you as long as you Care for His Torah and His people and Constantly try to aggrandize them so that yisgadal veyiskaddash Shemei Rabba!

Society IS NOT the State!

Society vs. government

Tuesday, May 1, 2012
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Interestingly enough, proponents of privatization of Soviet collective farms in 1980s were accused of attempting to starve the people.

More on the topic: “The Role of the Government”

‘Any Man Who Goes to a Psychiatrist Ought to Have His Head Examined’

The Little-Known Sordid History of Psychiatry

By 

Mercola.com

September 14, 2020

Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist, has written more than a dozen bestselling books on psychiatry and the drug industry. He’s frequently referred to as “the conscience of psychiatry” because he’s been able to successfully reform the psychiatric profession, abolishing one of the most harmful practices, namely lobotomies and other experimental psychosurgeries.

He was the first to take a public stand against lobotomies as a young man, and was able to change the field as a result. He’s featured in Aaron and Melissa Dykes’ excellent documentary, “The Minds of Men.”1

Now 83 years old, Breggin has seen a lot, and in this interview, he shares his own evolution and experiences as a psychiatrist. His interest in psychiatry began at the age of 18, when he became a volunteer at a local state mental hospital.

“It was a nightmare,” he says. “It was like my uncle Dutch’s descriptions of liberating a Nazi concentration camp. The place stank. People were sitting in these bare, barren concrete corridors.

They had a TV set that wasn’t working … and bolted down tables and chairs so the people couldn’t throw them at each other. No attention being given to them at all. Often just sitting there; some hallucinating, and somebody told me that the girl in the corner coiled up in a ball on the floor by a radiator had been a Radcliffe student …

The doctors were callous, the aids were callous, there was just no love in the place at all. I could tell, even though I didn’t really have much experience growing up with love, I could feel that what was missing was love, care, nurturing. It was so clear.”

Toxic Psychiatry

Breggin eventually became the leader of that volunteer program. He and 200 other students painted the walls and took patients for walks. He asked the superintendent to assign one patient per volunteer aid, to build real relationships. The superintendent balked at the idea, but eventually gave in. Breggin tells this story in his book, “Toxic Psychiatry.”2

“We ended up getting almost every patient out of that hospital,” he says. “We got them placed in different places that were much better. We got some back with their families. It was so clear to me that this was the way to go …

I watched electroshock and insulin coma shock where people would come in and they’d give them overdoses of insulin to send them into coma. They’d be frothing at the mouth, unconscious, having seizures and getting ready to die, literally. Then they would give them orange juice or sugar water and they would become alert again.

It was so clear to me what was going on. People would come in full of energy — angry, depressed, anxious and often resistant … They’d get this injection of insulin to knock them out, killing them, basically, but when they came awake they were like puppies. They were grateful, they said ‘Thank you, I feel like you saved me.’ They’d be docile … There’s no fooling about what this was. I knew exactly what it was.

I knew what shock treatment was … I’ve been fighting this, but we’re still doing it … It’s when they put electrodes on the forehead of the brain … You get a shock of a voltage … 10 times what you need to give convulsions … and it makes docility. It makes people out of touch with themselves. It makes people unable to complain … [Elevated mood] is the artificial euphoria [caused by] brain damage. This is very brain damaging.”

All of this is what motivated Breggin to go into psychiatry, in order to help reform the profession from the inside. Interestingly, as early as 1963, Jerry Klerman, who later became the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the federal government and a professor at Harvard, told Breggin there was no future in helping people strengthen their mental resilience.

The future, Klerman told him, was in drugs, and using computers to decide which drugs to use. After his first year at Harvard medical school, Breggin left and went back to the Upstate Medical Center (University) in New York, where he had already done internship.

“Then I went on to the National Institute of Mental Health … for two years. There I saw clearly what was happening. Psychiatry was leaving the psychosocial model behind.

My volunteer program had already been described by the last big Federal Commission on Mental Health. It’s mentioned two or three times and described as one of the solutions to the vast mental hospital problems … Nothing about drugs, drugging and shocking people in it.

It was much more real, much more about what was really going on with human beings and human sufferings, spiritual, psychological. I could just see this writing on the wall and I was not sure what to do. I was invited to stay at the National Institute of Mental Health.

I accepted briefly, in the child division. I was very interested in helping children. Then I thought, I can’t do this. I gave them warning without even having a job that I was leaving. I didn’t know what else to do, so I went into private practice.”

Breggin Spearheaded Drug-Free Psychiatry

Breggin focused on helping people without medication. “I learned very quickly that the most disturbed people would calm down and relate when somebody cared about them, wasn’t afraid of them, was interested in them and made no pretense of being superior to them,” he says. Drugs, he explains, were simply stifling the patients. While they might ease some of the suffering, that relief came at the expense of brain damage.

Breggin goes on to tell the story of how he prevented the return of lobotomies and psychosurgeries — strategies in which the brain is purposely damaged through electric shocks, radium chip implants or puncturing the prefrontal area of the brain with an ice pick inserted next to the eyeball, for example.

Breggin refers to lobotomies as a rape of the soul, the permanent mutilation of an individual’s selfhood, as damage to one area of the brain will harm the integration of the whole brain. As noted by Breggin, you cannot “plop out aggression” like a pit out of an olive. The brain doesn’t work like that. It’s an integrated organ and mental processes arise from integrated processes involving many different areas of the brain.

He decided somebody had to stop the madness. And, while he received no support from any other well-known psychiatrist or professor, and came under vehement attack by the establishment, including threats of physical violence against himself and his family that at times necessitated the use of bodyguards, Breggin eventually succeeded.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

Deflation\Inflation\Stagflation\Mass Inflation\Hyperinflation?

Which Flation Will Get Us?

By 

September 5, 2009

One of them will. That’s if things work out really well. Two or three will if things go according to the Austrian theory of the business cycle.

Americans have been living in the eye of the monetary hurricane. Prices have been stable. In July, both the Consumer Price Index and the Median CPI were flat compared to June.

There are five flations to consider.

DeflationInflationStagflationMass inflationHyperinflation

We had better consider all of them.

FLATION: MONETARY OR PRICE?

We should always keep in mind the fact that there are two ways to define flation: (1) as a change in the money supply; (2) as a change in the price level.

This assumes two more things: (1) we can accurately define money; (2) we can accurately identify the price level. Both are questionable.

The Federal Reserve three years ago dropped M3. It said that M3 was useless as an indicator of future prices. That was a long time coming. The FED was correct. M3 was the most misleading of these M’s: M1, M2, M3, MZM. It always vastly overstated the looming rise in the CPI. There is no doubt which M is best in this regard: M1. For my detailed Remnant Review article on this, go here.

Furthermore, there is more to an M than predicting future consumer prices. There is also the question of predicting the business cycle. There is no agreement here among economists.

Then there is the price level. Which basket of goods and services should statisticians use? What relevance should a statistician place on any of a hundred commodities and services? This weighing will change when consumer tastes change. No index survives intact over time. They all are revised when there are major changes, from the CPI to the Dow Jones averages.

I look for trends. I use M1 and the Median CPI.

The crucial fact is monetary policy. According to the Austrian theory of the business cycle, the cycle is completely the outcome of prior central bank monetary policy. Booms and busts are the result of central bank monetary inflation, followed by reduced expansion. The other schools of thought reject this theory. The other schools of thought are wrong. For an introduction to this issue, see Chapter 5 of my mini-book, Mises on Money.

DEFLATION

Most of those who forecast deflation have in mind price deflation. A few think monetary deflation will take place because of bankrupt banks, but the position is difficult to defend. The FDIC can keep bank doors open. There are no runs on banks involving currency withdrawal. There are only runs involving the transfer of digital money to other banks. This does not affect the money supply.

Price deflation can come through the free market. It results from steady increases in economic output in an economy with stable money. Here is my slogan: “More goods chasing the same amount of money.” A gold coin standard economy provides such a world, as long as central banks do not protect insolvent banks. So does 100% reserve banking, which we have never had. This is not the scenario offered by deflationists.

Here is their scenario. Banks create credit. Fiat money lowers interest rates. People borrow. This is consistent with Austrian economics. This credit structure cannot be sustained indefinitely. Austrianism also teaches this.

Here is where the schools of opinion depart. The deflationist says that people in general cannot pay their debts. They default. So, prices fall. Not just prices of market sectors that were bubbles, but all prices.

There is a problem with this argument. If you find that half of the things you regularly buy cost less, you buy the same amount, or maybe a little more, and then buy more of something else. This includes the purchase of capital goods.

You don’t put currency in a mattress. You buy something with the money that falling prices allows you to keep. You buy more of B when the price of A falls . . . or more of A.

Simple, isn’t it? But those who call themselves deflationists do not understand it or believe it.

The same money supply is out there. Someone owns each portion of it. You own some. I own some. We both would like to own more . . . at some price. But the credit contraction of a popped market bubble does not affect the money supply if the central bank or the Treasury or the FDIC intervenes and prevents a fractional reserve bank from going bust and taking all of the digital money with it.

This is economic logic. If the logic is incorrect, then there should be detailed theoretical criticisms of it. Or, given the weaknesses of human thought, maybe logic does not correspond to reality. Economists are famous for constructing detailed theories that do not conform to reality. But the free market theory of price changes as the result of the supply and demand for money in relation to the supply and demand for products and services is straightforward. It undergirds all of economic theory. Throw it out, and what remains of economic theory?

If a central bank creates a boom with fiat money, and then ceases to inflate, it can create deflation. How? By refusing to bail out busted banks. It allows the money supply to contract as bankrupt commercial bank deposits disappear. Fractional reserve banking implodes. That will create a deflationary depression. We have not seen anything like this since 1934: the creation of the FDIC.

Don’t bank on this just yet.

INFLATION

Monetary inflation produces price inflation. On this, Chicago School monetarists and Austrian school economists agree.

If the central bank expands the money supply, prices will rise. This takes time. Economists debate about the lag time: 6 months, a year, 18 months. But monetary expansion will raise prices. The new money has to go somewhere. It has to wind up in someone’s bank account.

If the central bank expands the monetary base by buying assets of any kind, it creates money to buy them. The recipients of those assets spend the money. If the Treasury gets it, Congress spends it. (In both theory and practice, if Congress gets its collective hands on money, it spends it. All economists are agreed on this point.)

The expansion of money by the central bank is the source of economic booms and specific asset bubbles. The expansion of money temporarily lowers the interest rate. Someone borrows this newly created money.

America suffered from monetary inflation from 1914 to 1930. Then, with a 3-year hiatus of collapsing banks, we have suffered from 1934 until today. The dollar has fallen by 95% since 1914. No, I don’t believe the CPI tells us this exactly. But I can follow the trend. The trend is up for prices and down for purchasing power.

For as long as the Federal Reserve creates money, we will have price inflation. The only thing that can retard this is if the FED raises reserve requirements or commercial banks send excess reserves to the FED. The monetary effects are the same: increased reserves are the result. This reduces the multiplier of fractional reserve banking.

Price inflation of under 10% per annum is what I call inflation. But before we get to this, we will suffer from stagflation.

STAGFLATION

This was the burden of the 1970’s. There was monetary expansion and massive Federal deficits. Why, the Federal deficit was a staggering $25 billion in 1970, and as bad the next year. Unthinkable!

The dominant Keynesian theory was that Federal deficits would overcome recessions. The central bank need only inflate enough to cover part of the Federal deficit. But there were two major recessions in the 1970’s. Unemployment rose, and prices rose. That combination of events was dubbed stagflation.

That we can have economic stagnation in today’s world is obvious. Just about every mainstream economist and forecaster is predicting slow economic growth next year. The familiar V-shaped recovery is not a popular forecast these days. More typical is the forecast of Muhammed El-Erian, the CEO of PIMCO, the largest bond fund in the world. He calls this “the new normal.”

Global growth will be subdued for a while and unemployment high; a heavy hand of government will be evident in several sectors; the core of the global system will be less cohesive and, with the magnet of the Anglo-Saxon model in retreat, finance will no longer be accorded a preeminent role in post-industrial economies. Moreover, the balance of risk will tilt over time toward higher sovereign risk, growing inflationary expectations and stagflation.

This scenario is a combination of slow growth and rising prices. Today, we have no growth and flat prices. So, slow growth and rising prices is not much of a stretch conceptually.

I think stagflation is likely, once the recovery comes. But we are seeing a gigantic Federal deficit. Ross Perot in 1992 spoke of a giant sucking sound. He said that was the sound of jobs lost to Mexico. I think it is the sound of the Federal government sucking up all excess capital in the United States and much of the world. This money will not be going into the private sector.

What is the basis of a sustained economic recovery? Increased capital formation. We are seeing capital destruction.

For a time, we will suffer from stagflation. It will not be stag-deflation. It will be stag-inflation.

What do I envision? Economic growth under 2% per annum, coupled with price increases of 5% per annum or more.

MASS INFLATION

This phenomenon will appear when the Federal deficit cannot be covered by private investment and purchases by foreign central banks. This seems certain within a decade. I think it is likely before the end of the next President’s term. I think the Social Security trust fund will cease to provide a surplus that is used to purchase nonmarketable Treasury debt, as it is today. The trustees will have to sell some of these nonmarketable Treasury debt certificates back to the Treasury. The Treasury in turn will have to sell conventional Treasury debt to cover the redemptions by the trust fund.

This stage will be the indicator that the present borrow-and-spend model has failed. The FED will be called upon to supply the difference between purchases of T-debt by the public and borrowing by the government. When the FED complies, the rate of monetary inflation will rise. Prices will also rise.

I define mass inflation as double-digit price inflation above 20% but below 40%. Americans have not seen this. No industrial nation has seen this except after a major military defeat.

The disruption of the capital markets will be extreme. The government will absorb virtually all capital formation. There will be no net capital formation. There will be capital consumption.

The international value of the dollar will fall. But other Western nations will be pursuing comparable policies. It is not clear how far the dollar will fall. It depends on the competitive race to national self-destruction. Every Western nation faces the day of reckoning: the bankruptcy of Social Security/Medicare.

At this point, the FED will have to make a choice: put on the brakes or destroy the dollar.

HYPERINFLATION

The worst-case scenario is hyperinflation. Ludwig von Mises called this the crack-up boom. It leads to the destruction of the currency. The economy will move to barter or to alternative currencies. The division of labor will collapse.

No modern industrial economy has suffered this since the recovery after World War II. The West is not Zimbabwe. The West is not a backward agricultural nation that still has functional tribal organizations to help their members.

Think about the implications of your money not buying anything of value. How would you live? You are urban. You are dependent on a complex system of computerized production and distribution. It is all governed by profit and loss. The profit-and-loss system will cease to function at some point. That is when the economy shifts to a new monetary system.

This would be the destruction of wealth on the scale of a war. It would create a new social order.

I do not think the Federal Reserve will allow this. This would destroy the banking system. The FED’s unofficial but primary job is to preserve the biggest banks in the banking system. If it’s a question of providing fiat money for the government’s debt vs. destroying the dollar, the FED will cease buying Treasury debt.

That will be the turning point.

DEFLATION

Then we will get the crash. The FED will protect the biggest banks, which will swallow the assets of smaller banks. A lot of smaller banks will go under. They will take deposits with them.

We will get bank runs. People will demand currency. The FDIC will be busted. These banks will go under. So will depositors’ money. It will be “It’s a Wonderful Life” without the 6 o’clock escape hatch in the script.

You had better have your money in Potter’s Bank, not the Bedford Falls Building & Loan.

The contraction of digital money will be matched by a truly serious recession. Bankruptcies will be widespread. Unemployment may not rise, but only because the final phase of mass inflation had created so much unemployment.

This will be a period of restoration. The cost of the restoration will depend on how bad the dislocations of the mass inflation had been. If they are very serious, which I would expect, the time of recession will be tolerable if you have currency and a job. But the investment strategies of hedging against mass inflation will produce losses. An opposite set of strategies will appear. Be a debtor in mass inflation. Be a creditor in the post-inflation recovery.

If the Federal Reserve intervenes again, repeat the cycle from the top. But the numbers will be much larger.

CONCLUSION

Pick your flation. You can try to beat it, but each successive flation threatens your capital.

We are entering a period of capital consumption in the United States. I think this problem will afflict the West. The same political promises have been made. They will be broken.

He who sustains his lifestyle through these flations will be blessed indeed. Getting rich will be miraculous.

September 5, 2009

From LRC, here.

We Only Accept Historical Testimony from Experts

Is History Proof?

Posted by: Gil Student May 1, 17

by R. Gil Student

We like to think that facts will end an argument. More often than not, they only move the battlefield. History is not a science but an art of interpretation. While historical analysis begins with careful research, it continues with inference and explanation. Both are subject to debate.

In the Talmud, we find mixed responses to historical claims. On the one hand, history is invoked as a potential method of resolution to a longstanding debate. The Gemara (Bava Basra 73b-74a) tells how Rabbah Bar Bar Chanah was wandering in the desert and met an Arab peddler who offered to show him the corpses of the generation of the biblical wandering, which were remarkably preserved. Rabbah Bar Bar Chanah tore off a piece of their tzitzis but was forced to leave it there. When Rabbah Bar Bar Chanah returned, the rabbis lamented that he could not remember the number of strings and knots. Had he remembered, this would have resolved a debate between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel.

This text implies that historical information can resolve these types of religious debates. In another passage, this is qualified.

The Gemara (Chullin 6b-7a) describes how R. Meir’s brother-in-law testified to R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi that R. Meir ate from vegetables of Beis She’an as if they were grown outside the land of Israel. Based on this testimony, R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi permitted all the vegetables of Beis She’an (treating the city as outside the borders of Israel). The Gemara continues to challenge this ruling. Maybe R. Meir ate under specific circumstances and did not believe that Beis She’an was outside the borders? After a number of such challenges, the Gemara concludes: “See what a great man testified about him.” Rashi explains: “Since he was coming to testify about this, he carefully examined it.” While we can question the historical proof, the source can be assumed to have reliably interpreted the event. Rav Menachem Krochmal (Tzemach Tzedek, no. 75, cited in Gilyon Maharsha, Chullin, ad loc.) deduces from this passage that we only rely on the testimony of experts, even regarding common practice. The average person misses crucial details and some even misrepresent Torah for convenience. He quotes from a responsum of Rav Moshe Mintz who writes similarly about testimony from non-experts that is often clearly incorrect.

According to this passage, we have to be careful about historical testimony. Aside from the general flaws in eyewitness testimony due to the frailty of human memory, witnesses may not have seen all the details or understood the entire context. History requires context. We often don’t know all the circumstances of what happens today, even events that we live through. Someone in the ancient world writing about events about which he heard may not be describing them accurately. Only a trustworthy contemporary expert who has sufficiently researched the history can be fully trusted.

The ben sorer u-moreh, rebellious son, is a startling biblical law. The Sages explain that the laws contain many different requirements, rendering the laws nearly ineffective. For example, the boy has to be within three months of turning thirteen. Additionally, the parents have the right to forgo the harsh punishment since the Torah says that they will take him to the court. They can refrain from taking him. One Sage even says that “a rebellious son never was and never will be.” He says the same about an idolatrous city that is burned to the ground and a leprous house that must be buried (Sanhedrin 71a). These are not just religious declarations but historical statements that can be disproven. And they are.

R. Yonasan (ibid.) says that he personally saw a rebellious son and sat on his grave. (This raises the halakhic question how R. Yonasan, a priest, could sit on the grave.) He also saw a mound that was an idolatrous city. Similarly, R. Elazar Bar Tzadok saw a mound that people said was the remains of a leprous house.

These are respectable testimonies. Do they end the historical question about whether these laws were ever put into effect? The Talmud does not reach a conclusion, presumably because this has no legal ramifications. However, medieval thinkers address this. Sefer Ha-Chinukh (248) quotes both opinions, as if each is valid. Some say that these laws were never put into effect while others said that they were. In contrast, Rav Yitzchak Arama (Akeidas Yitzchak 61) says: “However, we rely on the trustworthiness of those rabbis who testify faithfully that they saw [these laws put into effect] and stood on their mounds.” Rav Arama seems to close the discussion by appealing to the faithful testimony of the rabbis.

What role does historical evidence play in religious debates? According to these passages, a real but limited role. We must neither overstate the decisive value of history nor ignore its contribution when used responsibly.

From Torah Musings, here.