Pesak Halacha Is Reduced to ARITHMETIC…

Two New Halachic Fallacies Defined

It’s time to add two more halachic fallacies to our ongoing list. Remember, ideally, these types of arguments should not be made when trying to arrive at the true halacha.

1. Lagur Mip’nei Ish (Fearing a Man): Moses himself instructed the judges he appointed to “fear no man” (Deuteronomy 1:17), and this rule is based on the language of the verse. The basic meaning is that the judges should not fear potentially dangerous and vengeful individuals they may have to put on trial. But, on another level, the sages point out that (Sanhedrin 6-8) when rabbinical judges and decisors are called upon to render their opinions, they must be willing, when necessary, to disagree with precedent exposited by someone else, no matter his stature. That is, they should not fear any of their predecessors. For example, there are many around me today who will not entertain any opinion that goes against one of the explicit opinions of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Now, if they wish to follow the rabbi’s decisions all the time, I can not fault them, but ideally they should at least consider disagreeing with Rabbi Yosef, much like they would consider any side of a dispute, despite those throughout the ages who held otherwise. Another example was the case of Rabbi Eisenstein, who believed that Rav Elyashiv could not be disagreed with. Of course, he does not have a problem with disagreeing with the opinions of, for example, the Shulhan Aruch and other great decisors on occasion. It is only with regard to Rav Elyashiv that he applies the fallacy.

2. In Bava Bathra 36b we find what I will dub the Plurality-Precedent Fallacy:

R’ Bibi inquired of R’ Nahman: What is the reason of those [authorities] who hold that ploughing a field [year after year] confers a presumption of ownership? — [He answered:] A man will not watch someone else plough his field without objecting. [He asked further:] And what is the reason of those who hold that ploughing a field [year after year] does not confer a presumption of ownership? — Because the owner says to himself, ‘The more he ploughs, the better it is for me.’ The inhabitants of Pum Nahara sent the following inquiry to R’ Nahman son of R’ Hisda: Will our master please instruct us whether ploughing a field [year after year] confers a presumption of ownership? He replied: R’ Aha and all G’dolei Hador, the great minds of our generation, hold that ploughing a field [year after year] does not confer a presumption of ownership. R’ Nahman son of R’ Isaac said: Is it greatness to count men? For Rav and Samuel in Babylonia and Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiba in the land of Israel hold that ploughing does confer a presumption of ownership.

Note that there are three Amora’im by the name of Nahman in this passage. R’ Nahman son of R’ Hisda followed a known ruling by many great Rabbis, and the latter R’ Nahman challenged him, pointing out that although his opinion was well-precedented, it did not take into account that the other side of the argument also had its supporters. When a true decisor is asked a question of halacha, he is not merely supposed to start counting how many authorities would side with his ruling; he must consider all of the sides, and actually draw his own objective conclusion. And yes, it would be good if his conclusion has been reached by others in the past, but that can not be the only factor. Sometimes, I get mentally frustrated reading responsa that reach their conclusions by using R’ Nahman son of R’ Hisda’s methodology without trying to show which opinion best fits with the Talmudic sources.

From Rabbi Avi Grossman, here.

לספר את האמת אודות ריטלין = מעין התאבדות מקצועית

“הפרעת קשב” היא “ליקוי הלמידה” הנפוץ בקרב תלמידי ישראל. ב”מחלה” מטפלים באמצעות ריטלין – סם ממריץ, קרוב משפחה כימי של קוקאין. אסור היום להעניש ילד בבית ספר, אבל מותר לסמם את הילדים שמפריעים למערכת הממשלתית האחידה להגיע ל”שוויוניות”.

דר’ יעקב אופיר הוא פסיכולוג קליני, עמית מחקר בטכניון ובאוניברסיטת תל אביב. דר’ אופיר פרסם מאמר במוסף הארץ (30/08/2019) אותו הגדיר כ”מעין התאבדות מקצועית”.

דר’ אופיר כופר בקיומה של ה”מחלה” הנפוצה אצל ילדים בעידן המודרני: הפרעת קשב, וממילא מתנגד ל”תרופה” הנפוצה – ריטלין.

“הפרעת קשב” היא “ליקוי הלמידה” הנפוץ בקרב תלמידי ישראל ומזכה את התלמידים המאובחנים בהקלות וב”התאמות” אחרות במבחנים ובבגרות. דוגמאות: תוספת זמן במבחנים, סיוע מורה בזמן הבחינה, בחינה בעל פה.

בשנות ה-80 הונהגו בהולנד קצבאות נכות נדיבות מאות. תוך מספר שנים הסתבר: כל הולנדי שישי הצליח להצטייד ב”אישור נכות” והיה זכאי לקצבה. כאשר מחלקים לתלמידים “הקלות” במבחנים אין פלא שבערך 40% מתלמידי ישראל מאובחנים כבעלי “לקויות למידה”. בשנת 2017 פורסמו האזורים המחזיקים באליפות הארץ במספר התלמידים עם “לקויות למידה”:

 2521 1

באזור השרון, לדוגמה, יש יישובים רבים שבהם שיעור גבוה מתלמידי י”ב אובחנו כלקויי למידה: במועצה האזורית חוף השרון, בדרום השרון, בתל מונד וברעננה – 65% בכל אחת, בהוד השרון 60%, בהרצליה 59% ובכפר סבא 57%.

לא מפתיע שככל שמשפחה משתייכת לאשכול חברתי גבוה יותר, מתרבים “לקויי הלמידה”. יש יותר כסף לשלם ל”מומחים לאבחון” (אלפי שקלים). ישנם בתי ספר באזורים מבוססים שבכיתה י’ 76% מהתלמידים “לקויים”. לכן לערבים ולבדואים כמעט ואין “לקויי למידה”…

האבחון הוא למעשה אישור רשמי שהתלמיד פטור ממאמצים להצליח. התלמיד מקבל ומפנים שהוא בעל נכות. מעניין – מאוחר יותר, בצבא, באקדמיה ובחיים האמיתיים ה”ליקויים” לפתע נעלמים וצריך להתמודד עם העולם האמיתי, וכנראה שבהצלחה לא מבוטלת למרות אבחנת הנכות בה רבים הצטיידו בצעירותם…

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר קו ישר, כאן.

Only John Bolton and Other Cockroaches Don’t Mind a Nuclear WWIII

September 11, 2019

John Bolton was only national security adviser of the United States for less than18 months but it felt as if he had been there forever. And we are not – alas – done with him yet.

The first thing to be said about Bolton’s fall is that it was entirely consistent with his lifelong pattern. He went reluctantly and departed with all the grace of a cockroach. He showed no loyalty or even courtesy to the president who raised him from being an aged, deserved has-been to briefly being one of the most powerful men on the planet. He could never be graceful or grateful, never be a gentleman. He could never simply shut up.

John Bolton was never a genius: Though like all his neoconservative friends he imagined himself to be. It was always the childish fantasy of a creepy little psychopath who never grew up, always a lie.

For decades, the cockroaches and spiders in the most obscure recesses of all the conservative, libertarian and liberal-progressive think tanks sprinkled across Washington like smallpox scabs spoke with awe of Bolton’s brilliant brain, his remorseless work ethic and his capacious memory. They were only exposing their own even greater mediocrity.

For Bolton always lacked any form of judgment, wisdom, discernment or restraint. He had a simplistic rigid mind that never learned any anything good that was new and never forget everything that was old and vile.

As recently as July, he was lauded at a farcical so-called “national conservative” conference outside Washington as a champion of restraint and peace in foreign policy. Josef Goebbels could not have come up with a more outrageous and ludicrous lie…

Bolton was lauded by unending generations of neocon whores in the American media for his breadth of vision as if he actually understood the world. In fact, the only thing he ever understood – and knew how to play – was the media and think tank gossip games inside the Washington Beltway.

John Bolton claimed to defend the national security of the United States: Another lie. As usual in the Infernal Groves of the National Capital, everything is the opposite of what it is presented as being. In fact, he worked endlessly to put his country at unprecedented risk.

To the very end, he sought to keep American soldiers dying in their thousands in an unending war in Afghanistan that he worked so hard with his neocon soulmates to unleash under their brainless puppet George W. Bush. Indeed, it seems to have been his efforts to (at least initially successfully) derail promising peace talks in Qatar between the Trump administration and the Taliban that finally led his longsuffering president to pull the plug on him.

John Bolton was never elected to and for anything. Even he seemed to realize that he inspired as much human trust as a cobra. But shameless, fawning flattery he could do and it won him diplomatic and policymaking entrees to one Republican administration after another.

Every one of his policies failed, cost untold hundreds of billions of dollars or took hundreds of thousands of lives. It never seemed to matter. He could count on the indulgent hosts and producers of Fox News to wheel him out endlessly, again and again to trot out the same tired old lies masquerading as wisdom and truth.

No one was ever allowed to call him out on it on national television to his face. He would never allow it. Like so many armchair warriors, he had been a draft dodger and was always a bully and a coward.

President Trump, to his genuine credit was a real sportsman and athlete. He played golf well. All his life he has revered sporting champions and war heroes. That may be sneered at childish, but it is vastly preferable to the fraudulent intellectual arrogance of the neocons none of whom have ever seen a shot fired in anger or even a gun pointed in their direction by a stranger with a scowl on his face.

Bolton liked to think of himself as a massive, manly Champion of Freedom: Instead he was always Igor, the hunchback dwarf who capers bizarrely beside Dr. Frankenstein or Dracula, the real men of power eager to bask in their reflected might.

But as Igor, he was always there: His spells of real power and influence spanned a massive three and a half decades. As early as the first Reagan administration from 1981 to 1985, he was already unleashing civil war, massacres and even genocide on the women and children of Central America. It was, really all that he was ever good at.

Bolton was also a central figure in the destruction of Iraq in 2003. He cheered on the attempt to destroy Syria in 2011. He solemnly and thoughtfully endorsed the destruction of genuine democratic and constitutional government in Ukraine in the Maidan coup of 2011. When it came to unleashing the Dogs of War, he was relentless and remorseless to the end.

Nor should we celebrate prematurely that we have seen the last of him yet: A future President Mike Pence or Nikki Haley is perfectly capable of making John Bolton secretary of defense, secretary of state or national security adviser for a second time.

And do not rule out him appearing magically reinvented as a figure of supposed wisdom and restraint at the side of a future President Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris. Compared to the fantastic, terrible and bizarre realities of Washington, Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” is a sober documentary.

John Bolton never saw a nuclear arms control treaty he did not hate. He was and is willfully blind to the dangers of Armageddon.

Perhaps the creators of “Team America: World Police” were right in their prophetic insight, except the secret cockroach from Outer Space masquerading as a human being and seeking to destroy the human race is not the ruler of North Korea, but Bolton, the “great” neoconservative “thinker” and “statesman.”

Apply Occam’s razor – and that is the hypothesis which most elegantly and fully fits and explains the facts. Who but a cockroach could possibly want thermonuclear war? Who but a cockroach – and John Bolton?

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

From Strategic Culture, here.

‘It Must Be Gibberish’: David Friedman’s Anarchist Poem

ANARCHY IS NOT CHAOS

Anarchy, n. 4. a theory which regards the union of order with the absence of all direct or coercive government as the political ideal. 5. confusion in general; disorder.

THE AMERICAN COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY

  • Government produces all order.
  • Under anarchy there is no government.
  • Therefore anarchy is chaos.

Q.E.D.

 

In Washington there isn’t any plan

With “feeding David” on page sixty-four;

It must be accidental that the milk man

Leaves a bottle at my door.

It must be accidental that the butcher

Has carcasses arriving at his shop

The very place where, when I need some meat,

I accidentally stop.

My life is chaos turned miraculous;

I speak a word and people understand

Although it must be gibberish since words

Are not produced by governmental plan.

Now law and order, on the other hand

The state provides us for the public good;

That’s why there’s instant justice on demand

And safety in every neighborhood.


From David D. Friedman, here.

Who Should Vote and Pass New Laws? NOBODY, That’s Who! (In Principle)

Against Woman Suffrage

Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience.

The only law that any human being can rightfully be compelled to obey is simply the law of justice. And justice is not a thing that is made, or that can be unmade, or altered, by any human authority. It is a natural principle, inhering in the very nature of man and of things. It is that natural principle which determines what is mine and what is thine, what is one man’s right or property and what is another man’s right or property. It is, so to speak, the line that Nature has drawn between one man’s rights of person and property and another man’s rights of person and property.

This natural principle, which we will call justice, and which assigns to each and every human being, is, I repeat, not a thing that has made, but is a matter of science to be learned, like mathematics, or chemistry, or geology. And all the laws, so called, that men have ever made, either to create, define, or control the rights of individuals, were intrinsically just as absurd and ridiculous as would be laws to create, define, or control mathematics, or chemistry, or geology.

Substantially all the tyranny and robbery and crime that governments have ever committed – and they have either themselves committed, or licensed others to commit, nearly all that have ever been committed in the world by anybody – have been committed by them under the pretence of making laws. Some man, or some body of men, have claimed the right, or usurped the power, of making laws, and compelling other men to obey; thus setting up their own will, and enforcing it, in place of that natural law, or natural principle, which says that no man or body of men can rightfully exercise any arbitrary power whatever over the persons or property of other men.

There are a large class of men who are so rapacious that they desire to appropriate to their own uses the persons and properties of other men. They combined for the purpose, call themselves governments, make what they call laws, and then employ courts, and governors, and constables, and, in the last resort, bayonets, to enforce obedience.

There is another class of men, who are devoured by ambition, by the love of power, and the love of fame.

They think it a very glorious thing to rule over men; to make laws to govern them. But as they have no power of their own to compel obedience, they unite with the rapacious class before mentioned, and become their tools. They promise to make such laws as the rapacious class desire, if this latter class will but authorize them to act in their name, and furnish the money and the soldiers necessary for carrying their laws, so called, into execution.

Still another class of men, with a sublime conceit of their own wisdom, or virtue, or religion, think they have a right, and a sort of divine authority, for making laws to govern those who, they think are less wise, or less virtuous, or less religious than themselves. They assume to know what is best for all other men to do and not to do, to be and not to be, to have and not to have. And they conspire to make laws to compel all those other men to conform to their will, or, as they would say, to their superior discretion. They seem to have no perception of the truth that each and every human being has had given to him a mind and body of his own, separate and distinct from the minds and bodies of all other men; and that each man’s mind and body have, by nature, rights that are utterly separate and distinct from the rights of any and all other men; that these individual rights are really the only human rights there are in the world; that each man’s rights are simply the right to control his own soul, and body, and property, according to his own will, pleasure, and discretion, so long as he does not interfere with the equal right of any other man to the free exercise and control of his own soul, body, and property. They seem to have no conception of the truth that, so long as he lets all other men’s souls, bodies, and properties alone, he is under no obligation whatever to believe in such wisdom, or virtue, or religion as they do, or as they think best for him.

This body of self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious people, not being sufficiently powerful of themselves to make laws and enforce them upon the rest of mankind, combined with the rapacious and ambitious classes before mentioned to carry out such purposes as they can all agree upon. And the farce, and jargon, and Babel they all make of what they call government would be supremely ludicrous and ridiculous, if it were not the cause of nearly all the poverty, ignorance, vice, crime, and misery there are in the world.

Of this latter class – that is, the self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious class – are those woman suffrage persons who are so anxious that women should participate in all the falsehood, absurdity, usurpation, and crime of making laws, and enforcing them upon other persons. It is astonishing what an amount of wisdom, virtue, and knowledge they propose to inflict upon, or force into, the rest of mankind, if they can but be permitted to participate with the men in making laws. According to their own promises and predictions, there will not be a single natural human being left upon the globe, if the women can but get hold of us, and add their power to that of the men in making such laws as nobody has any right to make, and such as nobody will be under the least obligation to obey. According to their programme, we are to be put into their legislative mill, and be run through, ground up, worked over, and made into some shape in which we shall be scarcely recognized as human beings. Assuming to be gods, they propose to make us over into their own image. But there are so many different images among them, that we can have, at most, but one feature after one model, and another after another. What the whole conglomerate human animal will be like, it is impossible to conjecture.

In all conscience, it is not for us even to bear the nearly unbearable ills inflicted upon us by the laws already made, – at any rate it is not better for us to be (if we can but be permitted to be) such simple human beings as Nature made us, – than suffer ourselves to be made over into such grotesque and horrible shapes as a new set of lawmakers would make us into, if we suffer them to try their powers upon us?

The excuse which the women offer for all the laws which they propose to inflict upon us is that they themselves are oppressed by the laws that now exist. Of course they are oppressed; and so are all men – except the oppressors themselves – oppressed by the laws that are made. As a general rule, oppression was the only motive for which laws were ever made. If men wanted justice, and only justice, no laws would ever need to be made; since justice itself is not a thing that can be made. If men or women, or men and women, want justice, and only justice, their true course is not to make any more laws, but to abolish the laws – all the laws – that have already been made. When they shall have abolished all the laws that have already been made, let them give themselves to the study and observance, and, if need be, the enforcement, of that one universal law – the law of Nature – which is “the same at Rome and Athens” – in China and in England – and which man did not make. Women and men alike will then have their rights; all their rights; all the rights that Nature gave them. But until then, neither men nor women will have anything that they can call their rights. They will at most have only such liberties or privileges as the laws that are made shall see fit to allow them.

If the women, instead of petitioning to be admitted to a participation in the power of making more laws, will but give notice to the present lawmakers that they (the women) are going up to the State House, and are going to throw all the existing statute books in the fire, they will do a very sensible thing, – one of the most sensible things it is in their power to do. And they will have a crowd of men – at least all the sensible and honest men in the country to go with them.

But this subject requires a treatise, and is not to be judged of by the few words here written. Nor is any special odium designed to be cast on the woman suffragists; many of whom are undoubtedly among the best and most honest of all those foolish people who believe that laws should be made.

Lysander Spooner (1808–1887) was a lawyer, writer, entrepreneur, and libertarian activist.

From LRC, here.