ללא מחבר No Author

יש מתעשר ואין כל

נייר טואלט סוציאליסטי

כתבנו בקטע הקודם על האסון הסוציאליסטי בוונצואלה – לא ניתן להשיג שם דבר… לא אוכל.. לא תרופות… לא מים… וגם לא נייר טואלט.

 תור ללחם בוונצואלה.

בית מרקחת סוציאליסטי בוונצואלה – מדפים ריקים.

 

עכשיו שמעו סיפור על נייר טואלט (סיפור אמיתי). במפעל תעשייה פרטי בוונצואלה מצאו העובדים סעיף בחוזה העבודה הקיבוצי, המחייב את המעביד לספק לעובדים חדרי נוחיות, מצוידים בכל הדרוש – כמו סבון ונייר טואלט. אבל … נייר טואלט לא ניתן להשיג! אין בחנויות, נישט-טו. מה עושים? “לא מעניין אותנו” אמר וועד העובדים, אם לא יהיה נייר טואלט בשירותים ייחשב הדבר להפרה חמורה של חוזה העבודה הקיבוצי. המפעל יושבת לאלתר, ותביעה נגד בעליו תוגש לבית הדין לעבודה.

בעל המפעל רצה להציל את מפעלו (ואת מקור הפרנסה של עובדיו), ועשה מאמצים גדולים להשיג נייר טואלט. בסוף הוא מצא מחסן נידח, שהייתה לו עדיין כמות טובה של נייר, וקנה ממנו את כל הכמות, במחיר שוק שחור, כמובן, פי כמה מהמחיר הרשמי שבפיקוח ממשלתי. לא ניתן להשיג נייר בדרך אחרת. בעל המפעל היה מוכן לשאת בעלות, ובלבד שלא יושבת מפעלו.

כאן נכנסו לפעולה מייד פקחי משרד המסחר והתעשייה. נגד בעל המפעל הוגשה תלונה פלילית חמורה על מסחר בשוק השחור, ספסרות, הפרת צוו פיקוח המחירים, וחבלה בכלכלת המדינה והעם. יש לשער שבעל המפעל נאלץ לשלם שוחד ביד רחבה לפקחים ולשופטים, כדי להימנע מלשבת לכלא.

ומה קרה במפעל? האם נהנו הפועלים מנייר הטואלט שהושג בעמל רב (ובעלות גבוהה)? כן. הם נהנו מאד, במשך יום או יומיים. אח”כ אזל הנייר, הפועלים גנבו אותו, כל אחד לקח כמות כפי יכולתו הביתה, כי גם בבית לא היה נייר…

יעקב

מאתר קו ישר, כאן.

Testimonials for the Wonderful ‘Gemara Academy’

In Others’ Words.. What People Are Saying

Gemara Academy is helping all of my Talmidim

Dear Reb Chananya I have been using your Gemara flowcharts in my eighth grade class since the beginning of this year. The boys enjoy using them and find them very helpful. Many boys tell me that even when they knew the Gemara already, seeing it in the flowchart form makes it clearer to them. The charts are helping all the boys in the class get a better handle on the Gemara. For some it’s additional clarity and for others it helps them to get the basic Pshat, so everyone has gained by their use. Hatzlacha Rabbah in your Avodas Hakodesh.
Rabbi Avrohom Zupnik
Rebbe, Lakewood Cheder, New Jersey

Gemara Academy has totally transformed my classroom. My students appreciate seeing in front of them a clear map of the day’s Gemara, as well as the different forms of learning and review that are consistent in each lesson. Also with Gemara academy our Chavrusa time has become much more efficient and productive with a much heavier load of thoughtful questions from the Talmidim. As a teacher I also appreciate having a clear outline of my in-class goals. Gemara Academy has also greatly assisted me in my preparations outside of class.
Rabbi Shimon Emlen,
Teacher and Development Manager, MMSC Day School, Seattle Washington

Having used Gemara Academy for the last 4 years I have found it to be extremely helpful for many of the students. The PowerPoint classes help with being a visual aid, and they also provide an organized layout which helps the students have a clearer understanding of the Gemara
An appreciative Rebbe
Hamesivta, New York

When I started learning through Gemara Academy, I seriously doubted that I would be able to understand a page of Gemara, let alone the commentaries, without a live teacher to explain it. I was very, very wrong. Thanks to the explanations, especially in the form of flowcharts, of the Gemara Academy videos, I have been able to start learning Gemara at home, on my own. Every time I watch a Gemara Academy video, I learn more, and I grow increasingly more confident in my ability to understand the concepts discussed in the Gemara. Gemara Academy has changed the way I look at Gemara, and it has given me the chance to really appreciate the wisdom of the text and the commentaries. Thank you!
N
Washington State

From Gemara Academy, here.

‘It Is Proper To Complement Torah Study With Work’

Torah and Careers: A Practical Approach

This article was printed in the English journal of Yeshivat Har Etzion many moons ago…

Torah and Careers: A Practical Approach[1]

by Ben-Tzion Spitz

The question whether a Torah-observant Jew may or ought to pursue a secular career has been debated since, at latest, the time of the Mishna. In this article we will look at some sources for the debate, focusing mainly on Pirkei Avotand the Rambam, analyze the prevalent approaches today, and develop some practical tools to help guide an individual toward his own solution to the issue.

The Mishnaic Tractate Pirkei Avot (Ethics of our Fathers), is a compilation of moral advice dictating what daily behavior ought to be like for everyone.[2] It also represents the ideal that all should aim to achieve.[3] However, in carefully reviewing the various statements in the Mishna, it becomes apparent that there is a dispute about the issue of making a livelihood:

Do not say, “When I am free I will study;” perhaps you will not become free.[4]

Anyone excessively involved in business cannot become a scholar.[5]

Whoever takes upon himself the yoke of Torah, the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly responsibilities are removed from him. But whoever throws off the yoke of Torah from himself, the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly responsibilities are placed upon him.[6]

Reduce your business activities and occupy yourself with Torah. Be of humble spirit before every man. If you should neglect the Torah, there will be many other neglectors opposite you; but if you labor in Torah, He has ample reward to give you.[7]

On the other hand:

Beautiful is the study of Torah, together with an occupation, for the exertion of them both makes sin forgotten.[8]

If there is no Torah, there is no worldly occupation; if there is no worldly occupation, there is no Torah. If there is no wisdom, there is no fear of God; if there is no fear of God, there is no wisdom. If there is no knowledge, there is no understanding; if there is no understanding, there is no knowledge. If there is no flour (sustenance), there is no Torah; if there is no Torah, there is no flour (sustenance).[9]

The sages who composed these sources lived as they taught; whereas many sages earned a livelihood in non-clerical professions, others distanced themselves as much as possible from the secular world. On one hand, there are many examples of Torah giants and leaders throughout the generations that pursued careers alongside their Torah life:[10] Among Talmudic sages, Rav Huna was a water drawer,[11] Rabbi Meir a barber,[12] Rabbi Yehuda a porter,[13] Rav Yosef a miller, and Rav Sheshet a porter.[14] Among later sages, Rav Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi, the famous commentator on Chumash and Talmud) was a wine maker, and never accepted any position or payment for his Torah activities. Even in modern times, Rav Baruch Halevi Epstein, the author of the Torah Temima, was a banker. Rambam is perhaps the best known secular career person and we will discuss him in more detail below.

On the other hand, a paradigm of non-secular existence is represented by Rav Shimon Bar Yochai. The Talmud relates that he lived as he preached – in a cave, immersed completely in his Torah meditations, totally divorced from the world around him.[15] Thus, one group contends that men[16] should shun worldly pursuits for the exclusive study of Torah, whereas the other group seems to say that there must be a balance, a coexistence, between making a livelihood and studying Torah. This debate has continued, and one can identify the different views throughout the Talmud, Geonim, Rishonim, Acharonim and modern-day poskim.

At first glance, it appears that this dispute involves clearly defined and inflexible positions, i.e., a halakhic dispute. However, it may be more accurate to say that this debate is about philosophical preference and not about normative practice, i.e., each side emphasizes one opinion from among several, but does not decide between them.[17]

As opposed to other areas of halakha where unequivocal decisions are rendered, no authoritative decision has ever been recorded for this debate. Yes, there are many suggestions and views; but that is all they are, and should only be taken as such. Furthermore, sages from both ends of this philosophical debate very much respected each other’s positions, views, and ways of life.However, while most might agree with the above positions, some do not – especially in our generation.

It seems that the sages realized that one’s approach to secular activity is a highly personal issue, and offered encouragement and specific guidance as to the best resolution of this life-defining concern.

Some Qualifications

From the days of the Mishna to our own time, many people have become overly concerned with the pursuit of their career and material wealth. This trend is frowned upon in no uncertain terms by the full spectrum of Jewish thinkers.[18] All agree that learning Torah and thereby becoming closer to God is of prime importance. Anything that detracts from this goal is against the Jewish ideal. Beyond this, however, there are various opinions as to the best way to proceed with one’s activities on the practical level, and it is this debate we wish to address.

To my mind, it is inconceivable that the entire Jewish people was meant to exclusively learn Torah (at least at this stage of our history[19]). It is otherwise difficult to explain the reason behind all of the materialistic laws and commandments. Someone has to work the fields. Someone has to heal the sick and wounded. Someone has to build the homes, provide the food, generate the electricity, make the clothing, manufacture goods and do everything else that a society needs done. The majority of the population is expected to have some type of gainful employment. In ancient times, the Kohanim and Levi’im were designated from among Israel to provide guidance, while the rest of Israel was expected to make a living.[20] In our times, Orthodox Jewry has spawned a community with an ideology that promotes full-time Torah learning for all men. In this essay, we are concerned with helping the individual to choose between the Torah-only lifestyle and an integrated lifestyle, and providing some tools to help him decide.

Avoiding the Problem Creates New Ones

Some people do not have to confront the choice directly because they work in a Torah-oriented field. Not that their intention is to avoid tackling the issue; on the contrary, usually for the most idealistic and noble of reasons they become pulpit Rabbis or Torah educators. They are constantly learning and disseminating words of Torah. This is a great solution to the dilemma, for the Rabbi does not have to leave the world of Torah even while earning a living. However, this only works for the select few that take that route – not everyone can be a teacher.

Additionally, this route is not without its price. Rambam prohibits Torah being taught for pay:

It is forbidden to take a wage for teaching the Oral Law, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:5): “Behold, I have taught you laws and statutes, as God commanded me.” Just as I (Moses) learned at no cost, so too, you have been taught from me at no cost. Teach the coming generations in a like manner. Teach them at no cost as you have learned from me.[21]

Unfortunately, such a guideline could very well destroy today’s entire Orthodox educational system. Thus, Halakhic authorities allow Torah educators to be compensated for their time. However, this is far from the ideal way to teach Torah.

Another reason why this may be problematic is that the educator or Rabbi is at the mercy of his financial supporters. He must be careful not to upset or alienate them too much or he will lose his job and, hence, his livelihood. This would, at times, tie the hands of such people when it is most important for them to take a stand. This weakens the Torah in the eyes of the community. Sometimes, Rabbis may give in to financial expediency rather than stand on principle, especially in borderline cases.

Continue reading…

From Ben-Tzion, here.

Who Came First, Caroline Glick or Moshe Feiglin?

The Israeli One-State Solution

By Ron Lipsman

Caroline Glick has written a provocative new book entitled The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. In it, she argues that the futile quest for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict over the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is misguided, ill-conceived and doomed to failure. As have many before her, she points out that the “two states for two peoples” mantra, which is promoted so mindlessly by clueless diplomats, statesmen and pundits, and whose outline is broadly ‘known’ to all who envision it, would result in a death sentence for the Jewish State. Those who favor the two-state solution are often untroubled by that prospect. Or they deny, in unconvincing fashion, that such an outcome is likely. Moreover, “friends” of Israel bemoan the fact that there is no other choice: If the two-state solution is not implemented, then Israel either loses its Jewish character or its democratic nature. This is inevitable – just ask that great friend of Israel, John Kerry.

Balderdash, replies Glick. She argues that the demographic time bomb that is supposedly ticking louder and louder is a myth. The estimates (provided by the PLO) of the number of Arab residents in Judea and Samaria (the biblical names of the two regions comprising the so-called West Bank) are wildly inflated. Moreover, they discount the substantial and ongoing Arab emigration from the area. Glick claims that the ratio of Jews to Arabs among all the peoples in the disputed area (that is, comprising Israel proper, plus Judea and Samaria, but not Gaza) is roughly 2-1. Moreover, she claims, the fertility rate amongst the Jews has now drawn even (at approximately 3.1) to that of the Arabs — and more critically, according to Glick, the Jewish rate continues to rise while the Arab rate shows no sign of abating from its recent steep plummet. She asserts that with the likely continuation of these trends, augmented by ongoing Jewish immigration, the ratio in the not too distant future could approach 4-1, even 5-1, that is, the current ratio within Israel itself.

Therefore, says Glick, Israel should assert sovereignty over the disputed territory, expel the PLO and offer citizenship to the remaining Arab residents. A one-state solution! But not the Judenrein one envisioned by Abbas, nor the one that haunts Jewish lefties in Israel (and the US) who foresee a demographic and political disaster if Israel continues to “occupy the West Bank.”

Glick’s plan is simple, bold, controversial and provocative. Her analysis of the current situation and of the preceding machinations that have led to the current “stalemate” is cogent, comprehensive, clear-eyed and convincing. Here are some of the main points she makes:

  • Virtually all of the proponents of the two-state solution (Americans, Europeans, left-wing Israelis; although perhaps not Russians, and certainly no Arab) envision that such an eventuality will be accompanied by a total cessation of hostilities and complete acknowledgment by both sides of the legitimacy of the others’ state. There is not a shred of evidence that the Arabs — either in the disputed area or outside of it — are at all interested in such a comprehensive and final peace. They view Israel’s existence — within any borders — as an affront and a catastrophe (Nakba) that can only be corrected by the disappearance (through either annihilation or suicide) of the sovereign Jewish State.
  • This is proven by the fact that several times in the last two decades, Israel has offered a deal that comports closely with the envisioned two-state solution. Arafat and/or Abbas flatly rejected these offers. Glick points out that such rejections have been going on for nearly a century. She cites the rejection and invasion of 1948 as well as previous rejections by Arafat’s mentor, Haj Amin el-Husseini.
  • The Arabs of Judea and Samaria will be far better off as residents (with or without citizenship) of Israel than they are as subjects of the kleptocracy that the PLO currently imposes on Judea and Samaria. Like their brethren in Israel proper, they would benefit from living under the rule of law and would profit from heretofore unimagined economic opportunities. To quote her:
    “An Israeli renunciation of the two-state solution and embrace of the Israeli one-state plan, which is based on actual Israeli rights rather than fictitious Israeli culpability, would liberate Israel to craft coherent strategies for contending with the rapidly evolving regional threat environment and the international assault on its right to exist. And at the more mundane level of the lives of individuals — Jews and Arabs alike — Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria will increase the security of all. It will transform the region from one governed alternatively by a military government and a terrorist kleptocracy into one governed by a unified, liberal rule of law. Civil and property rights of Muslims, Christians, and Jews will be protected rather than neglected or denied outright.”
  • Israel will be vilified — especially by the EU — if it implements Glick’s one-state solution. So what, says Glick. Israel is already vilified. Any economic sanctions the EU might impose on Israel will hurt the Europeans nearly as much as Israel. Moreover, such actions can be readily deflected by Israel’s burgeoning trade and relations with less anti-Semitic customers in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

America’s reaction. Here is a potential weakness in Glick’s presentation. She fails to present any estimate of how America might respond to Israel’s implementation of her one-state solution. She eschews any such conjecture in favor of outlining how she believes America should react to such an Israeli initiative. She makes a compelling case that US backing for an Israeli one-state solution is indeed in America’s interest. To wit:“

The British failure in governing the Palestine Mandate was bipartisan: the Labour and Conservative Parties both got it wrong, consistently. Both failed to understand that their efforts to appease the Arabs were futile. Both failed to appreciate the value of their alliance with the Jews and to recognize that the Jews were not the obstacle to peace. Both failed to recognize that factors outside their control determined regional realities and informed the decisions of local actors, particularly in the Arab world.

Eighty years later, had President Bill Clinton learned from Britain’s experience, and from the full history of the failure of the two-state solution, perhaps he would not have allowed Yassir Arafat to make him into a failure as well. But not only did Clinton not learn from Britain’s experience, he and his two successors embraced the same failed policy dream that the British had chased for decades. Clinton, Bush, and Obama’s failure to recognize the impossibility of the two-state solution played a significant, and arguably decisive, role in their difficulties in crafting successful policies not only toward Israel and the Palestinians but toward the Middle East overall.”

“The consistent U.S. policy of treating the PLO and Palestinian terrorism as distinct and more legitimate than non-Palestinian terrorism against non-Israeli and non-Jewish targets has not enhanced the U.S. position in the Arab world. Rather, it has damaged that position. America’s consistent policy of accepting the narrative that the Palestinian conflict is the root cause of the Arab world’s conflict with Israel, and a central determinant of the policies of Arab governments, has caused great harm to overall U.S. national interests.”

However, there are many ways that the withdrawal of American support for Israel could place the Jewish State in mortal peril. I think that, at heart, Glick assays that the fundamental sympathy for and identification with the people of Israel by the people of the US is so strong that even a hostile administration like that of Barack Obama could not bring about an American betrayal of the Jewish State. If so, Glick would have been well-advised to state this clearly. I generally share that assessment; but given the numerous blind alleys down which America has allowed itself to be led by the prophet Obama, I don’t share her implicit optimism.

Glick is a well-respected and influential commentator on the Israeli scene. She is clearly firmly entrenched on the right end of the Israeli political spectrum, but I imagine that her bold recommendation will get serious consideration in many quarters. Does it stand a chance of gaining enough support to render it a viable option that might be implemented? More importantly, should it?

In answer to the first question, I think the power and originality of her arguments will be hard to ignore. Twenty years of the Oslo process have resulted in a dismal failure in that peace with the Arabs of Judea and Samaria is no closer today than it was originally in 1993, or in 1967, or 1948, or 1929. And the concrete results of Oslo have been horrendous — in a soft sense in the keen disappointment felt by all at its failure; and in a hard sense in the more than a thousand Israelis brutally murdered in the so-called second Intifada. Moreover, our benighted Secretary of State has promised a third Intifada as a consequence of Oslo’s failure. The only sane conclusion: A different course of action should be pursued.

Now, Glick’s scenario has been denounced as unacceptable, unrealistic, and even delusional. But is it the right course of action? I believe that it will be studied and debated assiduously by the Israeli public. Will they adopt it?

In fact, Glick makes a powerful case that Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is completely warranted by the terms of the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and the San Remo Conference. Of that I have no doubt. But, despite its legitimacy, and in spite of the favorable demographics, the idea of amalgamating the Arabs of Judea and Samaria into the Israeli nation and rendering the resultant Arab population of Israel in excess of 35% is fraught with danger. I don’t know whether “second class citizen” is the right term to describe the Arabs of Israel, but there is no question that because they don’t serve in the Army and because they are non-Jewish residents of the world’s unique Jewish State, they are something less than full members of society. It is perhaps a bit of a miracle that the current 15-20% Arab population of Israel hasn’t raised a ruckus. The temptation to do so will increase dramatically if the percentage doubles. The state could be destabilized well before Glick’s friendly demographics kick in to reduce 35% back to half that amount — if it really ever happens.

Perhaps that is a risk that the Jews of Israel would like to take. The alternative is to persevere in the current unsatisfactory and inherently unstable political situation. But, life is good in Israel today and things have been mostly quiet for the better part of a decade. It is certainly the easier road to leave well enough alone. Is that the wiser choice? Or is Glick’s recipe the one to cook up?

Ron Lipsman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Maryland, writes about politics, culture, education, science and sports athttp://ronlipsman.com

From American Thinker, here.