Hashem Chose the Jewish PEOPLE, but Did He *Individually* Choose, Eh… ME?

(Without going into the paradox of personal\national identity…)

Devarim 17:15:

שום תשים עליך מלך אשר יבחר השם אלהיך בו מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך לא תוכל לתת עליך איש נכרי אשר לא אחיך הוא.

Ramban:

… ועל דרך הפשט אמרו, שום תשים עליך מלך אשר יבחר ה’ [אלהיך בו] ולא אשר שנא ה’ אלהיך, (בו) כי הוא בחר בישראל ולהיות המולך מבחוריו ולא מקרב העמים אשר שנא…

So, the answer is Yes.

P.S., There’s a similar Ramban on Shemos 20:2:

… ונאמרו כל הדברות כלן בלשון יחיד ה’ אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך ולא כאשר התחיל להם אתם ראיתם וגו’ אם שמע תשמעו (לעיל י”ט ד’ ה’) להזהיר כי כל יחיד מהם יענש על המצות כי עם כל אחד ידבר ולכל אחד יצוה שלא יחשבו כי אחר הרוב ילך והיחיד ינצל עמהם ויבאר להם משה זאת הכוונה בסוף התורה בפרשת אתם נצבים.

ALIYAH: A Story of Religious Rags to Riches

Something From Nothing

On June 27, 2001, a single mother and her son landed at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel for a two-week vacation. The plan was that she would go to a seminary and he would go to day camp. Neither of them knew a soul in Israel, nor did they know any Hebrew and next to nothing about Judaism.

Six years later, to the date, nearly 200 people, mostly Israeli and mostly religious, celebrated the boy’s Bar Mitzvah at the Jerusalem Botanical Gardens. This is a story of spiritual rags to riches, of a good woman who has found the right path and has learned to apply all her goodness and giving to a Torah life. And while this type of thing is not uncommon in Jerusalem, it is still wonderful to encounter further evidence of G-d’s creating something from nothing.

As the mother and son painstakingly learned the aleph-bet that first summer and said their first words of thanks to the Almighty, we, the people around them, adopted them. When the mother decided not to go back to America, we enveloped them into our hearts and into our lives.

While our children all played together, on Shabbat or during the week, we answered both routine halachic questions as well as metaphysical ones about existence, Midrash and the Land of Israel. The women helped the mother with Kashrut; the men helped the boy in shul. Seminary joined hands with ulpan, camp evolved into yeshiva for the boy – their choice of neighborhood became permanent as the family put down ever-lengthening roots.

As the years passed, we noticed that both mother and son were giving at least as much as they had been receiving. In the beginning, the mother and son were invited out every Shabbat. Now she hosts Shabbat meals, lectures, concerts, and other gatherings in their home. Everyone in their building knows that their apartment is open to all: Come borrow (books, anything), see (the rabbit, the giant terrace) learn (about lots of things) or lean (on her strong shoulder).

Everyone knows there is enough gas in her car for every possible contingency, whether it’s a ride to a doctor, the store or just to get a breath of fresh air. Once we drove to Ma’aleh Adumim, a lovely garden city on the edge of the Judean desert; she had never been there before. Let’s go! So we went – just like that.

She has helped people in need, having learned how to both give and receive when she first arrived in Israel and to Judaism. Her regular volunteer work at a soup kitchen, in a poor haredi neighborhood, just barely skims the surface of a life of giving and doing for others. This is a woman who has learned enough Hebrew to help English speakers (who have lived here longer than she has) with many tasks they would otherwise not be able to complete. This is a woman who has driven around Jerusalem picking up and delivering prepared food for sick people. The list is very long.

In a valley behind the Givat Ram campus of Hebrew University, the Botanical Gardens include twisting paths between trees and bushes, their Latin and Hebrew names posted on signs beside them. Hints of herbs tickle the senses. At the bottom is a lake with swans and ducks skimming the water around tall bulrushes. A breeze plays on the trees, and the band plays quiet Klezmer music. Couples arrive, wish Mazal Tov, and take a romantic walk around the lake. The children play on monkey bars at the far end, run around the lake and answer their cell phones when their parents can no longer make eye contact with them.

This venue is perfect for a family that loves to go hiking and camping during school vacations. Needless to say, they have almost always taken friends with them, whether up to the Golan Heights, down to Eilat, and everywhere else in Israel.

We daven Minchah just before a blazing sunset, and then the festivities begin. Music and lively dancing follow the speeches. There is confetti in the air.

To all the guests this is much more than a Bar Mitzvah. It is as much a tribute to the boy’s mother and their spiritual victories as it is to her son who has grown right before our eyes into a true Torah Jew. The mother has thanked us all for coming. As she speaks, we whisper around the table that it is we who should be thanking her.

From The Jewish Press, here.

Thomas Sowell’s Critique of Intellectuals Is Overly Harsh

Sheba to Shlomo (Melachim I 10:6-7):

ותאמר אל המלך אמת היה הדבר אשר שמעתי בארצי על דבריך ועל חכמתך. ולא האמנתי לדברים עד אשר באתי ותראינה עיני והנה לא הגד לי החצי הוספת חכמה וטוב אל השמועה אשר שמעתי.

Malbim:

אמת היה הדבר, כי כבר אמר החוקר שהעוסקים בחכמה העיונית קשה להם להשתלם גם בשכל המעשי, כי נושאי העיונים הם מושגים מופשטים מחומריים ולא ישימו לב על הנהגה המדינית והמעשיי שהוא נקשר בענינים חומריים, ואני שמעתי בארצי על דבריך, שהוא הנהגת ביתו ומדינתו ועל חכמתך בדברים השכליים, ולכן

לא האמנתי לדברים, אם מצד שלא ימצאו שתיהן יחדיו, אם מצד ההפלגה שהפליגו לספר מרוחב לבו, עד אשר באתי ותראינה עיני, שראתה הפלגת חכמתו, וגם שראתה איך עם חכמתו העיונית השתלם גם בהנהגת הבית והמדינה כמ”ש ותרא את כל חכמת שלמה שהוא העיוני וגם הבית אשר בנה ומאכל שולחנו וכו’, והנה לא הוגד לי החצי, כי החכמה הטבעיית י”ל גבול ויגדל שמע החכם ברחוק יותר מבקרוב, שמי שרואה אותו יראה שחכמתו בעלת גבול וא”א שידע כל הדברים, וגם שידיעתו אינה ברורה, אבל חכמת שלמה שהיתה אלהית והיה לבו כמעין הנובע מן המקור האלהי אשר בלבו היא מתוספת כל שעה והמקור מתרבה כל עוד שיוסיפו לשאב מים מדליו, ועז”א הוספת חכמה וטוב, ור”ל בחכמה היא ההשכלה ובטוב ר”ל ההנהגה הטובה.

DJ Trump Dusts Off Pre-Presidential TRUTH-TELLING Against the Military-Industrial Complex!

Donald “Drain the Swamp” Trump responding to recent media stories (attributed to “anonymous sources”, per usual), pretending he’s an observant bystander in all this:

“I’m not saying the military’s in love with me. The soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.

Trump also said that his desire to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria now that the Islamic State no longer holds any territory has put him at odds with military leaders.

“I said: That’s good; let’s bring our soldiers back home,” Trump said. “Some people don’t like to come home. Some people like to continue to spend money.

“One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, that’s what it was.”

(Quoting a few different hostile media sources, trying to piece together the original quote.)

CLAIM: ‘I Don’t Need God to Tell Me What’s Right and Wrong!’

If you need a law to be good, you must be wicked

I remember an argument along the following lines:

“I don’t need a god to tell me what’s right and wrong.”

“Just how immoral must you [the ethical theist] be? So if God didn’t command you, you would just go out doing all these bad things? Have you no self-control? You have to have a god control you? How pathetic!”

The God-rejector, sitting atop that typical throne of moral superiority, letting the ethical theist know how much more better he or she is. You could just bask in the glory and splendour of his righteousness.

But as the book of Proverbs warns us, you should not respond to a fool according to his foolishness so that you don’t end up like him. Instead, if you feel like it, answer him so that he doesn’t seem wise (Mishlei [Proverbs] 26:4-5).

Now the way I deal with will seem like I’m beating a dead horse, having spoken about the abyss which is atheism in similar ways, but, hey, … what else are dead horses for, except to be beaten?

Don’t answer that!

Anyway …

I choose not to simply respond to such criticisms but to look at what they rest upon, their presuppositions. If there is a good foundation for an argument or complaint, then it’s worth time and investigation. But if there is no such foundation, then it has as much sense as the babblings of a rabid babboon.

The issue here is right and wrong, good and bad. The God-rejector thinks it irrational, silly, stupid for a person to base their standard of right and wrong, moral good and moral evil, on what “a god” commands or says. Before the ethical theist even takes that challenge on board, it is necessary to know the standard of the God-rejector uses to measure morality.

So in a world of no volitional universal creator, no Judge above all – let’s pretend that’s possible – what is morality and who decides and how? That’s the crux of the issue. What is morally right? No, what is the basis of such an idea? The outpouring of the chemical reactions from a deluded, unintelligently-evolved (in other words, stupidly made), slightly removed from simian animal? The brain of just another dude? Without that Objective Standard, just what right does anyone have to deciding right and wrong for anybody? Yes, we’re back to meaningless subjectivity.

A rock is eroded by the weather so that it crumbles and falls on another rock. Just something bouncing off something else. The rock smashed a bug, or crushes a bird. Just something bouncing off something else. The wind blows and then it dies down. So what? A woman smashes a hammer through the skull of a child, just something going through something else, life comes and goes, and it always goes. So what? The child would have died anyway sooner or later, just as everything comes and goes. The struggle for survival in an indifferent universe when the fate is just death, one way or another.

What basis does a person have for morality without an objective standard? Don’t go pointing to some manmade law, because all you would have done is shifted the argument from one god controlling and dictating right and wrong to another god (the people who made the laws).

In order for the atheistic argument to have any meaning, there must be a standard for “right” or else we’re talking about nothing more than individual tastes, which is no more a basis for morality than the colour of the sky.

The point is that, without any introspection required on the part of the ethical theist, the question is meaningless. The arguments become as follows:

“I don’t need a god to tell me about things that have no basis in my worldview..”

But since they have no basis there, what the hell are you talking about?

“Just how different must you be? So if God didn’t command you, you would just go out doing all these different things that I may not like, but it’s all up to anyone anyway? Have you no self-control, even though there’s no objective reason to have any? You have to have a god tell you to do something different to my personal tastes? How pathetic!”

The argumentation itself becomes pathetic. Why is the atheist complaining about something different when differences are everywhere? What is wrong with being control when “wrong” is up to the brain producing it? It’s all just empty nonsense. The foolishness of the fool needs to answer, just a deconstruction. The house had no foundation so it wasn’t worth anything.

It goes back to the point that there is little of substance to argue about with such people until they accept the Basis. Until then, it’s just a person shouting at the wind.

From Seven Laws Blog UK, here.