‘One Is Forbidden to Swear Falsely Before Gentiles Who Realize That He Is Lying’

HaRav Dov Lando on a Ben Yeshiva on Vacation

by Yated Ne’eman Staff

HaRav Dov Lando delivered a strong chizuk address in which he said:

What more can I say, seeing present here roshei yeshiva who instruct their students? But I will say something relevant to us all, to all yeshiva students: a ben yeshiva must bear this title not only within the yeshiva itself but also outside, and he must bear this constantly in mind.

The concept of chillul Hashem, creating a discredit to Hashem’s Name, is something one must be very vigilant so as not to trespass. This is not measured only by one’s actual conduct but also by what the public sees and expects of him. A Torah scholar/student represents the Torah itself so that any aberration that falls within chillul Hashem is indeed a most serious infraction.

The Chazon Ish offered a new insight in this concept which he derived from the Tractate Sanhedrin 107, where Dovid Hamelech considered worshiping idols to avoid chilul Hashem, showing that chilul Hashem supersedes even the three cardinal sins.

The Beis HaLevi explains this gemora by saying that Dovid Hamelech bowed to Hashem in a place where it seemed to the public that he was worshiping idols. The sin here does not fall within idolatry but rather is just chillul Hashem, since everything is judged according to what the onlooker sees and thinks.

The Chazon Ish derives the plain conclusion that desecrating Hashem’s Name is more stringent even than worshiping idols, and he stated this many times. Chillul Hashem is so severe and so terrible that it is preferable to worship idols rather than to desecrate Hashem’s Name.

I have also seen this in the response of the Rid (siman 53) regarding the rule of `let one be killed rather than transgress’ in connection with chillul Hashem. One is forbidden to swear falsely before gentiles who realize that he is lying, since this constitutes chillul Hashem and does not supersede even preservation of life.

It is also stated in Sefer Yereim (siman 340) regarding the severe level of infraction of chillul Hashem that it is forbidden to accept charity funds from gentiles since this falls under that selfsame category.

Continue reading…

From Dei’ah Vedibur, here.

Hitler Was a Red!

Was Hitler a Red-Armband-Wearing Communist?

By 

September 7, 2019

Almost every day some pundit or commentator paints conservatives and even libertarians with the toxic brush of Hitlerism. These uninformed critics repeatedly accuse the Fuhrer of right-wing extremism. But according to many scholars, that narrative has been found to be completely false. A number of historians, including the German Thomas Weber, are now declaring that Hitler was personally involved with a whole different crowd who opposed anything remotely conservative or classical liberal.

In truth, Hitler was involved in an extreme left-wing political movement and revolution, sporting a red armband while working on behalf of the Communist Party of Germany in Munich. In fact, on the second day after the Communists declared the Bavarian Soviet Republic on April 6, 1919, Hitler sought and won an elected position in the Communist government. Bluntly, Hitler participated in a Communist regime even during a period that resembled a Lenin-like reign of terror.

Where is the historical proof? It comes from military archives from Hitler’s barracks, which Thomas Weber discovered in Munich during research for his 2011 book Hitler’s First War. Thought to be lost during WWII Allied bombing campaign of Munich, these archives provide clear evidence that Hitler threw his hat into the ring within two days of the communist seizure of the Bavarian government. Elected “Deputy Battalion Representative,” Hitler appeared determined to support the revolutionary socialist Räterepublik, which was led by the Jewish, Russian-born Communist revolutionary leader Eugen Leviné. And in doing so, Hitler was pledging his allegiance to Lenin’s Soviet Russia. In fact, Weber revealed that Hitler earned the second-highest number of votes in his unit, resulting in his victory for the Ersatz-Bataillons-Rat position. According to Weber, Hitler’s actions made him a “more significant cog in the machine of Socialism,” helping to “sustain the Soviet Republic.”

Hitler’s duties included liaisoning with the new soviet republic leaders and their Department of Propaganda. In other words, Hitler joined the Marxist insurgents, took to the streets and assisted in promoting the policies of the Communist Party of Germany. The Communists quickly seized homes, cash, and food supplies. When food shortages became critical, especially milk, the Communist response was: “What does it matter? . . . Most of it goes to the children of the bourgeoisie anyway. We are not interested in keeping them alive. No harm if they die—they’d only grow into enemies of the proletariat.” As the situation worsened, the Communists raised a Red Army, estimated to be 20,000 soldiers, shot hostages, and planned to abolish money, following in lockstep with the repressive measures of the Russian Bolsheviks.

Other evidence of Hitler’s involvement includes a still photograph of a red-armband-wearing Hitler taken by Heinrich Hoffmann, who eventually became Hitler’s court photographer. In later years both Hoffmann and his son confirmed that Hitler was indeed in the photo. Of course, as Weber wrote, “all Munich-based military units and thus Hitler’s regiment, too, were part of the Red Army,” and had to wear red armbands. In that sense, “Hitler served in the Red Army,” although most Munich regiments did not actively support the communist regime.

Despite his subsequent reputation for anti-Marxist tirades, Hitler did not fight or oppose the Communists. He was serving them, although he expressed few details about this horrific episode in his life. One thing seemed certain; he did not try to escape from the Lenin-backed political thicket in Munich, nor did he join the anti-Bolshevik armed forces of General Franz Ritter von Epp. Thomas Weber makes it clear in his 2017 book Becoming Hitler that the future leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) “remained in his post for the entire lifespan of the Soviet Republic,” and “did not join a Freikorps with his comrades prior to the defeat of the Soviet Republic.” Because he had failed to join the anti-communist forces to overthrow the Räterepublik red government, Hitler later suffered “scornful reproaches from Ernst Röhm,” co-founder of the Nazi’s Sturmabteilung (Stormtroopers). Otto Strasser, an early member of the Nazi Party, also criticized Hitler for failing to join the armed forces of General von Epp to “fight the Bolsheviks in Bavaria”, asking: “Where was Hitler that day?”

In the end, the Communist republic was quickly overthrown in fierce street battles with over 600 casualties. But there is more to this story. During the street battles, Hitler was arrested and interned with other captured communist adherents of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. In his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, Konrad Heiden, a Munich-born journalist and a Social Democrat himself, remarked that during this period Hitler engaged in heated discussions where he “espoused the cause of Social Democracy against that of the Communists.” That seemed reasonable, since Hitler and everyone in his barracks were in serious trouble. They were all interrogated over whether they were a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. The punishment for being a Communist was execution, imprisonment or exile. So, was Hitler protecting himself, and hiding his true loyalty to Communism, or did he in fact pledge his loyalty to the Social Democrats, a more moderate movement that had its original roots in orthodox Marxism?

We may never know the true extent of Hitler’s intentions or state of mind during this period. It does appear he was briefly a Communist sympathizer until it became too dangerous, and then decided to supported what he later called “national Social Democracy.” Nonetheless, Hitler did tell one of his confidants in later years that “In my youth, and even in the first years of my Munich period after the war, I never shunned the company of Marxists of any shade.”

From LRC, here.

ת”ל, ה’חסידים’ שבקו חסידותם: חובת קיום המצוות גם בלא רגש

סיפר הרב אלימלך בידרמן שליט”א:

מעשה ביהודי שקבל בפני הרה”ק ה’בית ישראל’ זי”ע ותינה בפניו מצבו השפל והירוד מבחינה רוחנית עד שכבר ‘התייבש לגמרי’ מבלי לחלוחית דקדושה, נענה לו הבית ישראל, אם היה למולך גוי כשחרב בידו ומכריח אותך לעבור על ג’ החמורות וכי היית נכנע לו… ח”ו השיב האיש, המשיך הבית ישראל ואמר, וכל כך למה, מפני שנאמר ‘ובכל נפשך’, ודרשו חז”ל אפילו נוטל את נפשך, א”כ, גם הכתוב לפניו – בכל לבבך תקיים ‘אפילו נוטל את לבבך’, כלומר, זוהי חובתו של כל יהודי, לעבוד את בוראו ית’ אפילו כשהוא נוטל את לבבו, שהרי זה חיוב גמור כמו אותו חיוב למסור את הנפש על ג’ חמורות.

(באר הפרשה על ואתחנן, סוף הערה כ”ב)

Work in the Seat of Government? Then You’re a Wh*re!

Paul Craig Roberts worked as Treasury Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in 1981 under Ronald Reagan.

As he tells it:

I had held a presidential appointment from a President of the United States. I ended up fighting battles for him against entrenched interests who opposed his policies to end stagflation and the cold war. I helped to win the battles for him, as his accolades to me testify, but my success ended any career for me in government.

So he knew Trump would utterly fail from the very beginning:

I knew that, unlike Reagan who had prepared his run over the years and had a movement behind him, Trump had not. Moreover, also unlike Reagan, Trump had no idea of what he was walking into and no idea of who to appoint to important offices who might be inclined to help him. Generally speaking, the value of a presidential appointment, such as the one I had, lies NOT in helping the president, but in helping the ruling private establishment. Any Assistant Secretary can be very helpful to private interests and end up a multi-millionaire. Indeed, most of them do.

But I put the country’s interest ahead of mine and helped Reagan to cure stagflation and to end the cold war. Curing stagflation was perceived as a threat by the economics profession which had no cure and didn’t want to be shown up by dissident supply-side economists, and much of Wall Street misunderstood what the media called “Reaganomics” as more inflationary deficit spending that threatened their stock and bond portfolios. Ending the Cold War threatened the budget of the military/security complex, a dangerous undertaking.

Here’s the meat:

A decade or two ago a person I had known when I was in Washington, who was a professor in Massachusettes, telephoned me. He said he had just returned from Washington where he had had lunch with some of my former colleagues. He had asked them about me, and according to his report, they said: “Poor Craig. If he had not turned critic, he would be worth tens of millions of dollars like us.” My former acquaintance said that he stood up and said that he didn’t realize that he was having lunch with a bunch of wh*res and left.

Obviously, my aquaintance did not intend to return to a Washington career.

But forget “honest graft”. The state almost never uses its “justice system” against its own functionaries. For blatant examples, see the original article.

Was Rabbi S.R. Hirsch Against Kabbalah? Of Course Not!

Rabbi Shelomoh E. Danziger, in a 5756 Jewish Action review of Rabbi Joseph Elias’ “The World of Rabbi S. Hirsch: The Nineteen Letters”, accuses the latter of distorting Rabbi Hirsch to make him seem tamer than he really is. Rabbi Danziger claims Rabbi Hirsch viewed Kabbalah as misconstrued “suggestions” (and also that Rabbi Hirsch thought the same of Aggadah. As for that one, the reader can judge for himself over here).

I intend to place Rabbi Hirsch in the boring, pro-Kabbalah camp.

But first let’s quote Rabbi Danziger to the contrary (pages 3-4):

In Letter Eighteen, Rav Hirsch writes: Presently, a form of learning came into existence about which, not being initiated in it, I cannot venture to pass judgment, but which, if I comprehend rightly what I believe I understand, is an invaluable repository of the spirit of Tanach and Talmud, but which has unfortunately been misunderstood. What should have been eternal progressive development was considered a static mechanism, and the inner significance and concept thereof was taken as external dream-worlds… Had it been correctly comprehended, practical Judaism might perhaps have been imbued with spirituality. Since it was misconstrued, however, it became thereby a magic mechanism, a means of influencing or resisting theosophic worlds and anti-worlds.

This criticism is also voiced in Letter Ten, in which Rav Hirsch complains that the misinterpretation of kabbalah reduced its spirit to physical terms, and man’s inner and outer endeavors came to be interpreted as mere mechanical, magical, dynamic building of cosmic worlds – thereby often reducing all those activities that were meant to train and give vitality to the [human] spirit to mere amuletic performances.

Rav Hirsch’s critical attitude to kabbalah, or as Dayan Grunfeld prefers to term it, “this guarded attitude” (Introduction to Horeb), has in the interest of “ideological correctness” been reinterpreted apologetically by Jakob Rosenheim and Dayan Grunfeld, who are followed by Rabbi Elias. The apologia runs as follows:

  1. Rav Hirsch does, after all, acknowledge kabbalah as “an invaluable repository of the spirit of Tanach and Talmud.”
  2. We find in Rav Hirsch’s writings echoes of and parallels to ideas from kabbalistic literature.
  3. Preparatory notes for Horeb indicate that Rav Hirsch made use of the Zohar.
  4. It is said that his personal siddur contained marginal notes of a kabbalistic nature.

Therefore, the explanation of Rav Hirsch’s attitude is, in the words of Dayan Grunfeld (Introduction to Horeb), that “Hirsch was concerned with the ethical side of Jewish symbolism and not its mystical side … His ethical symbolism did not exclude the possibility of a mystical symbolism which holds that every mitzvah has also a cosmic significance and that the effect of a commandment observed reaches to the remotest ramifications of the universe.”

Or, in the words of Rabbi Elias (p. 155): Rabbi S. R. Hirsch’s avoidance of mystical and otherworldy speculation does not, however, indicate a denial of kabbalistic ideas. His ethical interpretations of the mitzvos and of Judaism in general merely represented emphasis on a different aspect of the Torah’s teachings which complements the kabbalistic approach, rather than contradicting it. Both Rabbi S.R. Hirsch’s approach to mitzvos and the kabbalistic approach stress that all human action produces effects. They differ only in that the kabbalistic approach emphasizes the effects on the whole universe, whereas the other approach underlines the effect on the doer and his world.

Rabbi Danziger himself disagrees, claiming the two approaches are opposing, not complementary:

A non-apologetic reading of Rav Hirsch’s words in Letter Eighteen about kabbalah will indicate that Rav Hirsch is referring to two opposing, rather than complementary, approaches – the ethical, on the one hand, and the mystical, extramundane on the other. He is not complaining that the ethical does not complement the extramundane. His complaint is that the proper understanding of kabbalah should have been ethical, not extramundane. No amount of apologetics can get around the hard fact that Rav Hirsch calls the extramundane worlds of (what is in his opinion) “misconstrued” kabbalah “external dream-worlds.”

In the same vein, Rav Hirsch’s commentary to Leviticus 7:38 reiterates: They (i.e., the korbanos) are neither a transitory concession to a generation that was still steeped in heathen ideas nor do they form a chapter of kabbalistic, magic mysteries. They are mitzvos, laws like the rest of the Torah. Their meaning and purpose is teaching the way to keep the ideals of the Torah, and a means of help to keep the Torah.

To Rav Hirsch, kabbalah is “an invaluable repository of the spirit of Tanach and Talmud” in the same sense as the aggadah contains that spirit. Both, in his view, are rhetorical and metaphorical works designed to suggest the betterment and spiritual elevation of man as he strives, through his acts, to draw nearer to God. Rav Hirsch, who was opposed to all theological speculations about Divinity (mystical as well as philosophical), uses kabbalah only as midrashic, metaphorical suggestions to man about his  duties. He does not use kabbalah as a theological source of information about Divinity.

See the rest of Rabbi Danziger’s arguments here.

I disagree below with both Rabbi Danziger and the “apologias” of Jakob Rosenheim, Dayan Grunfeld, and Rabbi Elias (as presented, anyway).

Exactly like all Litvaks everywhere, Rabbi Hirsch submits ignorance of the subject matter, reminding us of Niddah 7b: אין אומרים למי שלא ראה את החודש שיבא ויעיד. Who can know the truth about what Litvish rabbis really knew? As Chazal say: למד לשונך לומר איני יודע שמא תתבדה ותאחז.

The “ethical side” of Judaism versus the “mystical, extramundane side”? False Dichotomy!

Bi’ur Hagra Y.D. 179: אלא כל הדברים הם כפשטן, אלא שיש בהם פנימיות, לא פנימיות של בעלי הפילוספיא שהם חיצוניות, אלא של בעלי האמת. Indeed, the perennial response to opponents of Zohar/Kabbalah is that they err in taking metaphors literally. Sefer “Tomer Devorah” is meant to be a summary of the Ramak’s system, but it’s hardly obscurantist. In a weaker example, Mesilas Yesharim is reportedly a summary of Ramchal’s ideas, too.

As the Zohar says:

ולית לך מלה באורייתא דלא אית בה רזין עלאין וקדישין וארחין לבני נשא לאתתקפא בהו.

The Gra famously said the Arizal’s words, too, were intended as Meshalim (according to Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin). Rabbi Yehuda Leib Ashlag had a famous running disagreement with his contemporaries about our role in deciphering these parables (אכמ”ל).

Baal Shem Tov on the Torah, Va’eschanan 51, quoting “Keter Shem Tov”:

לימוד חכמת האמת נקרא נסתר, פירוש כי נסתר נקרא מה שאין אדם יכול להשיגו, כמו טעם של המאכל אי אפשר לספר לאדם שלא טעם טעם זה מעולם, שאי אפשר לפרש לו בדיבור איך ומה, ונקרא זה דבר סתר, כמו כן ענין אהבת הבורא ויראתו יתברך שמו אי אפשר לפרש לחבירו איך הוא האהבה בלב, ולכן נקרא זה נסתר, כי הלא כל מי שרוצה ללמוד הספר פתוח לפניו ואינו נסתר, ואם אינו מבין הרי הוא עם הארץ, ולפני איש כזה, גמרא ותוספות גם כן נקרא נסתר, אלא ענין הנסתרות שבספר הזוהר וכתבי האר”י ז”ל הכל בנויים על פי הדבקות האלהית.

Kabbalists, too, forever complain of being misunderstood. The Noda Beyehuda responsum against reciting “Leshem Yichud” is also saying Kabbalah is being “misconstrued”. Come on, is the Noda Beyehuda a Kabbalah reductionist, too?!

As is known, one must acquire via this study the qualities of Yir’as Haromemus/Ha’onesh, and Ahavas Hashem. If one remains unchanged, he missed the message (maybe for lack of the chief preconditions, especially purity, and maybe-maybe a beard).

(Rabbi Hirsch may also be referring to Chassidus’ adherents, who do funny things like “concretize” the Hebrew letters symbolized by Yachatz by actually trying to break the two pieces of Matza into the right letter shapes…)

Even written amulets aren’t meant as “magic mechanisms”, but a continuous-action prayer, though rarer in Ashkenaz.

Now, I don’t know what the original German contains, but the Hebrew translation uses the words “הם אינם ויתור זמני לדור הנתון עדיין תחת השפעת האליליות, ואף לא פרק נפרד שכולו קסם ומסתורין“, not “kabbalistic, magic mysteries“.

And who would deny Korbanos are “mitzvos like any other”? Nobody, that’s who. In which Kabbalah sefer can one find such a claim?! Correspondingly, the “transitory concession” idea from the Moreh Nevuchim is viewed by some Rishonim as not reflecting the Rambam’s true opinion (Ritva’s Sefer Zikaron, for instance). Which Kabbalist would protest upon seeing Rabbi Hirsch’s commentary to the Torah, including the sections on sacrifices?

Please don’t lump Rabbi Hirsch with even controversialist Yeshayahu Leibowitz (who considered Gershom Scholem a scholar…).

I first showed this article to a friend. He relates:

Many years ago I heard a Rosh HaYeshiva say that he is well-versed in Rav Hirsch and found so much either consistent with Kabbalah or developed from Kabbalah and expressed in the lashon more familiar to Rav Hirsch’s constituents. I heard him say that he did not see contradictions. Rather, he saw an uncanny (not sure if these were his exact words) consistency and familiarity in Rav Hirsch’s with the Rosh HaYeshiva’s own understanding of Kabbalah.

Bottom line, our great teacher Rabbi Hirsch is not putting even one toe out of the mainstream, that is, measured adoption of Kabbalah. He wasn’t “guarded”, “critical” (in the modern sense of the word), or all the rest.  There is a letter by the Chazon Ish explaining the praise of “שלא אמר דבר שלא שמע מפי רבו מעולם” which describes Rabbi Hirsch well.

I don’t relish even writing about Kabbalah, so I hope these hints suffice.