They Were Created to Serve Me, While I Was Created to Serve My Maker

Goyim do not exist for their own sake, contra Goyim and universalistic rabbis. They exist to serve us Jews (or sincerely convert to Judaism). But Jews don’t exist for their own sake, either, contra Jewish auto-idolaters. Jews exist solely in order to keep mitzvos.

So, Goyim need Jews to be “saved”, and not the other way around. OK, neither side is doing that so well, but one day we both will.

Yeshayahu 49:23 (Rabbi Touger’s translation):

והיו מלכים אמניך ושרותיהם מיניקתיך אפיים ארץ ישתחוו לך ועפר רגליך ילחכו…

And kings shall be your nursing fathers and their princesses your wet nurses; they shall prostrate themselves to you with their face on the ground, and they shall lick the dust of your feet…

A similar idea was derived in Berachos 6b:

מאי כי זה כל האדם אמר רבי אלעזר אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא כל העולם כלו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה רבי אבא בר כהנא אמר שקול זה כנגד כל העולם כולו רבי שמעון בן עזאי אומר ואמרי לה רבי שמעון בן זומא אומר כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא לצוות לזה.

Shemos Rabbah 48:1 does not refer to Goyim, but it’s the same general idea:

שאו מרום עיניכם וראו מי ברא אלה בזכות מי נבראו אלה תולדות השמים והארץ ובזכות מי הם עומדים בזכות אלה שמות בני ישראל ואלה בזכות מי הם עומדים בזכות אלה העדות והחקים והמשפטים.

Yeshayahu 56:7 (with Rabbi Touger’s translation) is cheerfully quoted out of context:

 והביאותים אל הר קדשי ושמחתים בבית תפלתי עולתיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא לכל העמים.

I will bring them to My holy mount, and I will cause them to rejoice in My house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon My altar, for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.

How lovey-dovey! But…

Rashi ad locum was censored (and remains partially so on several Torah databases!).

Well, here is what Rashi used to say:

לכל העמים, ולא לישראל לבדם כי אף לגרים.

“For all peoples: Not only for Israel but also for the proselytes.”

Indeed, our mini-Parsha ends at 56:9:

כל חיתו שדי אתיו לאכל כל חיתו ביער.

To which the uncensored Rashi again explains:

כל חיתו שדי, כל גרי העכו”ם, אתיו והתקרבו אלי, ותאכלו את כל חיתו ביער, את גבורי העכו”ם שאמצו את לבם מלהתגייר.

“All the beasts of the field: All the proselytes of the [nations] come and draw near to Me, and you shall devour all the beasts in the forest, the mighty of the [nations] who hardened their heart and refrained from converting.”

My condolences to anyone upset by all this.

Yes, It’s Just a Story, but They Don’t Tell This Story ABOUT YOU, Right?

A Jew once visited a famous rabbi [this story is told of various rabbis; pick one].

Petitioner: Please give me a Beracha for Parnassah (livelihood).

Rabbi: “Is that what you need a Beracha for?”

Petitioner: Yes.

Rabbi: “You mean you don’t have money?”

Petitioner: Correct.

“Wait”, said the rabbi. “If you don’t have money, how did you manage to get past the gatekeepers?!”

Ron Paul Schools American Conservatives

Conservatives Against Liberty

By 

Ron Paul Institute

July 16, 2019

Recently several prominent social and populist conservatives have attacked libertarianism. These conservatives, some of whom are allies in the fight against our hyper-interventionist foreign policy, blame libertarianism for a variety of social and economic ills. The conservative attack on libertarianism — like the attack on the freedom philosophy launched by leftists — is rooted in factual, economic, and philosophical errors.

Libertarianism’s right-wing critics claim libertarianism is the dominant ideology of the Republican establishment. This is an odd claim since the Republican leadership embraces anti-libertarian policies like endless wars, restrictions on civil liberties, government interference in our personal lives, and massive spending increases on welfare as well as warfare.

Anti-libertarian conservatives confuse libertarianism with the authoritarian “neoliberalism” embraced by both major parties. This confusion may be why these conservatives blame libertarians for the American middle class’s eroding standard of living. Conservatives are correct to be concerned about the economic challenges facing the average American, but they are mistaken to place the blame on the free market.

The American people are not suffering from an excess of free markets. They suffer from an excess of taxes, regulations, and, especially, fiat money. Therefore, populist conservatives should join libertarians in seeking to eliminate federal regulations, repeal the 16th Amendment, and restore a free-market monetary system.

Instead of fighting to end the welfare-regulatory system that benefits economic and political elites at the expense of average Americans, populist conservatives are promoting increased economic interventionism. For example, many populist conservatives support increased infrastructure spending and tariffs and other forms of protectionism.

Like all forms of central planning, these schemes prevent goods and services from being used for the purposes most valued by consumers. This distorts the marketplace and lowers living standards — including of people whose jobs are temporally saved or created by these government interventions. Those workers would be better off in the long term finding new jobs in a free market.

Anti-free-market conservatives ignore how their policies harm those they claim to care about. For example, protectionism harms farmers and others working in businesses depending on international trade.

The most common complaint of social conservatives is that libertarianism promotes immorality. These conservatives confuse a libertarian’s opposition to outlawing drugs, for example, with moral approval of drug use. Many libertarians condemn drug use and other destructive behaviors. However, libertarians reject the use of government force to prevent individuals from choosing to engage in these behaviors. Instead, libertarians support the right of individuals to use peaceful means to persuade others not to engage in destructive or immoral behaviors.

Libertarians also support the right of individuals not to associate with, or to subsidize in any way, those whose lifestyles or beliefs they find objectionable. Social conservatives object to libertarians because social conservatives wish to use government power to force people to be good. This is the worst type of statism because it seeks to control our minds and souls.

Most people accept the idea that it is wrong to initiate force against those engaging in peaceful behaviors. Libertarians apply this nonaggression principle to government. Making government follow the nonaggression principle would end unjust wars, income and inflation taxes, and the destruction caused by the use of force to control what we do with our property, how we raise our children, who we associate with, and what we put into our bodies. Making governments abide by the nonaggression principle is the only way to restore a society that is free, prosperous, and moral.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

Eilu V’Eilu: What It Means, What It Doesn’t Mean

An excerpt from Rabbi Herschel Schachter:

The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim – both opinions are the words of the Living G-d.” although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she’ha’Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She’b’al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah.

The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether – according to their perspective – the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim.”

This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions simply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v’eilu.

Even when we do apply “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim” it does not mean that halacha l’ma’aseh one has the right to follow whichever opinion he wishes. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v’eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, “Beis Shamai b’makom Beis Hille eina Mishna“, i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don’t even consider the views of BeisShamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d’hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b’chutz la’aretzm, even when dealing with a d’oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l’hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l’ma’aseh. (See my sefer, B’Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.)

…

Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v’eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v’eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does not mean that it has ramifications halacha l’ma’aseh.

See the rest on Torah Web here.