Hyehudi.org

The media would frequently ask Ron Paul why he was running for president when victory was highly unlikely. Are you in it to become president or “just to spread your ideas”? The gist of his answer was that is a false dichotomy; he was aiming for both. Moshe Feiglin’s Zehut is trying to do the same.

You cannot aim for both using rhetorical compromise, however. Rand Paul and America’s “Libertarian Party” do this all the time, only managing to arouse distrust and loathing in both anarchists and authoritarians.

Question: Whose vocation is politics?

Max Weber answers:

Only he has the calling for politics who is sure that he will not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or base for what he wants to offer. Only he who in the face of all this can say ‘In spite of all!’ has the calling for politics.

Whom does this quote describe? Who never crumbles? Ron Paul. And maybe Feiglin (a little).

When Rafi Farber decided to run, I wrote it sounds like “he’s asking to be electrified (metaphorically?)” – God forbid! Farber is astute, though. He says the same here himself:

The question can be raised, why even attempt anything with Zehut? The answer is for the same reason that I am running on its ticket. Because we have a religious obligation to try, and leave the rest up to God. I’m running for religious reasons, not for any practical reason. I will vote Zehut for religious reasons, not for practical ones. If God wants us to succeed, we will, but not if we give up or don’t try. … When a regime is really threatened, all the meaningless politician talk goes out the window and they start beating you.

Fine. But then no rhetorical compromise, otherwise you aren’t causing any Kiddush Hashem thereby, no matter what! (One may omit less central aspects of the message for the sake of instilling more central aspects, though, just as men do in all communications.) If you don’t clearly announce Whose sake it’s all for, what honor would He get by helping you succeed?!

Rabbi Yitzchak Brand once footnoted this in regards to Feiglin; I suspect his essay was subsequently deleted, as his support for Feiglin weakened with time – so, no link.

“Lost Causes Are the Only Causes Worth Fighting For“

So say it: We believe in Hashem! We are Jews! The land is ours! We oppose democracy! Knesset Members are all the same! And keep going…

And, as Feiglin has shown many times over, steadfast “Zehut” (identity) is also the pragmatic choice.

The problem is, most people cannot be so “suicidal” in so seductively practical-seeming an arena as democratic politics. Far better therefore, for most, to avoid full-time politics. That is why I wrote this post over here. My counsel isn’t “give up” or “don’t try”. I say go for a bully pulpit without a baton. Translation: private influence.

Then, unless you see a burning bush, stay far, far away from the palace!

Clicked on and /or read most by our subscribers (I’m not telling you which is which):

• משנה ברורה חשוב
• Rambling on about Early Marriage
• Rabbi Yisrael Salanter Defines ‘Talmid Chacham’
• Rabbi Sternbuch – Charedi Establishment Personified
• שירות בתי הסוהר עוברים על איסור גניבת נפש
• It Is Possible to Keep the Whole Torah!
• קב חומטין – הר”י סירוטה
• מדריך הלכתי מקוצר לעולים לרגל
• Linking Sins and Events
• Straight from the Horse’s Mouth – Some Myths of War
• גדולה תשובה – הר”י סירוטה
• ‘The Beach Lifeguards Can Be Female!’
• Finally, a Legitimate Mind Reading of the Deceased!
• Want to Learn Modern Hebrew Easily?
• Rabbi Gutman’s Terrific Tefillin Trick

Please subscribe…

Moshe Feiglin (probably translated from Facebook):

Israel’s cabinet unanimously voted today to accept Minister Naftali Bennett’s proposal and to send $1 million dollars of aid to the Jewish community in Houston.

I applaud Minister Bennett and the cabinet. The economic significance of this decision is strictly symbolic. But its significance is historic.

 The State of Israel is a Jewish State, the state of all the Jews. When the direction of the aid turns around – from the Land of Israel to the Diaspora, and not vice versa – it is a huge, supreme message to every Jew, wherever he may be.

Some counters:

A. The State should not grant aid, nor receive any. Men and communities ought to aid one another.

B. It’s not Tzedakah when the mob does it, only individuals and Beis Din. If they would let us keep our money, we could give far more real Tzedakah and get the merit and rewards.

C. If it’s about the symbolism, why not ten trillion shekels? Why not ten Agurot? Symbolism requires (1) real costs and (2) real individuals. The state naturally lacks both.

D. Not to go too deeply here, but Tzedakah has nothing to do with helping the needy. It’s supply-side, not demand-side.

How do you know?

Because without prices the giver is blind. You can’t allocate resources rationally. To put it drastically: The market is unwittingly charitable; charity is unwittingly cruel.

Rather, Tzedakah is a Mitzvah, a central desired effect of which is personal religious growth (this is not Mussar!).

Rambam on Avos 3:15:

והכל לפי רוב המעשה, אמר שהמעלות לא יגיעו לאדם לפי רוב גודל המעשה, אבל לפי רוב מספר המעשים, והוא שהמעלות אמנם יגיעו בכפול המעשים הטובים פעמים רבות ועם זה יגיע קנין חזק לא כשיעשה אדם פעל אחד גדול מפעולות הטובות כי בזה לבדו לא יגיע לו קנין חזק, והמשל בו כשיתן האדם למי שראוי אלף זהובים בבת אחת לאיש אחד ולאיש אחד לא יתן כלום לא יעלה בידו מדת הנדיבות בזה המעשה האחד הגדול כמו שמגיע למי שהתנדב אלף זהובים באלף פעמים ונתן כל זהוב מהם על צד הנדיבות, מפני שזה כפל מעשה הנדיבות אלף פעמים והגיע לו קנין חזק, וזה פעם אחת לבד התעוררה נפשו התעוררות גדולה לפעל טוב ואח”כ פסקה ממנו. וכן בתורה אין שכר מי שפדה אסור במאה דינרים או עשה צדקה לעני במאה דינרים שהוא די מחסורו כמו שפדה עשרה איסורים או השלים חסרון עשרה עניים כל אחד בעשרה דינרים ואל זה ההקש, וזה ענין אמרו לפי רוב המעשה אבל לא לפי גודל המעשה.

Sure, it’s better for whichever near-randomly selected recipient of 100 Dinars to be “put on his feet” financially. As the Rambam himself says (Matnos Aniyim 10:7):

שמנה מעלות יש בצדקה זו למעלה מזו מעלה גדולה שאין למעלה ממנה זה המחזיק ביד ישראל שמך ונותן לו מתנה או הלואה או עושה עמו שותפות או ממציא לו מלאכה כדי לחזק את ידו עד שלא יצטרך לבריות לשאול ועל זה נאמר והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך כלומר החזק בו עד שלא יפול ויצטרך

But so what? Who cares about the poor?! Do you care about other “Cheftza Shel Mitzvah”s? Helping the poor man is details; the Mitzvah itself is for the benefit of the actor.

Conversely, the problem with giving more than Chomesh (a fifth) of one’s income to Tzedakah is the cruelty. Cruelty toward oneself and one’s dependents, and also towards the future buyers of whatever good the money would likely otherwise be used to sell. Put another way, demonstrated preferences over never demonstrated preferences. (Examine the sugya, and you will see this is so.)

E. If the motley Knesset-dwellers have any goodness at all, perhaps they can distribute their very own ill-gained “salaries” in the same sum to Diaspora Jewry?

Better yet, how about equivalent tax breaks for all Jewish Texans making Aliyah in the next year? But no, that would remind their victims of government’s parasitical nature, and grant those in government nothing in terms of personal control over newcomers (taxes are about control).

F. And, though not as evil as regular “foreign aid”, I’ll bet even in the Houston case there was politics and political favors involved. Who got the Tzedakah money itself? Which organizations did and which didn’t? Who gave Bennett the idea?

Also, see this.

We wrote two Hebrew posts on the Mechaber’s opposition to the custom of Kapparos.

The skinny:

I just found Rabbi Meir Mazuz‘s Rosh Hashanah newsletter addressing this. He must have visited this site because I didn’t get it from him (joking!).

He has a different version of the number of editions with the title “Minhag Shtus”. More importantly, he attempts to deny the known fact the headings were written by the author by pointing to the language of one chapter heading referring to the third Shabbos meal as “Shalosh Seudos”, and another to “Birkat Levanah” as “Kiddush Levanah” instead.

My general impression of Rabbi Mazuz is the same as the Brisker Rav’s of the Rogotchover Gaon (from Making of a Godol). Their references, or footnotes, tend to fit into one of three categories:

Could well be \ Absolutely unrelated \ Impossible to refute

Here, our case is that of a clear description, while his examples are of cultural “translation”, or “adaption”.