Rabbi Avi Grossman Weighs In on Some Recent Articles

Posted two weeks late, so I added some links…

Reading that article from RYYJ, wherein the author points out that the creation of the State of Israel did not achieve the Zionist goal of a state that could protect the Jewish people, I respond by saying Exactly, because it all comes down to leadership. The state is only as good as its leaders, which is why the prophets always focused on the particular Judge or King who was in power, and he is credited or faulted for whatever the people did as a whole.
About the American Thinker response to Pinker, even if no taxation is a theoretical-halachical ideal (achieved by the greatest Jewish leaders in history like Moses and Samuel who never took anything from anybody), the halacha allows the king to take a 10% tax on (basically) income because most leaders will not live up to the Mosaic standard because they are human.
My experience tells me that if Democracy is the ideal system of governance (or at least of deciding on who governs) the Torah would have prescribed it for us. But it did not, and despite the Kotzker blogger’s recent article asserting that the adoption of p’suqei d’zimra was in response to the fall of the exilarchs, we have, since Davidic times, held up his type of monarchy as at least a romanticized if not fully realized ideal system worth reinstating. (Consider that if on a weekday, one were to not pray for Davidic restoration, he would not fulfill his obligation of daily prayer.)
Rather, despite our best efforts to create fair socio-political systems, we find that most, whether on the level of the nuclear family to superpowers and empires, devolve into some form of dictatorship, one man who consolidates power, with the only difference between say, the Pax Americana presidents and obvious tyrants being that the former eventually left office voluntary and oversaw systems that allowed the people to live and conduct their business relatively freely. Indeed, a society constituted of people who practiced the Torah as an all-encompassing law (without foolish, man-made additions) would approximate a libertarian utopia, but more so, our sages realized that because in the end there is only man, the best we can hope for is that the dictator is benevolent. A David and not a Herod. That opinionated rasha, Christopher Hitchens, who was wont to point out his own monarchy’s faults, aptly observed that “Monarchy is a hereditary disease that can only be cured by fresh outbreaks of itself.”
In his own cynical way, he was saying that when we are left with the type of dictator we can’t stand, the best we can hope for is that the next dictator will be more palatable. That is why the halacha declares that monarchy should solely be granted to kosher Davidians, ones who have the necessary moral character and follow the Torah that teaches them to remain humble, to not run after wealth, physical pleasures, and power, and to limit their work to maintaining (Torah) law and order and national security.
On the practical level, I agree with what you wrote in response to RYYJ
In the end, the only thing that stopped the shelling of Israel’s northern cities was the United Nations. We needed the gentiles again for our safety…)
No, the physical insecurity is rather due to lack of Bitachon in the Master of the World, and cravenly trying to appear Goyishly “moral”, due to anti-Zionism 
on a philosophical level.
On a practical level, this means that the prime ministers, etc., should have used their God-granted capabilities to fight back. Which is the ideal and historical Jewish response. To put our trust in the Lord, to pray to Him and fast, and then go out and win the milchemet mitzva.

When the Government Wants To Commit Atrocities, It Needs Medical Infrastructure

Shmot, Exodus Chapter 1 And Medical Tyranny

 rafifarber

Exodus, Chapter 1, verses 21 and 22. The context, Pharaoh had just commanded the midwives to kill Israelite boy babies in secret as they were being born. The midwives disobey, and do not kill the babies. Then the verse says:

“And it was that because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. And Pharaoh commanded his people saying, “All boy babies shall be thrown into the Nile, and all girls shall live.”

Who made who houses? The classic explanation is that God made the midwives houses for not murdering the babies. But that makes little sense as a simple explanation. God doesn’t build houses for people, generally speaking. But Abarbanel provides a very different explanation, and a much simpler one. He says:

It can be explained that “he made them houses” does not refer back to God, and has nothing to do with any benefits given to the midwives mentioned above. Rather, it is connected to what is written afterwards, “And Pharaoh commanded his people saying, ‘All boy babies born should be thrown into the Nile.’”

The meaning of the verse then, is this: That when the midwives made excuses as to why they didn’t kill the babies, Pharaoh tried to remedy the problem by building official and recognizable government sponsored birthing centers, so that everyone should know that this is a birthing center, so that every woman in labor could go there and get a midwife. While commanding this, he told his people that when they hear a knock at the birthing center, they should take the baby and throw it in the Nile.

Abarabenel on Shmot

When the government wants to commit atrocities, it uses medical infrastructure to do so. And the reason why Pharaoh built those houses, is that he wanted to thin out the Israelite population.

From The Jewish Libertarian, here.

A ‘Defense’ of Heter Iska…

Loan Interest in the Modern World

Friday, 12 October 2018

Introduction

The Torah’s prohibition on taking interest is well known. Seen by Chazal as a stealthy form of robbery,[1] one may question whether seeking ways to circumvent the issue is similar to finding ways to give a hechsher to pork.

Nevertheless, not only are leniencies found and implemented widely, but there is very little opposition to them. I have yet to see any recognised poskim who have rejected ‘Heter Iska’ (the mechanism used to evade the prohibition of interest) outright, although some impose certain limitations.

The reason for this is clear. World business revolves around interest. New discoveries and technology often need substantial funds, which could not be raised by generosity alone. The same is true on a smaller scale for private businesses.

Perhaps more critically in some eyes, most individuals in Eretz Yisrael also need to make use of heter iska when they take a mortgage on a home (if the loan is from a ‘Jewish’ bank). Even for those who don’t, avoiding heter iska entirely is almost impossible. Almost every contract signed with a bank or other service provider contains clauses that involve the possibility of paying interest, halachically problematic even if it never ends up being paid.

The most fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether ideally we would like to change all of this, and abolish interest payments entirely. Secondary issues are the validity of heter iska itself, and whether better alternatives could be found for those interested in the world as it is today.

Continue reading…

From Torah Clarity, here.

A History of Countless World Conflicts – In a NUTSHELL

Hundreds Killed In Brutal Pro-Something–Anti-Something Clash

SOMEWHERE—Sources confirmed yesterday that a series of riots, bombings, and urban firefights has left hundreds dead and many more wounded in the latest flare-up in the long-standing conflict between the pro-something group and the anti-something group.

The latest round of bloodletting, which comes after weeks of public demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, was reportedly sparked by renewed vows from pro-something leaders to get the thing they want, a thing that anti-something leaders have long insisted their opponents cannot rightfully claim.

“We must and will respond when provoked,” said a spokesman for the pro-somethings in a statement released to the media. “We cannot sit idly by while our supporters are killed by an enemy determined to [do what we oppose].”

According to sources, what began earlier in the day as crowds of pro-something and anti-something protesters chanting pro-something and anti-something slogans quickly devolved into rocks being thrown from both sides. Witnesses confirmed that the Anti-Something Militia and Pro-Something Guard soon joined in with live ammunition, fanning the flames as they each carried out larger-scale operations well into the night.

In response, members of the diplomatic community have condemned the latest escalation of violence, calling for the anti-somethings and the pro-somethings to lay down their weapons and resume talks.

“These acts of aggression are unacceptable,” said a U.N. official in a statement carefully worded so as not to suggest any strong allegiance either in support of or in opposition to the pro-something faction. “Therefore, we ask that both sides cease their assaults and initiate an open dialogue. Only then can there be any hope for a solution.”

This week’s fighting reportedly marks the first incident since the groups signed last year’s widely publicized accords, which stated that while neither side may do the thing they want, they are prohibited from stopping the other group from doing the thing that they want—an agreement leaders from both sides hailed as a significant step toward peace.

However, citing the attacks as a possible retaliation for last year’s pro-something incursion—which was itself retribution for the anti-something offensive from the year before—experts say that the recent bloodshed is merely the newest chapter of an intractable conflict that has spanned several centuries.

“It’s important to recognize that these people have been raised their entire lives to demonize each other,” said a renowned scholar who recently returned from a trip to the region. “The two sides in this conflict have been fighting over [a thing that one group wants and the other group does not want] for generations. It’s simply part of their identity.”

Academics noted that to truly understand the Anti-Pro conflict, one must consider the conflict’s historical background, including the social issues, governmental structures, geopolitical alliances, education, access to health care, sanitation, economics, role of women, flow of illegal arms, ethnicity, and religion.

Additionally, sources said, it is important to note the internal strife being faced by other players in the region, who are currently working to maintain their own tenuous peace between their pro-something and anti-something groups.

“Unfortunately, despite pressure from [anti-somethings and pro-somethings living abroad], a full-scale intervention from the international community remains unlikely,” said an expert who is well acquainted with the agendas of both those who want a thing to happen and those who don’t want a thing to happen. “Given the great complexity of the situation, we may be looking at a long and violent stalemate.”

From The Onion, here.