Jews Must Take Over from the State – Then Do the State’s Job!

If you take charge of Meron, then it’s your responsibility, see here. Nor is this is the first time, by far, observant Jews exclude the government, and achieve bad results.

Yes, the cops were at the bottleneck, but who is to say private cops (like the Pinkertons) would be much different? The whole place is unsafe, unregulated by private regulations, either.

One can have a Tragedy of the Commons among various competing organizations, too.

Disclaimer: These are just initial thoughts.

Chazon Ish on the Evil of ‘Opposing Extremism’ on Principle

Although the Rambam writes that in the context of character traits the medium path should be followed, avodas Hashem calls for extremism and lack of compromise.

One rav associated with the Mizrachi asked the Chazon Ish why on the one hand his policy was to attempt to draw the non-religious closer to the way of Torah, by contrast he fought so much against the national-religious Mizrachi party? After all, their followers kept the basics of yiddishkeit, so why quarrel with them?

The Chazon Ish answered as follows: “The non-religious know that they are not following the path of Torah, but their desires prevent them from accepting its yoke. There is therefore a chance to draw them closer to Torah by showing them how sweet it is. The Mizrachi, however, state that they are fundamentally opposed to extremism arguing that they favor the path of peace and so on, and they believe that the path they follow is the path of Torah, whereas in reality it is specifically extremism which prevents compromises. If we were to follow the method advocated by the Mizrachi, the secular population would rule over us and compel us all to give up our religious principles and practices. That is why we fight the Mizrachi. Although not every Jew is capable of being ‘extreme’, those who make a point of fighting against extremism, are responsible for wreaking havoc on klal yisroel.”

  • From Rabbi Sternbuch’s English parsha sheet

Some may counter by pointing out examples of “extreme” actions which don’t even fit the Torah. That is to say, things which are not undue stringency, but lazy leniency, especially toward others.

But the point is, the problem is then not enough extremism, correctly understood, instead of “too much”!

Money Is for Mitzvos!

On Amassing Money

Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Some sociologists opined that money is an evil of society. The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 72:2) pointed out that halacha does not share that perspective. Rather, even in an ideal Torah world we would use kesef (money) to fulfill mitzvos.

The halacha declares that in most instances shoveh kesef (a commodity which has value) can be used in place of kesef. For example, we get married by having the chosson hand a ring, i.e. shoveh kesef, to the kallah, as opposed to giving her kesef, and this constitutes a form of kidushei kesef. Nonetheless, one can only fulfill the mitzvah of machatzis hashekel by giving kesef to the Beis Hamikdash for the purpose of purchasing the korbanos tzibbur (Bechoros 51a).

A variety of opinions are presented in Shulchan Aruch (Choshem Mishpat 369) regarding the extent to which halacha recognizes dina demalchusa. The Shach (Yoreh Deah 165:8) points out that all agree that dina demalchusa determines what is considered kesef. Whatever currency the government of any given country establishes has the halachic status of kesef. When the second Beis Hamildash was built there was no Jewish government ruling over Eretz Yisroel. As such, the mitzvah of machatzis hashekel had to be fulfilled by giving a coin recognized as kesef by the ruling non-Jewish government. After several centuries when the Chashmonaim established a Jewish government in Eretz Yisroel and minted their own coins, “Jewish” coins replaced the “non-Jewish” coins for this mitzvah.

The Talmud (Pesachim 54b) speaks of the concept of “money” being part of G-d’s initial plan for creating the world, just as the Torah and the mitzvos preceded the creation of the world. The rabbis of the Talmud (Shabbos 33b) tell us that Yaakov Avinu improved the life of the citizens of Shechem by introducing a monetary system for them. Money is something positive. Without money we can not function.

Judaism, as opposed to certain other religions, has never preached that poverty is an ideal. The Rema (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 248) considers making a living something positive, comparable to a mitzvah. As such, one who lives in Eretz Yisroel is permitted to go to chutz la’aretz for the purpose of making a living. Even if one is making ends meet, but wants to go to chutz la’aretz to make a more comfortable living, the accepted opinion is that this too is permissible. However, we would not allow one who already makes a comfortable living to go to chutz la’aretz in order to become wealthy (see Moed Kattan 14a). There is no mitzvah to be poor, but there is also no mitzvah to be rich.

We all need food in order to survive, be healthy, and function. However, we should not love food. Many Americans suffer from obesity because they love food and overeat. Similarly, we all need money to live in this world. However, we should not develop a love for money. Koheles (5:9) teaches us that one who loves money will never be satisfied with the money he has. The Medrash (Koheles Rabbah 1:34) famously comments, “ein adam yotze min haolam vechatzi ta’avaso beyado“. When those who love money die, regardless of how much money they have amassed it will not be even half of what they desired.

The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 11a) tells us that R’ Yehuda Hanasi was extremely wealthy, which was necessary for his position as chief rabbi. But he did not love the money. In fact, he hardly took any pleasure from this world (Kesubos 104a).

The parsha tells us (Breishis 47:14) that Yosef amassed all of the cash from Egypt and Canaan by selling the grain that he stored. He understood that this was needed for the Egyptian government, and apparently saw this as part of the message of Pharoh’s dream. However, we do not get the impression that he became one who loved money.

The Medrash (Koheles Rabbah 5:8) distinguishes between two types of observant Jews: one who merely observes the mitzvos, and one who loves mitzvos. The one who observes, but does not love, mitzvos will be satisfied with keeping the mitzvos which come his way. But the one who loves mitzvos will always be on the lookout for additional miztvos. He will never be satisfied with the miztvos that he may have fulfilled already – “ohev mitzvos lo yisba mitzvos“.

Rather than love money, or love food, we should all develop a love for mitzvos.

From Torah Web, here.

Ron Paul: The Idea of Minimal Police Authority

Police Problems? Embrace Liberty!

By Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul Institute

April 27, 2021

Many Americans saw former policeman Derek Chauvin’s conviction on all counts last week as affirming the principle that no one is above the law. Many others were concerned that the jury was scared that anything less than a full conviction would result in riots, and even violence against themselves and their families.

Was the jury’s verdict influenced by politicians and media figures who were calling for the jury to deliver the “right” verdict? Attempts to intimidate juries are just as offensive to the rule of law as suggestions that George Floyd’s criminal record somehow meant his rights were not important.

The video of then-policeman Chauvin restraining Floyd led people across the political and ideological spectrums to consider police reform. Sadly, there have also been riots across the country orchestrated by left-wing activists and organizations seeking to exploit concern about police misconduct to advance their agendas.

It is ironic to see self-described Marxists, progressives, and other leftists protesting violence by government agents. After all, their ideology rests on the use of force to compel people to obey politicians and bureaucrats.

It is also ironic to see those who claim to want to protect and improve “black lives” support big government.

Black people, along with other Americans, have had their family structure weakened by welfare policies encouraging single parenthood. This results in children being raised without fathers as a regular presence in their lives, increasing the likelihood the children will grow up to become adults with emotional and other problems.

Those at the bottom of the economic ladder are restrained in improving their situation because of minimum wage laws, occupational licensing regulations, and other government interference in the marketplace. They are also victims of the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax.

Many progressives who claim to believe that “black lives matter” do not care that there is a relatively high abortion rate of black babies. These so-called pro-choice progressives are the heirs of the racists who founded the movement to legalize and normalize abortion.

The drug war is a major reason police have increasingly looked and acted like an occupying army. Police militarization threatens everyone’s liberty. Black people have been subjected to drug war arrests and imprisonment at relatively high rates.

Those interested in protecting and enhancing black people’s (and all people’s) lives should embrace liberty. Libertarians reject the use of force to achieve political, economic, or social goals, Therefore, in a libertarian society, police would only enforce laws prohibiting the initiation of force against persons or property.

A libertarian society would leave the provision of aid to the needy to local communities, private charities, and religious organizations. Unlike the federal welfare state, private charities can provide effective and compassionate aid without damaging family structure or making dependency a way of life. In a libertarian society, individuals could pursue economic opportunity free of the burdens of government regulations and taxes, as well as free of the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency.

Free markets, individual liberty, limited government, sound money, and peace are key to achieving prosperity and social cohesion. Those sincerely concerned about improving all human lives should turn away from the teaching of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, who advocated expansive government power, and, instead, embrace the ideas of pro-liberty writers such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

From KMJ Now, here.