Is it proper for a Jew to have a driver’s license?

[A re-post]

Following the topic of dealing with the outside world, here’s some news from Jerusalem:

Four students were expelled from the Tiferet Israel yeshiva in Jerusalem after it became known that they had obtained driver’s licenses in violation of the yeshiva’s rules.
The decision triggered a heated debate among the ultra-Orthodox public surrounding the question of the legitimacy of owning a license.
After learning that some of their students might have taken driving lessons, the yeshiva heads conducted a thorough investigation and even contacted the Transportation Ministry on the matter.
“Anyone can call the Transportation Ministry, give an ID number and inquire whether that person owns a driver’s license,” one of the students explained.
Following the inquiry, the yeshiva heads convened to discuss the “problematic phenomenon” and eventually decided to immediately expel any student who is in possession of a license.
The rabbis told the students that they could be readmitted once they have their license revoked.
However, one of the expelled students was later readmitted after the rabbis found out that he got the license to help his crippled father.
Most ultra-Orthodox rabbis oppose the notion of a haredi person getting a license. “It’s inappropriate for a person who defines himself learned in the Torah to have a driver’s license,” a prominent rabbi told the yeshiva director when the latter came to consult him on the issue.

From the Rebbe’s book of everyday thoughts, Hayoim Yoim (7th of Kislev):

There are three schools of thought:

1. The discipline of nullification of the material by indicating the repulsive and abhorrent nature of all that is bodily and material. This is the school of Mussar.
2. The school of recognition of the superiority of the “inner form” and the spiritual — the dimension of character-traits and intellectuality — and instruction as to how one may come closer to attaining these. This is the school of Chakira, philosophy.
3. The discipline of predominance of form over matter. This school teaches the unique quality of the material when it is purified, and the unique quality of “form” when integrated with the material; the two are to be so thoroughly fused that one cannot detect where either of them begins or ends — for “Their beginning is wedged into their end, and their end into their beginning”. The One G-d created them both, and for one purpose — to reveal the light of Holiness of His hidden power. Only both of them together will complete the perfection desired by the Creator. This is the school of Chassidus.

From the talk given on motzei Shabbos, parshas Yisroi, 1984:

The last Mishna in the Ethics of the Fathers states: “All the Holy One, blessed be He, created in this world, He created only for His glory.” [...]

This Mishnah answers those who question the use of modern advances in technology for the sake of Torah. They frown upon the use of radio in disseminating Torah, claiming that since their predecessors were able to learn Torah and teach it to others without its use, it should not be used now [...].

Learning Tanya on the radio is a manifestation of the dissemination of the wellsprings of Chassidus to the outside. Through the radio, the actual wellsprings of Chassidus are spread instantly to every place in the world, engulfing the “outside” in the wellsprings — and thereby purifying the “outside”. It is the preparation to the fulfillment of the promise, “The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the L-rd as the waters cover the sea”, for, as was promised to the Baal Shem Tov, Mashiach will come “when your wellsprings shall spread forth to the outside”.

Radio is a comparatively new technology. Only recently has it been utilized by Jews for holy purposes such as learning Tanya, whereas before that it had been used for secular and even unholy purposes. On this basis, say some Jews, Tanya should not be learned on radio, for radio is intrinsically evil.

Such a claim is not only wrong, but totally contradicts Torah and the Jewish faith.

Nothing and nobody but G-d has the ability to create even the smallest thing (Sanhedrin 67b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, 7). This is fully recorded in Scripture (Bereishis 1:1): “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth”: “the heavens — to include everything therein, and the earth — to include everything therein” (Rashi, Bereishis, 1:14). Evil cannot create; everything in this universe, including the ability to transmit through radio, is a creation of G-d. In the words if the Alter Rebbe (Tanya, p.260): “He alone has it in His power and ability to create something out of an absolute naught and nothingness.”

If the above applies to even the smallest things, it certainly applies to radio, a powerful force that G-d invested in nature enabling a person’s voice to instantly be heard all over the world.

Since everything in the world was created “for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel” (Rashi, Bereishis 1:1), it is clear that the powerful force of radio was created so that it be utilized for holy matters, such as the dissemination of Torah. Indeed, our Sages explicitly state (Pirkei Avos 6:11): “All that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He created solely for His glory.”

However, as in all matters, man is given free choice to use radio for good or evil — “Behold, I have set before you this day [a free choice] between life and good and death and evil” (Devarim 30:15). And, says G-d, “Choose life!” (Devarim 30:19). That some people misuse radio for evil purposes is therefore no reason not to utilize it for the purpose for which it was created — “for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel.”

We find a parallel to the above in Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:7): “The [Jewish] elders in Rome were asked, ‘If [your G-d] has no desire for idolatry, why does He not abolish it?’ They replied: ‘If people would worship something unnecessary to the world, He would abolish it; but they worship the sun, moon, stars and planets. Should He destroy His universe on account of fools?!’” In our case, because there are fools who use the power of radio for bad purposes, should this prevent the use of it for good purposes?

But, counter those people whose whole delight is to interfere with good and holy projects, the use of radio cannot be compared to the above mishnah. The sun and moon, the purpose of which is to give light, were created before fools began to worship them; therefore it makes sense that G-d should not destroy His world on account of fools. Radio, however, was originally used for secular and even profane purposes. How then can we say that radio was created only “for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel?”

An explicit refutation to this argument is found in a Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 16:2), which states: “The world was not worthy to use gold. Why then was it created? For the sake of the Mishkan.” Gold was created in the six days of creation and was immediately in evidence, as stated (Bereishis 2:12), “The gold of that land is good.” Yet from creation to the making of the Mishkan there were 26 generations! And even before gold was used for the Mishkan it was used for idolatry, as Rashi says (Devarim 1:1), “They used gold for Baal,” and as the Midrash relates, there were idols of silver and gold in Avraham’s times. Nevertheless, after gold was used for idolatry, it was used for the purpose for which it was created — “for the sake of the Mishkan.”

Hence, although the earliest use of radio was for unclean purposes, this should not prevent Jews for using it for holy purposes — the goal of its creation.

Ironically, those very same people who decry the use of radio to spread Torah use its power for secular things. The telegraph runs on the same principle as radio, and these people use them in their business dealings. To use radio or telegraph to make money is permitted, it appears. But when it is used to disseminate Torah — it is all of a sudden prohibited to use this “evil” means [...].

Whence comes this illogical thinking and this claim that radio is a creation of evil? It is not the use of radio per se that bothers them. It is the dissemination of Chassidus that vexes them; and their chagrin causes them to find any pretext to condemn the spreading of Chassidus as a bad thing — to the extent that they put forward arguments that contradict a basic tenet of the Jewish faith.

We speak of this only because it is necessary to emphasize and adjure that one should not be ashamed because of scoffers. Instead, one must increase as much as possible in the dissemination of Chassidus via all means — including radio. [...]

May it be G-d’s will that all these matters be fulfilled with pleasantness and with peace, with true and full serenity.

Now, I could understand if owning a car (or a driver’s license) was forbidden to a yeshiva bochur, because it may give him ability to leave yeshiva whenever he pleases, etc. (even though I don’t agree with such pedagogical approach, but that’s another matter). But these rabbis, it seems, think that owning a driver’s license is inappropriate for a talmid chochom in and of itself. To this one cannot answer anything clearer than what the Rebbe said. We came into this world to transform it — not to separate ourselves from it. We must engage the world — in a G-dly way and for the purpose of G-dliness alone — but engage nonetheless.

What is really wrong with socialism?

In his famous two essays on the anarchist model of law and defense, Robert Murphy gives a good summary of libertarian critique of socialism while also explaining not just the advantage but the necessity of capitalism:

* * *

The traditional opponents of socialism argued that it had insufficient incentives for the average worker; without tying pay to performance, people would shirk and output would be far lower than in a capitalist economy. Only if a new “Socialist Man” evolved, who enjoyed working for his comrades as much as for himself, could a socialist system succeed.
     Although valid, this criticism misses the essence of the problem. It took Ludwig von Mises to explain, in a 1920 paper, the true flaw with socialism: Without market prices for the means of production, government planners cannot engage in economic calculation, and so literally have no idea if they are using society’s resources efficiently. Consequently, socialism suffers not only from a problem of incentives, but also from a problem of knowledge. To match the performance of a market economy, socialist planners would not need to be merely angels, committed to the commonweal—they would also need to be gods, capable of superhuman calculations.
     At any time, there is only a limited supply of labor, raw materials, and capital resources that can be combined in various ways to create output goods. A primary function of an economic system is to determine which goods should be produced, in what quantities and in what manner, from these limited resources. The market economy solves this problem through the institution of private property, which implies free enterprise and freely floating prices.
     The owners of labor, capital, and natural resources—the “means of production”—are free to sell their property to the highest bidder. The entrepreneurs are free to produce and sell whatever goods they wish. The ultimate test of profit and loss imposes order on this seeming chaos: If a producer consistently spends more on his inputs than he earns from selling his output, he will go bankrupt and no longer have any influence on the manner in which society’s resources are used.
     On the other hand, the successful producer creates value for consumers, by purchasing resources at a certain price and transforming them into goods that fetch a higher price. In the market economy, such behavior is rewarded with profits, which allow the producer in question to have a greater say in the use of society’s scarce resources.

None of this is true in the socialist state. Even if they truly intended the happiness of their subjects, the government planners would squander the resources at their disposal. With no test of profit and loss, the planners would have no feedback and would thus be operating in the dark. A decision to produce more shoes and fewer shirts, or vice versa, would be largely arbitrary. Furthermore, the individuals to ultimately decide the fate of society’s resources would be selected through the political process, not through the meritocracy of the market. [Ad kan.]

* * *

Sometimes people blame the failure of socialism in Russia on the dictators. But what did the violation of human rights have to do with the economy (besides the fact that they had to force people into socialism, just like today in the US people are forced into being taxed, so that US auto industry can be bailed out)? Killing off the intelligentsia did not cause the great famines of 1920’s and 30’s. Collectivization of the farms did. Suppressing freedom of speech was terrible, but it wasn’t the reason why the Soviet Union had to import grain from Canada after the Virgin Lands disaster (and other similar campaigns).

One adviser to Khrushchev was Trofim Lysenko, who promised greatly increased production with minimal investment. Such schemes were attractive to Khrushchev, who ordered them implemented. Lysenko managed to maintain his influence under Khrushchev despite repeated failures; as each proposal failed, he advocated another. Lysenko's influence greatly retarded the development of genetic science in the Soviet Union. In 1959, Khrushchev announced a goal of overtaking the United States in production of milk, meat, and butter. Local officials, with Khrushchev's encouragement, made unrealistic pledges of production. These goals were met by forcing farmers to slaughter their breeding herds and by purchasing meat at state stores, then reselling it back to the government, artificially increasing recorded production.

In June 1962, food prices were raised, particularly on meat and butter (by 25-30%). This caused public discontent. In the southern Russian city of Novocherkassk (Rostov Region) this discontent escalated to a strike and a revolt against the authorities. The revolt was put down by the military who opened fire on unarmed demonstrators. According to Soviet official accounts, 22 people were killed and 87 wounded. In addition, 116 demonstrators were convicted of involvement and seven of them executed. Information about the revolt and the massacre was completely suppressed in the USSR, but spread through Samizdat and damaged Khrushchev's reputation in the West.

Drought struck the Soviet Union in 1963; the harvest of 107,500,000 short tons (97,500,000 t) of grain was down from a peak of 134,700,000 short tons (122,200,000 t) in 1958. The shortages resulted in bread lines, a fact at first kept from Khrushchev. Reluctant to purchase food in the West, but faced with the alternative of widespread hunger, Khrushchev exhausted the nation's hard currency reserves and expended part of its gold stockpile in the purchase of grain and other foodstuffs.

V’atoh tetzaveh — the role of the Rebbe

[I am bringing this post up.]

Rabbi Paltiel’s lessons on the ma’amor V’atah Tetzaveh (also available from Kehos), the ma’amor we learn for Purim.

Frierdiker Rebbe’s Bosi LeGani was the most important ma’amor that he left for the chassidim after his histalkus. It was the ma’amor of the Rebbe’s generation — and the Rebbe revealed it in his Bosi LeGani’s.

V’atah Tetzaveh is the most important ma’amor for us, right now, post–gimmel tammuz. It’s the Rebbe’s message for us.

The famous explanation is that in this parshah, Moshe’s name is not mentioned and intstead he is called “atoh” (“you”), because when he said, “Take me out of your book” (if G-d decides to destroy His people, G-d forbid), he expressed his essence — his union with the Jewish people. Moshe Rabbeinu was a Rebbe. Rosh Bnei Yisroel.

The Rebbe takes this idea further and deeper. In what way was Moshe Rabbeinu the head of Jewish people?

The ma’amor talks about the role of a Rebbe, the Moshe Rabbeinu of the generation — to bring the oil of our souls, squeezed out by golus, to Hashem. To make Hashem real for us. It was Moshe Rabbeinu’s job to ask: “Are you Jews because of G-d, or are you Jews because you live in the miraculous circumstance, where Torah is obvious? Take a couple steps outside — will you still be Jews?”

That’s the advantage of Purim — then the question needed not to be asked. Jews were ready to do mesirus nefesh — for a whole year! — following the leadership of Mordechai and Ester, their example of mesirus nefesh. But then the question was: who is doing mesirus nefesh? Is it your G-dly soul, or is it you? In other words, it’s all very good to become machines and, when faced with a question “Will you bow down to idols or die?”, have revelation of ahavah mesuteres (hidden love) and answer, numbly, with the supra-conscious levels of your soul overriding all intellect and emotion, “Die”. But did this revelation of the essence of your soul penetrate the lowest levels of your soul? Surely not. They were merely suppressed.

So, this is the job of our generation. To allow the essence of our souls to be revealed, but, at the same time, penetrating even the lowest levels of our soul, not suppressing and destroying them. (And this, in turn, will lead us to bring about the state of affairs when G-d’s Essence is revealed in the lowest worlds, but does not destroy them.)

* * *

On the one hand, we have it comfortably. We are free from persecution. We are free to sit at homes, in our yeshivas, learn Torah all day. As some people say, things have never been better. Not just materially — spiritually.

And this view is the evidence that we are in the darkest golus. What are you happy about? The fact that you can sit all day and learn Torah? Have an amazing spiritual experience? Work on your avoida, your closeness to Eibeshter? Is this why the world was created? Where is the Beis Hamikdosh, where is revelation of Hashem in this world, where is ein od milvado and dira b’tachtoinim? (OK, I am done with the longest string of questions in my writing experience.)

This is the job of the leader of our current generation. To show this. To bring Hashem to us, make Him real, show Him in the Torah, in the mitzvos, in the world. And make golus real. Show what we are currently lacking — what we need to strive for with all our strength. The Essence.



May we reveal to ourselves and to the world this idea during the Shabbos and Purim. As one rabbi says, “It’s a very serious business — to be joyous.”

Seeing beyond the broken pieces

An amazing article by a friend of mine, a former fellow attendee of a local Chabad House, now studying at Mayanot in Eretz Yisroel. Very good stuff. An excerpt:

I had made up my mind. I grabbed the discarded pieces out of the garbage can, and I began to reconstruct my new puzzle, gluing piece by piece. By the end of the class, I had a new masterpiece. A well-loved, painfully delicate, perfectly imperfect masterpiece. It wasn't a mistake anymore. It was art. It was whole.

Most of us tend to miss the forest for the trees. What we observe, we see as isolated and disconnected. Instead of hearing a song in the noise around us, we hear a series of clangs and screams and vibrations. Instead of seeing a dance, we see a kick, a turn of the head, and a raised arm. The thing is, a kick is just a kick, and a clang is just a clang. A hand doesn't do much good if there's no arm to extend it, and the arm is useless if there are no legs to walk it. Nothing in this world can function on its own. Alone, every single thing in existence is nothing. And yet, if any one morsel of this universe were missing, our world, too, would be nothing.

Everything, be it a ceramic shard, a bang on a drum, the palm of a hand, or a human being, is one part of a whole. Sometimes, it takes first being broken to realize what the whole entity is. For the hamsa plate to become complete, it had to first crack into pieces. It hurts when you scrape your knee; suddenly, you're missing a part of it. The heart aches and yearns for years before you find the other half of your soul it previously thought to be its own entity.

Read on.



(source)

Crisis solved!

Nah, just kidding. In your dreams.

About two and a half weeks ago, some brave genius nicknamed Anonymous wrote the following as a comment to my post in which I said that I hope Obama’s efforts will fail:

I used to say the exact same thing when it came to the Bush Administration and the conservative congress. However, there is one big difference between our view ... mine has come to pass and has been proven correct and yours is just speculation.

Bad grammar, style and punctuation aside, let us now see what results the plans of Bush-haters — also known in zoological taxonomy as Homo liberalis — have given birth to. Wall Street is certainly looking happy:

Top bankers have been leaving Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and others in rising numbers to join banks that do not face tighter regulation, including foreign banks, or start-up companies eager to build themselves into tomorrow’s financial powerhouses. Others are leaving because of culture clashes at merging companies, like Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, and still others are simply retiring early.

So, regulations are working out well then. Arbat comments: some of the bankers leaving these firms are actually the same ones who voted for Democrats who had promised to regulate these banks. I don’t know whether this is a comment on the character or intellect of Homo liberalis, so I won’t say much further.

But — you may ask — what do I care? I am not a banker. I am simple tax payer. Well, it may just absolutely shockingly turn out that “Exodus of Top Bankers [is] Bad News for the Taxpayer”:

The message couldn’t be clearer: no seasoned investment banker worth their salt wants to work for the government if they can help it. Unfortunately for the taxpayer, who now shares in the prosperity of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America via the recent bailout packages, the bankers who packed their bags and jumped ship last week are arguably some of the most seasoned professionals the industry has to offer.

[...]

The exodus suggests that there is far too much bureaucratic oversight going on at the big banks right now. Silly schemes such as 90 percent taxation for higher-paid employees at government-aided firms ought to be quickly put to rest. Otherwise banks will continue to lose the very employees they need to steer them through this crisis, and enable taxpayers to get a quick and handsome return on investment.

Instead, we’ll be left with a range of new privately-owned financial houses staffed with the best finance has to offer — which the taxpayer reaps no reward from.

So, the liberals buy the banks out with the taxpayers’ money and then regulate them to death, while the only people who can possibly steer the boat away from the shoals are leaving it as quickly as possible. And this is bad for taxpayers? I am absolutely flabbergasted. Nobody could have ever seen this coming.

Science is fun

(source)


Question:

J.M. Kearsey et al. “Does the p53 up-regulated Gadd45 protein have a role in excision repair?” Science 270, 1004–1005 (1995)

Answer:

G. Barreto, G. et al. “Gadd45a promotes epigenetic gene activation by repair-mediated DNA demethylation.” Nature 445, 671–675 (2007)

Another answer:

S.G. Jin et al. “GADD45A does not promote DNA demethylation.” PLoS Genet. 4, e1000013 (2008)

Balance of profit and loss

(source)

In the nervous system, the balance of excitation and inhibition is extremely important.

This is true on multiple levels: from molecular (involving control of appropriate gene expression), to intracellular (involving homeostatic balance between strengthened and weakened synapses, ability for synapses to potentiate on the one hand and runaway excitation not to happen on the other), to circuit (balance between excitatory and inhibitory inputs and excitatory and inhibitory networks), to systems (competition and cooperation between multiple systems — e.g., in control and planning of movement execution or in the case of multiple memory systems).

So, on the one hand, you want to be able to activate a gene, strengthen a synaptic connection, depolarize a particular sub-class of neurons, run a wave of excitation through a circuit and send information from area A to area B. On the other hand, you also want to be able to control these processes and reverse them. Not only in the long term, but in the short term as well.

Not only do you want to stop yourself sometimes from saying the first thing that came to your mind or remembering every single detail of your everyday experience, but you also need inhibition in order to do the saying, the moving, the sensing and the remembering. Meaning, in order to move to X, you need to supress movement to Y and Z. In order to pay attention to A, you need to ignore B–Z. In order for neurons to organize themselves and send coherent information like little Napoleonic soldiers firing all at once, you need to prevent neurons firing “out of phase”. All of this is accomplished by inhibition.

Mess this delicate balance up — and you get diseases like schizophrenia, Parkinson’s, epilepsy, autism (and autism-specter disorders), different developmental and mental problems and so on. People know that in schizophrenia, patients get dillusions, being unable to perceive the difference between information coming from the “inside” and from the “outside”. What is less know is that schizophreniacs simply cannot “think straight”. Their internal logic is messed up. The hypothesized reason is that their cortical excitatory neurons fire out of phase. Why? Because the inhibitory neurons don’t inhibit enough.

In economics, the balance between loss and profit is no less important. In fact —

Bailouts attempt to erase the effects of losses, or economic failure. But, writes Tyler Watts, such efforts inevitably undermine the loss aspect of “profit and loss”. Profit and loss go together — like up and down, left and right, good and bad. If we try to do away with losses, we’ll wind up diluting the meaning of profits. [Read on...]

A more detailed and organized article by classic Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises on the function of profit and loss in free economy can be found here.

* * *

I am not going for the whole discussion of “can’t have chessed without gevurah” or “Havaya Hu ha’Elokim” and so on. It’s obvious. It’s been discussed many times. And I am exhausted (Rashbam was very wordy). Just read this.

Is everyone obligated to study Chassidus?

All the preceding […] is in refutation of the two arguments that 1) mortals have no dealings with esoteric lore, and 2) not every mind can grasp these studies. Both arguments are intellectually frivolous; it is humiliating for a thinking person even to utter them. Any idea in any field is “esoteric” and “hidden” until one studies it, and without preparation the mind cannot entertain any idea.

Continuing the themes of the previous post regarding internalized vs. fake emotions and an even earlier post regarding halachic necessity to study Chassidus, here is a quote from Frierdiker Rebbe’s Kuntres Limud HaChassidus, Ch. 10 (read earlier chapters for fascinating history of Chassidus in Russia):

The first commandment given at Sinai was Anoichi, “I am … .” (Exodus 20:2), the commandment of emunah. The Rambam (Maimonides) writes,“The foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdoms (note: the acronym in these words, he hints at the Tetragrammaton. Faith must be in Him Who transcends nature, for His relationship with His people is super-natural) is to know that there is a First Existence, the Cause of every existence. All existing in heaven and earth and between them, do not exist but for His true existence.”

I have elsewhere¹ written that one must apply reason and understanding to this faith; Maimonides says to know rather than to believe. This expression thus indicates that comprehen­sion of this subject is in fact possible, and that whoever understands as much as he can will have a strengthened faith in what is beyond his grasp. This is the true meaning of faith.

The commandment Anochi was given to all Israel equally. Every Jew is obligated to perform this positive commandment, each according to his intellectual abilities. It follows that one who can fulfill this duty but fails to do so, violates a positive commandment. One whose mind is incapable of understanding may perform the duty of believing through accepting tradition. But one with a strong and healthy intellect cannot discharge his obligation through passively accepting traditional belief; as a personal obligation, it (the knowledge Maimonides demands) cannot be delegated to another. Whoever neglects this duty comes within the meaning of the passage, “The commandments of the L-rd he denied.”

Those who rationalize and claim that we have no business with the “esoteric”, lean on a broken rod. Besides the intrinsic error of their contention (Why indeed have they no business with the “esoteric”? Who absolved them?), Chasidus is not “hidden” or supra-intellectual. Chasidus is a coherent systema­tized study, patterned on the process of developed ideas that, in reality, clarifies many of the “hidden” subjects of Kabbalah.

It has been explained at length that Chasidus does more than enlighten one in the knowledge of the Written and Oral Law. It does more than imbue one with enthusiasm in the performance of the duties of the heart which are as delineated in their own terms as are the practical precepts. In addition, Chasidus demonstrates a manner of conduct and social intercourse according to criteria of perfection inconceivable without its guidance and teachings.

A cursory familiarity with Chasidus is sufficient to know that many of its subjects are both comprehensible intellectually and efficacious in improving moral attributes. Individuals incapable of grasping the intellectual aspects of Chasidus can perceive the admonitions and moral instruction of the study. Chasidus has a profound influence on their religious and personal conduct. Scores of thousands of devout people in every generation are the produce of Chasidus, which animated their souls and those of their families.

The accomplishments of Chasidus are common knowledge. It has had great effect on scholars, broadening their native abilities and expanding the scope of their learning. Those of lesser talents have felt its effectiveness in improved understanding of Torah and inspiration to finer fulfillment of religious teachings. Even those simple folk unable to appreciate Torah wisdom were left with an indelible imprint in their love for Torah and Torah living, love of fellow Jews, and a deep-rooted strengthened faith.

Now then, one cannot be absolved even from the study of Kabbalah by pleading that “we have no business with the hidden”, for how can one argue against studying any aspect of Torah? Regarding Chasidus, this argument is especially irrelevant and specious. To its students, Chasidus reveals itself as an orderly definitive discipline bringing essential benefits in fulfillment of both practical and “heart” duties, enlightening its students with a comprehension of G-d’s Unity. Chasidus gives its students a firm footing in ordering all their affairs.

I will post one or a few more excerpts from this Kuntres a little later. Stay tuned.
__________

¹ HaTamim I, p. 25: [After a lengthy definition of the requirements of the obligation “to know”, the Rebbe continues: This then is the duty of “You shall know” (Deut. 4:39) — to labor with the mind to understand G-dliness to the best of one’s abilities. One must understand so well that it (the knowledge that G-d is G-d in the heavens above and the earth below, there is nothing else) becomes “close to his heart” (ibid.), that his heart is aroused with Love and Fear of G-d expressed in fulfillment of practical duties and study of Torah. This duty, knowledge of Torah and G-dliness through the interpretations of Chasidus, is so vital because it endows religious living with inner spirit.

All the preceding (reference is to the text, here untranslated) is in refutation of the two arguments that 1) mortals have no dealings with esoteric lore, and 2) not every mind can grasp these studies. Both arguments are intellectually frivolous; it is humiliating for a thinking person even to utter them. Any idea in any field is “esoteric” and “hidden” until one studies it, and without preparation the mind cannot entertain any idea.

Many non–students of Torah excuse themselves with the complaint that “their minds cannot assimilate Torah.” In their worldly affairs their minds are ingenious and creative, but the attraction of the worldly life is so enticing that they are not ashamed to deprecate themselves where Torah is concerned. Were a merchant to be told by his fellow that he is inept and lacking in business acumen, he would be insulted and furious at the other’s audacity. But when one remarks at his ignorance of Torah, instead of the fool being insulted he actually uses his ignorance as an excuse for not studying!

All this is equally true of the study of Chasidus. Certainly! Before one studies Chasidus it is mysterious, and without the preparatory work Chasidus demands, the mind cannot understand … .]

Cf. “Haamonat Elokut”, where Maimonides includes this in the commandment Anoichi.

Two lectures by Hayek on government and economics

First, “Free-Market Monetary System” regarding private money.

When a little over two years ago, at the second Lausanne Conference of this group, I threw out, almost as a sort of bitter joke, that there was no hope of ever again having decent money, unless we took from government the monopoly of issuing money and handed it over to private industry, I took it only half seriously. But the suggestion proved extraordinarily fertile. Following it up I discovered that I had opened a possibility which in two thousand years no single economist had ever studied. There were quite a number of people who have since taken it up and we have devoted a great deal of study and analysis to this possibility.

As a result I am more convinced than ever that if we ever again are going to have a decent money, it will not come from government: it will be issued by private enterprise, because providing the public with good money which it can trust and use can not only be an extremely profitable business; it imposes on the issuer a discipline to which the government has never been and cannot be subject. It is a business which competing enterprise can maintain only if it gives the public as good a money as anybody else. […]

Second, “Pretense of Knowledge”, Hayek’s “shocking Nobel speech that explained why the very idea of government [intervening in market¹] in our times is unintellectual, presumptuous, and untenable. He is as critical of socialism as he is of interventionism. He shows that the state is not capable of doing all that it is charged with doing, and why conceding it any role in social and economic management is dangerous to liberty.”

In addition, he criticizes pseudo-scientific approach to economics resulting from erroneous assumption that economics is in essence no different from disciplines like physics.

On the one hand the still recent establishment of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science marks a significant step in the process by which, in the opinion of the general public, economics has been conceded some of the dignity and prestige of the physical sciences. On the other hand, the economists are at this moment called upon to say how to extricate the free world from the serious threat of accelerating inflation which, it must be admitted, has been brought about by policies which the majority of economists recommended and even urged governments to pursue. We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things².

It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences — an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude — an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, “is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.” I want today to begin by explaining how some of the gravest errors of recent economic policy are a direct consequence of this scientistic error. […]

Both essays are now available in a small, pocket-book edition.

_________
¹ Gotta love anarchists. Hayek may only talk about economics and social policy — they will turn it into a denial of state altogether.

² It’s amazing how these words said in 1974 might as well have been said yesterday. I suppose, “history teaches people that people learn nothing from history”.

Great Myths of the Great Depression

A nice article (pdf) by Lawrence W. Reed (html version here).

A paratrooper report, from front lines

From Chabad.org: “Exclusive Report from the Gaza Front” by Yared Ben Caro.

How can you help? Do an extra mitzva. Cause another Jew to do an extra mitzva, light a Shabbos candle extra week, put tefillin one extra time (no, not on the same day :), learn some extra Torah. Increase in your commitment to Hashem, in your level of Yiddishkeit — wherever it is.

Lincoln Square vs. Chabad seminary

(source)

Very nice post (although I do not agree with its conclusion fully) on Dixie Yid blog. The author of the post (I am not sure if it’s the Dixie Yid or a guest poster) talks about the difference between Modern Orthodox approach to attracting ba’alei teshuva (by focusing on the benefits in this world that one can reap from learning Torah) and the more “right-wing” approach of Chabad of explaining how one directly connects to G-d (and fulfills the essense of one’s existence) through Torah and mitzvos.

Although the author is more attracted to the second technique, there is a third option: of using the first approach initially (to fool one’s animal soul — as in the famous story when the horses driving a carriage were going fast because they wanted to get quickly to a warm place and food, and the sages in the carriage wanted to go fast because they needed to get to a place of learning) and then proceeding to the second approach of learning how Torah connects a Jew to G-d.

I disagree with this “compromise” (you can read my opinion in the comments), although I do admit that initially one needs to learn Torah on his “level”. We encounter the same idea in “Shuva Yisroel” the third ma’amor of Rebbe Rashab’s hemshech Ranat (Rabbi Paltiel’s first class on “Shuva Yisroel” is here), and the same is emphasized in Kuntres HaTefillo.

Before one prays to Hashem, one needs to reach the level where one “knows in front of whom [he is] standing”. It is very well to feel emotion and meaningfulness during davening, but are those directed towards G-d or towards you? To make sure it’s towards G-d, one needs to know what we mean by “G-d”. Of course, the essence of G-d cannot be grasped, but first of all, even this idea needs to be understood positively (there is a difference between a physicist saying he doesn’t know what happens inside a Black Hole — or a doctor saying he doesn’t know how to cure cancer — and an ignorant person saying that), and second, we need to understand the aspects of G-d’s revelation into the world.

During the first stages of one’s growth, however, it is of no use to think of the levels within Or Ein Sof lifnei ha’tzimtzum (G-dly Light as it exists before its contraction preceding creation) or meditate on all the vessels, lights and partzufim of the higher worlds. These things mean nothing to your nefesh ha’bahamis (animal soul), and the purpose of davening is for nefesh ha’Elokis (G-dly soul) to transform nefesh ha’bahamis. In order to do this, the former needs to talk on terms of the latter.

Therefore, until one has reached a higher level, one needs to think of Hashem as He is invested in seider hishtalshelus (creation — spiritual and physical) and specifically this world. Therefore, one needs to start with meditation of how G-d creates the whole world every second, enlivens the soul of all existence, and gives every creature what it needs and desires. How we completely depend on G-d, how He is merciful, and how He directs our lives with mercy and meaningfulness.

This, by the way, is why psukei d’zimra speak about physical things that Hashem does (there is a deeper explanation — that davka in the physical things is the Essence of G-d, but that’s for a more advanced level of hisboinenus). We need to make animal soul interested in what G-dly soul is talking about (and therefore, speake with it on its terms), so that G-dly soul can then fransform it in the process of davening.

The major difference between all of the above and Modern Orthodox “Lincoln Square” approach is that while thinking about G-d as source of our lives (and not about His Essence), we are still thinking about G-d! Sure, it’s the lowest “level” of G-dly Revelation, which is as nothing comparing to higher levels, which are as nothing comparing to His Essence — but this is still G-d! At the same time, in “Lincoln Square” approach one thinks not about G-d but about this world and himself — what tools to be successful in this life will Torah provide me with?

Men vs. women — from Neuroscience to Judaism

(Excitatory neuron is in red. Inhibitory neurons controlling its activity are in blue and green. Click on the picture to see more detail. Source: the quoted paper.)

From “Development of GABA innervation in the cerebral and cerebellar cortices” (Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2007, 8: 673–686) by Huang et al.:

In many regions of the vertebrate brain, neural networks consist of two broad classes of neurons: excitatory principal neurons and inhibitory interneurons. Although excitatory neurons often constitute the vast majority of the neurons that make up neural circuits, by themselves they would only generate an avalanche of excitation, and they would not be able to perform useful computations. It is often the inhibitory interneurons that provide the functional balance, complexity and computational architecture of neural circuits.

Interneurons that use GABA (γ-aminobutyric acid) as their transmitter have far more functions than just the “inhibition” of other neurons. For example, GABA transmission regulates synaptic integration, probability and timing of action potential generation, and plasticity in principal neurons.

Furthermore, interneurons generate and maintain network oscillations, which provide the temporal structures that orchestrate the activities of neural ensembles. The functional output of principal cells — the neural code embedded in their firing patterns — is largely determined by the temporal and spatial dynamics of inhibition in the network.

In other words, it is very well for excitatory cells to be the “representatives” of a specific cortical area and be responsible for sending information to other areas and even sub-cortical structures (all the way to periphery — e.g., to muscles), but it is the interneurons who determine what sort of information will be sent out.

According to Rabbi Gottlieb’s lecture on the differential role of men and women in Judaism (part of a series called “Men and Women”), the former play the role of “representatives” of their families in the society at large. Furthermore, they are the ones taking active roles in the society: witnesses in court, rabbis, judges, kings. In a synagogue, men pray in minyanim, wear their talleisim and tefillin, get an aliyah for reading of the Torah and give over divrei Torah in front of an adience.

(The reason why women do not take an active role in the society is also discussed. As expected, it has to do with cherishing privacy and not drawing public attention to oneself, which for women is crucial, but for men is merely important.)

Without women, however, men would be unable to make correct decisions — or, at least, it is rare that they (choose to) do so. Rabbi Gottlieb distinguishes between authority and power. Authority is a legal concept; power is a pragmatic concept. A king (or a president) may have authority to make any decree (and a bill does not become a law without his “stamp of approval”), but the “power behind the throne” — whoever it is — is who determines what the decree will be and whether it will be passed or not. Without this power-figure, the authority-figure would be blind and... well, powerless.

If we confuse authority and power, it may seem that women are powerless in Judaism. We must realize, however, that just like an excitatory neuron does not fire without its inhibitory neurons telling it how and when to fire (and what information to transmit), in Judaism, men’s public decisions depend crucially on their wives’ private control, advice and approval (or lack of thereof).

Chabad’s success is fundamentalist muslims’ defeat

(Chabad’s point of view provides ability to see one world inside another — spiritual in the physical)

A good article.

Adherents of the jihadi ideology share a common presumption that the modern world in all its manifestations is the implacable enemy of a traditional religiosity. Modernism, in their minds, is built on concepts that pollute: reason, individual liberty, democracy, pluralism. Like all totalitarians, they demand submission to a single pure idea. Difference equals contamination; reason leads to sacrilege.

If ever there were a living retort to the obscenity of these presumptions, it is the current of Hasidic Judaism that began more than 200 years ago in the Byelorussian village of Lyady. There, a philosopher rabbi — Shneur Zalman — sought a reconciliation of intellect and heart as a compromise to the controversy then dividing the Jewish world between those who held to a tradition of scholarship and disciples of the embryonic Hasidic movement, which stressed an emotive religious practice. He succeeded brilliantly and founded a movement that today commands the loyalties of hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews around the world.

The hallmark of Chabad's approach is an openness to — indeed, an embrace of — the modern world, while insisting that it make a place for their deeply traditional religious devotion. Around the world, including in Los Angeles, Lubavitcher Hasidim are living precisely the sort of lives the jihadi ideology insists are impossible. Culturally, they participate fully in the pluralist democracies, while privately, they profess fully a deeply traditional spirituality. Faithful to their own long history, they are valued and good neighbors to others.

[Rabbi Shneur] Zalman taught his followers that their G-d desires the development of their minds as well as their hearts. The fully realized human intellect, he argued, was built on da'at (knowledge), bina (understanding) and chochma (wisdom).

It's hard to imagine a more stinging defeat for the Mumbai killers than the fact that a movement of faith founded on such an idea has endured in fidelity to its traditions for more than two centuries, and will continue to thrive when, as the old Yiddish expression goes, the names and memories of the murderers have been erased.

One thing I should add is that Chabad does not merely tolerate the modern, “outside” world in public, while going back to traditional Jewish values in private. Uniquely in Judaism, Chabad philosophy actually asserts that immersion in physical world is necessary for successful spiritual progress; when accessed through proper means and from a proper angle, physical and modern allow us to reach the levels of spiritual before unreachable (indeed, this is why a Jewish soul descends into the physical world from lofty Higher Worlds in the first place).

More on Chabad’s unique strategy of finding spiritual in the physical. More on Alter Rebbe (R’ Schneur Zalman of Lyady).

In wake of Mumbai, an agnostic considers Chabad

Good read. About Chabad, religion, social clubs, self-sacrifice and Western news media.

Article on the real causes of boom-and-bust cycles

In my earlier post on Murray Rothbard’s article on the Austrial model of the causes of boom-and-bust cycles, I provided a link to the audio-lesson, but not to the article itself. Here is the article if you prefer reading to listening. The article is very good and very easy to understand. As I mentioned before, it outlines the explanations of traditional Keynesian model and their problems:

1. They contradict standard economic theory (from which they are kept artificially separate) that states that supply and demand are always naturally regulated by the free market.

2. They do not explain why entrepreneurs who were so good (if they were to stay in business) at making proper predictions about business and how to match consumers’ demand (which contributed to the boom phase, after all) suddenly stopped being good at their jobs — and sometimes very-very sharpy so.

3. They do not explain why precisely capital businesses (those producing tractors, construction supplies, railroads, and hammers) fail first and much more than consumer businesses (those producing iPhones, clothes and cars), if, as Keynesian economists say, decreased consumer spending is to blame for recession.

The article provides the Austrian model of boom-and-bust cycle which provides explanation for all of the above and for the cycle itself. In essence, through government-sponsored (and controlled) credit expansion, the market is injected with unjustified credit. This misrepresents true situation of the market and capital/consumer investment ratio. Entrepreneurs’ expectations about demands of the public are skewed by credit availability, letting them think that it makes sense to invest into capital businesses, while consumers spend money on goods instead of saving. This results in undeserved investment into businesses that do not hold expected value — these businesses then need to “shed” this investment in a form of recession and redistribute the capital as required by the market.

Therefore, entrepreneurs are not to blame — they are doing what makes sense to do according to rules of the free market (following which these guys got rich to begin with). It’s the government who is to blame, because by controlling cash supply (through Central Bank) it misrepresented consumers’ desires, letting entrepreneurs think that consumers wanted to save money more than spend it (as evidenced by low interest rates normally corresponding to people’s desire to save), while consumers wanted to do the opposite — spend their new income (obtained from artificially expanded credit) on consumer goods. Money that should have been invested in consumer businesses got invested in capital businesses instead. What happens next?

The problem comes as soon as the workers and landlords — largely the former, since most gross business income is paid out in wages — begin to spend the new bank money that they have received in the form of higher wages. For the time-preferences of the public have not really gotten lower; the public doesn't want to save more than it has. So the workers set about to consume most of their new income, in short to reestablish the old consumer/saving proportions. This means that they redirect the spending back to the consumer goods industries, and they don’t save and invest enough to buy the newly-produced machines, capital equipment, industrial raw materials, etc.

This all reveals itself as a sudden sharp and continuing depression in the producers’ goods industries. Once the consumers reestablished their desired consumption/investment proportions, it is thus revealed that business had invested too much in capital goods and had under-invested in consumer goods. Business had been seduced by the governmental tampering and artificial lowering of the rate of interest, and acted as if more savings were available to invest than were really there. As soon as the new bank money filtered through the system and the consumers reestablished their old proportions, it became clear that there were not enough savings to buy all the producers’ goods, and that business had misinvested the limited savings available. Business had overinvested in capital goods and under-invested in consumer products. 

The inflationary boom thus leads to distortions of the pricing and production system. Prices of labor and raw materials in the capital goods industries had been bid up during the boom too high to be profitable once the consumers reassert their old consumption/investment preferences. 

The “depression” is then seen as the necessary and healthy phase by which the market economy sloughs off and liquidates the unsound, uneconomic investments of the boom, and reestablishes those proportions between consumption and investment that are truly desired by the consumers. The depression is the painful but necessary process by which the free market sloughs off the excesses and errors of the boom and reestablishes the market economy in its function of efficient service to the mass of consumers. Since prices of factors of production have been bid too high in the boom, this means that prices of labor and goods in these capital goods industries must be allowed to fall until proper market relations are resumed.

The article also provides advise on what the government should do to prevent depressions and the general boom-and-bust cycle. The advise is surprising for someone used to Keynesian thinking about government’s role of “cooling down” or “boosting up” the economy, but once you read through the whole article, it will all start to make sense.

Parshas Vayeira with Chabad-Chassidic commentary

Parshas Vayeira talks about destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Avraham’s arguing with G-d about them (one of the few cases when tzaddikim argued with Hashem), statement that Hashem is merciful G-d (which is important for rational argument for Divine Providence — necessary itself for explanation how our Oral Torah is genuine), miraculous birth of the second Jew, Yitzchok, story of Lot and his daughters (whose encounter gave birth to the nation of Midyan, whose member, Ruth, was a grandmother of Dovid HaMelech and, therefore, a descendant Mashiach), and birth of our cousins’ ancestor, Ishmoel, whose mother was one of the people Avraham converted to monotheism.

The parsha also has one of the most significant stories in Judaism — akeidas Yitzchok (the binding of Isaac), a story that redefined the understanding of a relationship with G-d.

For all of this and more, read parshas Vayeira with Chabad-Chassidic commentary.

Self-sacrifice refines us in proportion to the extent of the sacrifice involved. The greater the sacrifice, the more dedication to G-d we must evoke in order to motivate the sacrifice; in other words, we can only sacrifice something for G-d if G-d means more to us than whatever it is that we are sacrificing. The deeper the layer of our being that is exposed in this process, the more refined we become.

The devotion we must evoke in order to give up our physical lives for G-d refines us so profoundly and completely that it transforms the very physical matter of our body, rendering it fit to embody spirituality. The material nature of the body, which is normally too coarse to reveal the Divinity that sustains it, becomes spiritually transparent.

It is precisely this sublime level that Isaac reached when he willingly surrendered his life to G-d. According to Midrash, Isaac not only willing to die for G-d; he actually did die: while bound on the altar, his soul temporarily left him and ascended to heaven. It was in this respect that Isaac’s self-sacrifice showed himself ready to give up his life (at Ur of the Kasdites) and even his entire being (at the binding of Isaac), Isaac did give up his life.

The episode of the binding of Isaac is recited daily as a prelude to morning prayers, since our ultimate objective in praying is to dedicate our entire being to G-d. If we pray with proper intention and devotion, this objective will be imbued with self-sacrifice; furthermore, our involvement in the physical world will be solely for the goal of enhancing our relationship with G-d and fulfilling our Divine mission in life. Even the most physical aspects of our lives — our “ashes” — will remain “on the altar”, part and parcel of our Divine lives.

You can also listen to Rabbi Paltiel’s audio-shiurim on the parsha: “A Perfect Reward” (how is G-d’s appearing to Avraham significant?), “From the Potential to Actual” (why was Avraham tested?), and “Hashem’s Investigation of Sedom” (what do antropomorphic terms of Hashem “seeing”, “descending” and “investigating” mean?).

Support for libertarian anarchy

In the last post, I said that I don’t agree with libertarian anarchists who believe centralized “state” government is not necessary because I don’t completely understand their ideas or how they could work in reality.


(libertarian-anarchist view of political spectrum)

To be fair, anarchists are always misrepresented in the society, because when people hear anarchy, they think of left, revolutionary anarchists (or Attila the Hun). Libertarian anarchy (or rightist anarchy — although the name is obviously a misnomer and an oxymoron) looks at the government as a monopoly in two services: law and protection. Consequently, anarchists believe, central government is unnecessary, as any other monopoly. Just as any other services, law and protection do not require a central authority to be provided. A number of competing companies can provide telephone, Internet, rodent control, or lawn-mowing services, and the same is true regarding law and protection.

An immediate reaction of minirchists (libertarians believing in necessity of minimal government) like me is to say that the reason these services can be provided in the context of free market is because the latter is allowed to exist by the structure of the society — law and protection of people’s rights. The only way I can compete freely with a large company (and thus benefit the consumers the most) is if the large company doesn’t higher someone to “bust my cap” — and this happens only when the law (protecting my equal rights) is imposed by a central government, yes, sometimes in a form of aggressive protection. The good thing about democracy is that people control it and decide through this control (more or less) which people are the best for imposing this protection. Furthermore, the government is limited (in an ideal world, much more than today) by the Constitution, which prevents it from grabbing more power and destroying free market (obviously not the case today).

An anarchists would argue that the above is not true. Or at least the main assumption of it is not true — that law and protection must be provided by a centralized monopoly. Just like in any service, anarchists repeat, is successfully provided by free market, which regulates its quality and effectiveness, law and protection too can successfully be provided by free market. And no, this would not lead to chaos. Free, competing organizations dedicated to providing the services of law and protection would not engage in constant warfare but would come to a stable equilibrium — simply because such would be a more profitable situation for all parties involved. Just like today, sometimes force would have to be used, but much less frequently than today and more efficiently (and lawfully).

Furthermore, a democratic government is only as good, as honest, and as democratic as the people it serves. It is necessary for some ideas to be shared among the people in order for democracy to be successful (just compare democracies in Russia and the US). If democracy can be sustained by people that believe in certain ideals and does not turn into chaos (as English king George III believed would happen to the “Colonies”) or totalitarianism (as happened in France after its democratic revolution), the same is true for anarchy (as anarchists argue): as long as people living in an anarchist society believe in a set of ideas, anarchy will turn to neither chaos nor dictatorship.


(libertarian-anarchist view of stateless yet lawful society)

Two essays by Robert Murphy defend this argument in an easy-to-read, cohesive form.

Without question, the legal system is the one facet of society that supposedly requires State provision. Even such champions of laissez-faire as Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises believed a government must exist to protect private property and define the “rules of the game”.

However, their arguments focused on the necessity of law itself. They simply assumed that the market is incapable of defining and protecting property rights. They were wrong. In this essay, I argue that the elimination of the State will not
lead to lawless chaos. Voluntary institutions will emerge to effectively and peacefully resolve the disputes arising in everyday life. Not only will market law be more efficient, it will also be more equitable, than the government alternative.

Just as right-wing hawks embrace the Orwellian notion that War is Peace, left-wing egalitarians believe that Slavery is Freedom. The hawks wage endless war to end war, while the social democrats engage in massive theft — or “taxation” as they call it — to eliminate crime. It is high time to abandon such monstrous paradoxes. It took no king to produce language, money, or science, and it takes no government to produce a just legal system.

Even if you don’t completely agree with the described ideas (like me, who is a right-wing hawk, despite being libertarian in almost all other aspects), the two papers are still an interesting read. More to follow.

Faithful idiots and ungrateful brats

This article states: “To imagine that the nation would entrust the most powerful job on Earth to a young black-skinned man with a Kenyan father, a Muslim heritage, and a name that sounds like it comes off a terrorist watch list — that was an act of supreme faith.”

First, no need to overstate the obvious: Obama support has turned into a form of a cult (you thought Onion was joking, huh?) — except that in cults, leaders take money from the followers; here, followers ask leaders to take others’ money. Second, add to that a list of racist, terrorist, and mafia friends, no experience, liberal-college–textbook view of the world and a plan of how to ruin the country through socialism (not a well thought-out one, if that’s any consolation), and an act of supreme faith turns into an act of supreme stupidity. Which faith not based on any reason most often is.

(As a side note, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb states in his audio lecture on Oral Torah, the term “faith” got into our vocabulary from Christianity, but it does not mean the same thing when we say it. In Christianity it means irrational and baseless belief based on emotions, superstition or ungrounded intuition. In, lehavdil, Judaism, it means reasonable trust.

It’s not unreasonable to trust a good source that’s proved its own validity and trustworthiness, or if the evidence lends greater support to trust than to doubt. It is unreasonable to “just believe” — and it is ridiculous to say that “just believing” is more praiseworthy than believing with rational basis. If you think about it, says Rabbi Gottlieb, people who have the most respect in Judaism, like Avraham and Moses, like tzaddikim of all the generations, believed in G-d based on direct evidence of Divine revelation. And, in case of Avraham and many others, based on rational argument. If faith is greater than reason, as Christians believe, then agnostics of all sorts are holier than those tzaddikim who experienced G-dliness directly? What sort of nonsense is that?)

So, ironically, after calling Bush and his supporters stupid for eight years, liberals committed an even greater act of stupidity. Which some observers start to come in terms with. Now that we elected a president through an affirmative-action type of logic, some people start appreciating Bush more. The realization that journalists behaved disgracefully throughout the years of Bush presidency (perhaps even more than is natural for them) begins to dawn. As well as the fact that people who claim that we have it bad are idiots. David Letterman, quoted by Circus Tent, discusses how amidst greatest prosperity (geographic and historical), Americans, coached by the media, still complain — about the fact of how good life is, apparently. Reality is always stranger than any Onion video or article. Especially, liberal reality.

I started thinking, “What are we so unhappy about?”

A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?
B. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
C. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
D. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
E. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state.
F. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
G. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
I. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
J. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.
K. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
L. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.

They complain about the President who tried to protect our country with our own armed forces (consisting of people who signed up for the job). They want a change — a change towards what? Russia? North Korea? France? How about a change back to what this country was supposed to be originally, and what made it what it is today — “a land of the free”?

Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank G-d several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.

A good read.

Not that I don’t believe that Bush, his administration and the Republicans made mistakes. First, many of their actions were very socialist in themselves. Saying that Republican party strayed from its path would be a massive understatement. Second, they made a mistake of seeking compromises (trying to play both camps) and pursuing a strategy of half-measures. (Let’s invade a country… but with not enough forces. Yeah. That will be a nice compromise between “hawks” and “pigeons”.)

Third, and most importantly, they forgot that they are dealing with a herd of people with intellectual habits of a four-year-old: responding best to attractive imagery and thinking in a knee-jerk fashion. All things need to be explained slowly and in a fool-proof way, knowing, beforehand, that left media will distort everything.

The war in Iraq is the best example. Most people today have an erroneous idea why we went there in the first place (because we knew about WMD? Wrong! To get control over oil? Wrong!), what justification was provided for it, and why we had to do it. Why? Because it was not explained to them properly, like you would explain something to a child, step-by-step, slowly, with visual imagery, preparing him for the propaganda that his teacher in school will try to fill his mind with.

Chabad-Chassidic commentary on Lech Lecha — a soul’s journey

Third installation (large file) of Kehot-edition Chumash with Rebbe’s (and generally Chabad-Chassidic) commentaries — this time, on parshas Lech Lecha. I have enjoyed Bereishis and Noach so far and have already ordered a copy for myself (it’s back in stock). This editions is amazing. Of course, there is nothing like studying Chassidus in original — reading the sichos, the ma’amorim, the letters concerning each parsha (or using such publications as Dvar Malchus, where this is compiled for each week). This book, however, is the second best thing, especially for English readers who want introduction into Chassidus or Chassidic commentary to Chumash.

The more I read this edition, the more I realize one aspect of its advantage — it is a commentary on its own. It doesn’t just provide a selection of the Rebbe’s sichos on a particular topic or a parsha (which is a very good thing in itself), it has its own system of commentary that draws on a great wealth of sources, with Chabad Chassidus being a main guiding theme. The depth of the commentary (combined with conciseness — something I need to learn) is unbelievable. Just from reading the provided free chapters on Bereishis and Lech Lecha (I didn’t have so much opportunity to study Noach in depth) one can learn major basics of Chabad Chassidus. I want to quote everything, but quoting first “Inner Dimensions” will suffice for now:

Go from your land and from your birthplace: go away from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you:

Metaphorically, this command is given to every soul about to be born, which must then descend from its source in the heavenly spheres through progressively lower gradations, gaining more definition, self-awareness, and distance from G-d at each step, until it reaches the physical plane. Its next step is to begin the process of ascent, traveling back in the opposite direction to transcend the shortsighted perspective of the body. Finally, it must then transcend even its own holy inclinations. This verse thus can be explained as follows:

Go: Descend from the highest levels—

From your land: The word for “land” (eretz) is related to the word for “will” or “desire” (ratzon). “Land” therefore alludes to G-d’s will, which is identified with the sefirah of keter. The soul is thus told to take leave of its lofty roots (keter) and descend to the next level, chochmah.

From your birthplace: Divine insight (chochmah) is called “father”, since chochmah “fathers” and gives birth to ideas. The soul must leave this level as well and descend even further, into the realm of understanding (binah).

Your father’s house: Binah is the womb where the seed of chochmah is developed and expanded, which is why it is called “your father’s house”. The soul must descend even further—

To the land, i.e., to the physical world: This is the ultimate, most difficult descent, yet through it the soul arrives in this world, which is the “land”—

That I will show you: The non-descriptive “I” refers to G-d’s essence, which is likewise beyond description. G-d promises the soul that in the merit of descending into this world and fulfilling the commandments, it will be shown the “I” of G-d, enabling it to cleave to G-d’s essence [through Torah and mitzvos].

Once the soul enters this world and becomes garbled in a human body, it is commanded and given strength to—

Go: this time in the opposite direction, from the lowest sphere to the highest—

From your land: “Land”, as we have explained above, alludes to will and desire. Firstly, the soul must transcend the animalistic desires of the body. It is then told to go—

From your birthplace: i.e., to transcend the assumptions and limited perspective of the intellect and emotions of the ego. It must then go—

From your father’s house: i.e., to transcend those behavioral habits that it acquired and became accustomed to due to a faulty education and less-than-perfect environment. It must go beyond all of these limitations—

To the land that I will show you: to a holy place, such as a synagogue of place of Torah study, where desires of the Divine soul dominate and prevail.

Only after we have successfully transcended the limitations of the body’s animating soul can we then proceed to the next task, that of transcending even the inclinations of the Divine soul, its own ratzon (land), chochmah (birthplace), and binah (father’s house), and reach a level that is beyond reason, “the land that I will show you”, a place where the sould does not merely comprehend Divinity [as was before the birth, in the Upper Worlds] but actually sees it.

[Based on Likutei Sichot, vol. 1, pp. 15–18.]

This was one of the first sichos of the Rebbe I ever studied by myself. I remember sitting on Shabbos in 770 and learning it.

The regular commentary provides a slightly different explanation on the first sentence of Lech Lecha, from Rebbe Rashab’s teachings. Read inside.

Other links.