Socialism on the road

(Ilya Repin, “Volga Boatmen” — click on the image to enlarge)

Reading this passage:

He and three other men, so he said, were sculling a very heavily laden boat up from Maidenhead one evening, and a little above Cookham lock they noticed a fellow and a girl, walking along the towpath, both deep in an apparently interesting and absorbing conversation. They were carrying a boat-hook between them, and, attached to the boat-hook was a tow-line, which trailed behind them, its end in the water. No boat was near, no boat was in sight. There must have been a boat attached to that tow-line at some time or other, that was certain; but what had become of it, what ghastly fate had overtaken it, and those who had been left in it, was buried in mystery. Whatever the accident may have been, however, it had in no way disturbed the young lady and gentleman, who were towing. They had the boat-hook and they had the line, and that seemed to be all that they thought necessary to their work.

George was about to call out and wake them up, but, at that moment, a bright idea flashed across him, and he didn't. He got the hitcher instead, and reached over, and drew in the end of the tow-line; and they made a loop in it, and put it over their mast, and then they tidied up the sculls, and went and sat down in the stern, and lit their pipes.

And that young man and young woman towed those four hulking chaps and a heavy boat up to Marlow.

George said he never saw so much thoughtful sadness concentrated into one glance before, as when, at the lock, that young couple grasped the idea that, for the last two miles, they had been towing the wrong boat. George fancied that, if it had not been for the restraining influence of the sweet woman at his side, the young man might have given way to violent language.

The maiden was the first to recover from her surprise, and, when she did, she clasped her hands, and said, wildly:

"Oh, Henry, then WHERE is auntie?"

— has reminded me of this post by arbat:

Another study in the University of Utah: people are sat in front of a wheel and watched how they drive. Then they are given a phone and watched how their driving changes. It turns out that less than 3% drive the car as well with the phone as without.

I am not worried about the study itself, but by the conclusion that the journalists will make out of it. Or, what’s worse, the politicians cheered on by the journalists. You see, the politicians have a Pavlovian reflex in response to any “scientific” study — to ban something. The obviously idiotic reaction to this study is to ban cell phone in the cars. Completely.

Why do I consider this reflex idiotic? Well, since you’re asking — imagine that such a study were conducted not with cell phones but with radio. Or music. Or a conversation on a topic interesting to the driver.

Imagine we start measuring how a young man’s attention is decreased from having a beautiful girl next to him. Or a woman, who has a husband sitting next to her and giving her advice on how to drive. Imagine you have a child in the back who needs to be told a story. Or two kids who are trying to take the Gameboy away from each other. Or a mother-in-law?

What do you think: will these things end up being less distracting than a cell phone or more? What should we do? Ban having passengers in cars? Ban audios and CD players?

What if a problem is not in the cell phone, but in the boredom of drivers that need to find some distraction?

Or, imagine a person who needs to call somewhere. Check that his child did the homework. Or talk to a client. Or call his wife, because he forgot to tell her that tonight his friends are coming over for a game of poker. Not to call in such situations means consequences. What do you think, should we measure how much his driving skills will deteriorate?

Now, within the last year, I have rear-ended a car once, driving at a slow speed (no damage done), while stuck in traffic on Belt Parkway and looking for a ma’amor on my mp3 player.  Before that, I had almost gotten into an accident several times because of one of the reasons listed above. Also from trying to figure out where exactly my GPS was showing me to go. But never from talking on a cell phone.

Gentlment, we are all sick

The scene is borrowed from Jerome K. Jerome’s Three Men in a Boat:

It is a most extraordinary thing, but I never read a patent medicine advertisement  without being impelled to the conclusion that I am suffering from the particular  disease therein dealt with in its most virulent form. The diagnosis seems in every  case to correspond exactly with all the sensations that I have ever felt.

I remember going to the British Museum one day to read up the treatment for some slight ailment of which I had a touch - hay fever, I fancy it was. I got down  the book, and read all I came to read; and then, in an unthinking moment, I idly  turned the leaves, and began to indolently study diseases, generally. I forget which was the first distemper I plunged into - some fearful, devastating scourge, I know - and, before I had glanced half down the list of "premonitory symptoms," it was borne in upon me that I had fairly got it.

I sat for awhile, frozen with horror; and then, in the listlessness of despair, I again turned over the pages. I came to typhoid fever - read the symptoms - discovered that I had typhoid fever, must have had it for months without knowing it - wondered what else I had got; turned up St. Vitus's Dance - found, as I expected, that I had that too, - began to get interested in my case, and determined to sift it to the bottom, and so started alphabetically - read up ague, and learnt that I was sickening for it, and that the acute stage would commence in about another fortnight. Bright's disease, I was relieved to find, I had only in a modified form, and, so far as that was concerned, I might live for years. Cholera I had, with severe complications; and diphtheria I seemed to have been born with. I plodded conscientiously through the twenty-six letters, and the only malady I could conclude I had not got was housemaid's knee.

 Next time someone asks me what is the matter with me, I think it makes sense to answer the following:

I will not take up your time, dear boy, with telling you what is the matter with me. Life is brief, and you might pass away before I had finished. But I will tell you what is not the matter with me. I have not got housemaid's knee. Why I have not got housemaid's knee, I cannot tell you; but the fact remains that I have not got it. Everything else, however, I have got.

Speaking of chumros...

As I was re-reading a novella by one of my favorite writers, this paragraph caught my sight:

I bowed with my helmet on, and with the gloved fist I touched the coat of mail on my breast. I didn’t introduce myself. I had the right not to. The shield hanging by my side, turned back to front, was a clear sign that I wished to preserve my incognito. The knightly customs had by then assumed the character of commonly accepted norm. I didn’t think it a healthy development, but then the knights’ customs grew odder, not to say idiotic, by the day.

I suppose some things never change.

What do I like about Sapkowski, you ask? His sense of humor. For instance:

I bet my head that in Ireland Christianity will be a passing fashion. We Irish, we do not buy this hard, inflexible, Roman fanaticism. We are too sober-headed for that, too simple-hearted. Our Ireland is the fore-post of the West, it’s the Last Shore. Beyond, not far off, are the Old Lands: Hy Brasil, Ys, Mainistir Leitreach, Beag-Arainn. It is they, not the Cross, not the Latin liturgy, that rule people’s minds. It was so ages ago and it’s so today. Besides, we Irish are a tolerant people. Everybody believes what he wants. I heard that around the world different factions of Christians are already at each other’s throats. In Ireland it’s impossible. I can imagine everything, but not that Ulster, say, might be a scene of religious scuffles.

Rossini and sphiras ha’oimer

The best of all are those people that refuse to shave all 49 days of the Omer to be acording to the shita of the Arizal and Kabballah, and then they shave Erev Shavuos with a “leshem yichud” beforehand.

For those of you whose spirits have been sombered up by the seriousness of the previous post, a little sphera-friendly entertainment:



On a related topic, does chochmas chitzoinius even refer to science, or merely to stuff like this?

You are wrong!

[I am re-posting this.]


(I was thinking of finding a picture appropriate to the topic of machloikes, but then thought that nothing would fit better than this video, which I like very much.)

I’d like to thank Dixie Yid for a link to “the comment thread at A Simple Jew’s Post, The Essence of Emunah [of] an interesting back-and-forth discussion between R’ Micha Berger & R’ Micha Golshevsky regarding the inner unity behind the major machlokes’n in history”.

As I was reading the discussion, I thought this (not necessarily regarding any side of the discussion):

It seems to me that sometimes our American sensitivity and tendency to make peace and accommodate everyone’s opinion (commendable though this tendency may be) gets in a way of understanding the machloikes. Back in the day, people didn’t have a problem saying “I disagree.” Not “I am right on some level, you are right on another level”, but “I am right, and you are wrong.” Doesn’t mean they didn’t respect the other side’s opinion (depending on the nature of machloikes, of course), but they still thought it to be wrong.

* * *

[Beginning of a long digression — feel free to skip to the next asterisks]

There is a second level of justification — from spiritual perspective. Obviously, in Judaism we have the statement that “eilu v’eilu dvorim Elokim chayim” (“these and these are words of the living G-d” — regarding the dispute between Shammai and Hillel, but more abstractly regarding most other disputes). What is sometimes overlooked, as my rabbi once told me, is that Shammai and Hillel themselves still believed the other party to be wrong. More importantly (for us), we follow only one of their specific opinions for Halacha purposes. And in many cases when we say that a certain halachic opinion is for this community, while other opinion is for another, it’s only due to the circumstances of us being in golus, as Rambam explains in the introduction to Mishnei Torah.

On the other hand, in many cases, of course, this is not true. We accommodate for multiple opinions in our psak din, and indeed, this is the beauty of Torah both from spiritual/metaphysical and sociological point of view (I can hear teeth grinding). From the latter perspective, says Reb Shlomo Yaffe, accommodation of multiple opinions in the final ruling (since all of them are right, despite sometimes obvious disagreement and even mutual exclusivity), the “bottom line” of Jewish law tends towards the middle. On the other hand, in case of, lehavdil, X-ity and Islam, with passage of time these religions acted like a centrifuge, pushing their choices of the ultimate interpretation of their texts towards the outside, the extreme.

Of course, we, as religious Jews, don’t care so much about sociology (this was just an interesting point explaining the difference between Abrahamic religions — the principle of “eilu v’eilu” vs. “my way or the highway”). From philosophical point of view, the principle of “eilu v’eilu” becomes interesting, because it reveals fully the unlimited and undefined nature of G-dliness, from which Torah stems.

I had a conversation once with an apikoires, who asked me if G-d can create a square circle (a more intelligent way to put the question with the stone). I told him that according to the school of chakirah, He cannot — but it’s a limitation not on G-d, but on our reality, or, as Rabbi Gottlieb put it, one our language (i.e., our logic). “When you say square circle, I hear words, but no meaning enters my mind. So, you’re asking me, can G-d create _____, and there is nothing in the blank. You did not ask any question.” Or, to put it differently, G-d could create a square circle, but it would be incompatible with our reality (it’s a slightly different statement from Rabbi Gottlieb’s, but I’ll just lump them in one category for now).

On the other hand, I said, the school of mysticism teaches that G-d indeed can create a square circle and even make it compatible with our reality. In fact, in our history, such things have happened (if you are lazy to read the whole post, in the case of Menoira oil both burning and not burning at the same time, or in the case of Aron Koidesh not taking any space). Now, how the square circle would look to us is a different story. Perhaps it would look like a hologram or, more simply, like a Necker cube, only not on the level of illusion or perceptual ambiguity, but in reality.

“This is interesting,” the apikoires said. “But this means that G-d could tell you to do X and not to do X at the same time. What would you do then?” He thought he had me, but he made a trap for himself. In fact, I explained, every law that G-d gave us is like this. Torah derives from G-dliness, which is multidimensional (infinitely-dimensional, even, one might say). It is the job of our authorities, then, to bring down a specific dimension of each law to this world — and this is where the disagreement stems from, when one authority’s spiritual level is different from that of the other, and as a result, they disagree on the practical “interpretation” of the law, since the particular dimension of the law that one brings down is different from that of another authority.

In practice, sometimes we rule in favor of one opinion, and sometimes the other (because only one opinion may be appropriate for this world, for this particular place and this particular time), but sometimes we accommodate for multiple opinions. An example I gave is that of dipping chalah in soup on Shabbos. On Shabbos, a Jew is not allowed to cook. Skipping many details, this means he is not allowed to put something defined legally as uncooked into a hot soup still in the first or second vessel of cooking. What about challah? Is baking the same as cooking? If it is, then he is allowed to dip challah in that soup (since something already cooked cannot be further cooked). If it’s not, then he is not allowed to dip challah in the soup (since that would be tantamount to cooking the challah). There is a disagreement in opinions.

We rule that lehatchilo one should not dip challah in the soup, but b’diyavad, if someone already dipped the challah (e.g., having not paid attention), one is allowed to eat it. Thus, in our ruling we accommodate for both opinions, despite the fact that they are opposite and mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, from mystical perspective, we learn that even those opinions that were presented in Gemara and were clearly rejected as unsupported by our tradition, are still true on some spiritual level. In fact, they are even higher (from the point of view of gilui) than the opinions that were accepted — and this is why they were rejected, being incompatible with this lowly world (of course, b’etzem, the accepted opinions are higher, since they allow for dira b’tachtoinim). See this beautiful chapter (“Co-existence of Contradictory Truths”) from the Gutnick edition of Rambam’s 9th and 10th principles (with commentaries ranging from classical to those of the Lubavitcher Rebbe) for further discussion on the topic of the spiritual origin of different opinions and the reasons for their inclusion in Gemara (even those that were rejected).

[End of the long digression]

* * *

I think despite all of the above, however, we still overlook the other, non-accomodating side of the machloikes. Yes, sometimes we rule in favor of both parties. And sometimes we say that this is right for us, and this is right for them. But sometimes we rule in favor of only one opinion! Sometimes we say that only one opinion is more appropriate for everyone.

Or, more specifically, sometimes we follow a particular shitta, and even though we recognize the other shitta as beautiful, and part of Torah, and “words of the living G-d”, and shining brightly on some high spiritual level — but here, in this world, where we are trying to bring Mashiach, this shitta is less appropriate than the one we accept. Of course, people who hold according to that shitta may think the same about ours. And we think they are wrong in practice (or at least less right than we are), and they think we are wrong. And guess what? There is nothing wrong with thinking someone is wrong. There is not always a need to sweeten the pill.

The leader of the generation is the entire generation

As an aside, it saddens me that most of my readers are not true believers. Out of 17 answers to my question (“Can G-d learn something new?”) only 4 gave the correct answer (“Yes!”). That’s less than 25%.

Please answer the new poll. Let’s see how many people pick the right answer now.

Gedeilim and Rebbeim

Quoth TRS:

In my opinion, the worlds of Lithuanian and Chagas Jewry have moved closer and closer together to the point where the only thing separating them is their clothes and their accents. And even then, not so much. Witness the increased veneration for the Godol's every breath, and the decreasing enrollment at chassidish Yeshivas, with the corresponding increase in Litvisher places of learning.

I disagree completely. As this video will show, there is no semblance whatsoever between the representatives of two worlds:



I hope each of you saw it clearly. I am only sorry the video stopped, and we were not zoiche to hearing the continuation of this brilliant conversation.

Have you seen that hoopoe?

A slightly more civil scene for those of my readers who have no interest in surgeries or duels.

The scene of the second meeting between Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin in Patrick O’Brian’s Master and Commander:

Subclavian, or aorta itself

In the post in which I quoted a passage about Patrick O’Brian’s Stephen Maturin performing a surgery on himself, a couple things should have caught your attention: 1) Dr. Maturin inquired whether the woman whom he asked Jack Aubrey to visit was wearing black, and 2) when he declined the offer of another doctor, he said: “No, sir. I do this with my own hand. If it could undertake the one task, it must undertake the other: that is but justice.”

Putting the two things together, one realizes where Maturin got his wound — at a duel over a woman! (And he was wondering whether she was mourning over the other fellow by wearing black — which she wasn’t.) As any red-blooded male, I like to read about duels (although I prefer swords to pistols), so here it is:

Shabos mevorchim Iyar

This Shabbos we bless the upcoming month of Iyar. The Rebbe says in one of the sichos that Iyar is holier than Nissan. Don’t forget to read the seifer Tehillim before davening on Shabbos. (This means getting up extra early. And for those of us not fortunate to be davening in nusach Arizal minyonim on Shabbos — extra-extra early.)

Never you fret, sir

Recently I posted an account of a Russian doctor performing a self-surgery (an appendectomy).

A scene from H.M.S. Surprise, where Dr. Stephen Maturin operates on himself, removing a bullet from his own body:

The world is watching

Very good post about chillul Hashem. I wish I was as holy as the Rebbe’s melamed in cheider to walk our whenever something bad was spoken about other Jews. But I’ve seen the effects of chillul Hashem firsthand — it affected me, my friends (and former friends), and my family.

I have already expressed my frustration on the subject. Long gone are the times when Frierdiker Rebbe wrote in a letter that for a talmid chochom it is inappropriate to walk on the street, eating sunflower seeds. Today everyone dresses in a suit and wears a hat, since — hey, we are Jews! We are not supposed to dress casually, like goyim. And yet we find, strangely enough, that the people who dress in jeans and are lenient on half their mitzvos behave like mentchen, while those that are not eating strawberries for kashrus concerns and make sure their cereal is pas Yisroel behave like beheimas.

Be machmir on gebrochts in you behavior first. You are here to make the world G-dly.

(And, as anyone reading my blog can see, I am all for chumras and hiddurim. One of the comments on that post said something like: “Ironically, one of these people would look at MO woman in pants and think: ‘What a shame!’” Well, it is ironic. He should be looking at himself first. But the fact that this woman is wearing pants is a shame.)

(Mattir ossurim)⁻¹

(source)

An interesting story (source):

Reb Aaron Yaffe, the shochet, related the following story:

When I was younger I worked as a melamed in a small village, and as shochet for the neighboring towns. When we heard that the Tzemach Tzedek would not only be passing through our village, but would also be staying for several days, we hurried to make the proper preparations for his visit. When the Rebbe arrived, I was supposed to slaughter a chicken for his meal. Before I did so, however, I went to show him my chalef (shechita knife) before proceeding. The Rebbe approved, and indeed ate the meat I provided during his entire stay in our town. The Tzemach Tzedek received all who wished to speak to him in private, and in the course of events, it became my turn for yechidus.

"What is your request?" the Rebbe asked when I entered his room.

"I have a halachik question that troubles me," I began. "I am disturbed by all the restrictions instituted relatively late in our history, on things that previous generations of rabbis considered permissible. Does this mean, G-d forbid, that earlier generations of Jews were eating food that was not kosher? How is this possible?" I said.

"Do you understand what the words assur and muttar mean?" asked the Tzemach Tzedek. "Assur literally means 'bound up,' 'restrained' by the klipos, or husks of the sitra achra, the forces of evil. As is explained in the Tanya, these things cannot be elevated and transformed into holiness, even if they are eaten with the proper thoughts and intentions. Muttar, on the other hand, literally means 'untied' or 'loose,' indicating those things that it is possible to elevate and refine if we eat them with the proper intentions and for the sake of heaven.

"During earlier generations, when souls came from a much higher source, our forefathers had the spiritual strength and power to elevate many things that were originally considered permissible. With the passage of time and the diminution of our spirituality, our Rabbis have forbidden many things that were previously allowed. Our souls are inferior to those that were sent down before us, and it is just not in our power to turn these things into holiness."

Another interesting thing I heard recently: in Chabad, we don’t say a brocho on tefillin shel roish, because (al pi inyonim pnimi’im*) it is too holy. Saying a brocho means that we are drawing down into this world the G-dly Light necessary for the union of G-d and the physical matter with which a mitzva is performed. But if the Light is too high for us to draw down into this world, saying a brocho would be in vain.

That is also one of the the reasons why during the seider we say “Boruch ha’makom” without the Eibeshter’s name.

Relevant posts:

Elevating reishus
They will not see me
Spiritual timelessness of Judaism
Demanding a timeless answer

 ___________
* Not to be confused with the halachic reason.

Evolution of liberal reform (part 2)

(Part 1 here.)

A friend of mine on the Facebook says: “My employer put in new carpets and installed auto flush toilets in the bathrooms. We still have free soda. Does this mean that recession is over?”

His friend responds: “No... Actually, it means that the recession is worse. Notice that the automated toilets flush directly into the input-pipe of the free soda machine.”

That, my friends, is what most liberal reforms are all about.

A Jew for G-d

We find in Torah that the first one to call Jews a nation was the Pharaoh: “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we are” (Shmois 1:9). G-d is the second to call Jews a nation, while talking to Moshe Rabbeinu, and later, in the context of giving Jews Torah.

Be who you are

I’ve heard this story on the second day of Yom Tov (Wed.) from one of the rabbis in Brooklyn:

Every year, chassidim would wish the Rebbe that “the Rebbe should be alive next year”. To which he would respond: “gam atoh” (“you too”). One year, a chossid came to the Rebbe and wished/asked him that “the Rebbe should reveal himself”. Meaning, of course, that the Rebbe should reveal himself as [who he is]. To which the Rebbe responded: “gam atoh”.

This can be explained as follows. Every person has the deepest potential of who he is in the essence. The chossid wished the Rebbe that he reveals this deepest potential and his true and deepest role. While the Rebbe, in his turn, wished the chossid that he does the same, regarding himself.

Those of understanding will understand.

So, what is the deepest essence of every Jew? In Tanya we learn that every Jew is “cheilek elokah mi’ma’al mamosh” — a part of G-dliness Above literally.

Some facts on the healthcare bill

Go, Wisconsin.



Another one, more accessible to the average IQ, and going to the core of the problem with liberalism:



Now, one mistake in the above videos is the assumptions that liberals 1) care about numbers, 2) know what the numbers mean, 3) have any semblance of distinguishing the reality from a fantasy.

The full speech from the second video (emphasis mine):

RepPaulRyan — March 21, 2010 — Madam speaker, there is a lot wrong with this bill.

We know the problems with its cost. We know it doesnt really reduce the deficit. We know that it increases health care premiums. The CBO has given us all of this information and its clear that what we have is a bill chock full of gimmicks and hidden mandates.

So I’m not going to get into all of that again.

But what I will ask is this: why has this decision become so personal to our constituents? Why are so many people swarming the Capitol over this? Why have we received 100,000 calls an hour from all over the country?

It is because health care affects every one of us. And yet, here we are, debating whether the government should have a bigger role in making those personal decisions.

So make no mistake about it. Were not just here to pass a healthcare bill. We are being asked to make a choice about the future path of this country.

The speakers to my left are correct: this is history. Today marks a major turning point in American history. This is really not a debate about prices, coverage, or choosing doctors.

This is ultimately about what kind of country we are going to be in the 21st century.

America is not just a nationality its not just a mass of land from Hawaii to Maine, from Wisconsin to Florida. America is an idea. Its the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind.

Our founders got it right, when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from nature and nature's God — not from government.

Should we now subscribe to an ideology where government creates rights, is solely responsible for delivering these artificial rights, and then systematically rations these rights?

Do we believe that the goal of government is to promote equal opportunity for all Americans to make the most of their lives — or do we now believe that government’s role is to equalize the results of peoples lives?

The philosophy advanced on the floor by the Majority today is so paternalistic, and so arrogant. It’s condescending. And it tramples upon the principles that have made America so exceptional.

My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend on the federal government than on themselves for their livelihoods — a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for our individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependencies.

More to the point, Madam Speaker, we have seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. The European social welfare state promoted by this legislation is not sustainable.

This is not who we are and it is not who we should become.

As we march toward this tipping point of dependency, we are also accelerating toward a debt crisis a debt crisis that is the result of politicians of the past making promises we simply cannot afford to keep. Déjà vu all over again.

It is unconscionable what we are leaving the next generation.

This moment may mark a temporary conclusion of the health care debate — but its place in history has not yet been decided. If this passes, the quest to reclaim the American idea is not over. The fight to reapply our founding principles is not finished, it’s just a steeper climb. And it is a climb that we will make.

On this issue — more than any other issue we have ever seen here — the American people are engaged. From our town hall meetings, to Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, you have made your voices heard. And some of us are listening to you.

My colleagues, lets bring down this bill — and bring back the ideas that made this country great!

Про Перельмана и миллион

(Grigoriy Perel’man, known amongst the mathematicians as “The Dude”)

Стихи. По-моему гениально. И грустно.

[For those who don’t speak Russian: background azoy.]

The hat

From here:

In the last years, when the health of the Rebbe [Rayatz] was far from perfect, a certain public functionary once arrived in the middle of the week, not at the regular time for yechidus, in order to speak with the Rebbe. When I entered the Rebbe [Rayatz]'s study in order to inform him of his arrival, the Rebbe stretched out his hand to put on his hat, an effort which cost him considerable exertion. I assured the Rebbe that it would not matter to that functionary if he would receive him with only a yarmulke on his head.

“But to me it does matter,” replied the Rebbe.

I think there are multiple ways of understanding this story and multiple lessons that can be drawn from it. One of which is: Hashem may be ok with you saying a brocho or davening to Him without a second head covering (He will still accept you prayers). But you shouldn’t be.

(This reminds me of a story about the Kotzker Rebbe, iirc. He always knew what his chassidim’s thoughts were, and if someone at his tish had bad thoughts, the Rebbe would scream at him. So, one time a chossid had a bad thought in the presence of the Kotzker Rebbe and immediately regretted it, anticipating being screamed at. But then he thought: “Hashem surely knows my thoughts too. And yet He seems not to mind. Why then does the Rebbe mind?” The Kotzker Rebbe answered: “Hashem can take it. I can’t.”)

This does not just apply to the hat, by the way (and also with the hat, it’s not about the “shtick”, but about what stands behind the hat). And not just to davening. Hashem is rachamim, merciful. He will tolerate all kinds of behavior. But each one of us should be disgusted with himself for taking advantage of that.

Gutt Yom Tov!

I wish everyone kosher and freilichen Peisach and that this year not only are we able to overcome our limitations, but that we use the limitations themselves for the purpose of reaching the greater depths.

The only reason Jews went into the Mitzrayim was to receive Torah. The only reason every Jewish soul descended into this world is to make Dwelling for HaKadosh Boruchu. May this task be completed now, in a happy and pleasant way!

With all your essence

We learn from the Haggadah that Hashem redeemed us from Egypt with his Essence (“not with an angel, not with a saraf, not with a messenger”). This was done, because in our “levushim”, our external characteristics, we have fallen — Hashem had to evoke the Essence of our soul in order to awake our true identity.

The same way we learn that Rabbi Akiva argued that each plague consisted of five sub-plagues. These five levels correspond to the four levels constituting the fabric of reality¹, plus the fifth, essential level. This, again, shows the true nature of the Exodus — the miracles performed penetrated the world to its core, softening it up for both our redemption and the giving of Torah (which would allow the union of the spiritual and the physical, heretofore not possible).

The practical lesson for us is that we have to use our essence when serving Hashem. We cannot treat being a Jew as a levush, as a role. “I am a student, I am a brother, I am a husband, I am a citizen, nu, I am also a Jew.” We cannot just use an aspect of our personality for Yiddishkeit — an angel, a saraf, a messenger. We have to use our full self, “down to its innermost depths”.

And in learning and doing mitzvos, we have to get to the deepest level — to the fifth level of Torah. Everybody knows there is parde"s: the four levels of interpretation of Torah (literal, allegorical, homiletic and mystical). Just like there are four levels of the soul (nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya). Just like there are for worlds (Asiyah, Yetzira, Briah, Atzilus). But behind all this there is the Essence. At the core of the worlds there is G-d Himself. At the beginning of Hashem’s four-lettered Name, there is the tip of the Yud. At the core of the soul there is Yechida. And at the core of Torah there is Chassidus.

Using Chassidus we can see the Essence in everything, and we can allow ourselves to “leap over” our internal and external limitations. I am not talking about just limud ha’Chassidus, the learning of Chassidus Chabad. I am also talking about darkei ha’Chassidus — the paths of Chassidus Chabad. These paths are the roadmap to geulah, the time when the hidden fifth level will be revealed in the outer four.

Just like the ten makkos, each consisting of five levels, “softened up” the world, preparing it for the Exodus and for giving of the Torah (the union of the spiritual and the physical), the same way Chassidus Chabad, when studied and practiced by every Jew, brings closer the time of our redemption and the union of G-d with His world.

__________________
¹ These four levels are traditionally knows as air, fire, earth and water, which the Rebbe says correspond to the electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces. The fifth level corresponds to hyulie — the aspect of reality which contains the potential for existence, out of which all reality comes out.

On the other hand, in the computer game Quest for Glory IV: The Shadows of Mordavia (my personal favorite in the series), the fifth secret element was pizza.

Ministry of Magic

He had remained speechless throughout Fudge's kindly explanation that there were witches and wizards still living in secret all over the world and his reassurances that he was not to bother his head about them as the Ministry of Magic took responsibility for the whole Wizarding community and prevented the non-magical population from getting wind of them. It was, said Fudge, a difficult job that encompassed everything from regulations on responsible use of broomsticks to keeping the dragon population under control (the Prime Minister remembered clutching the desk for support at this point). Fudge had then patted the shoulder of the still-dumbstruck Prime Minister in a fatherly sort of way.

“Not to worry,” he had said, “it's odds-on you'll never see me again. I'll only bother you if there's something really serious going on our end, something that's likely to affect the Muggles — the non-magical population, I should say. Otherwise, it's live and let live. And I must say, you're taking it a lot better than your predecessor. He tried to throw me out the window, thought I was a hoax planned by the opposition.”
— HP VI

This reminded me of the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter. Except its goal was not to protect the wizards but to protect the muggles (or so I am told).

Which brings me to my main point: [censored] “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they are not really out to get you”. (You have to apply this saying inside-out in this case.)

Kuzari

Sources explaining Kuzari Principle and the rational basis for faith in G-d:

1. Gutnick Rambam, chapter 1. I think this is a superb book, by far not only as the Rebbe’s commentary on the 8th and 9th Principles of Rambam, but mainly as the exposition of how Chassidus Chabad views nigleh: its origins (spiritual and physical), its process, its evolution, etc. Another three chapters from the book: “Co-Existence of Contradictory Truths in Judaism”.

Interesting quote pertaining to the current events:

On the night of the Fifteenth of Nissan (Pesach) it is a mitzvah to recount the story of the Exodus from Egypt in response to a question from one’s son: “When your son will ask you... ‘What is this?’ you should say to him, ‘With a mighty hand G–d took us out of Egypt’ (Shemos 15:14)”. But even after the son’s question is fully answered on the first night of Pesach, he nevertheless is required to ask it again on the second night! So we see that questions and initial presumptions are as much a part of the Torah as the answers themselves, such that they must be repeatedly studied and emphasized.

2. Having said that, I think the first chapter of the above book is not the best source on Kuzari in existence. To date, I believe the clearest explanation of Kuzari Principle and rational basis for belief in G-d is one by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb in Chapter 6 of his book (I would also read chapters 2 and 3 for general discussion of how one should approach the reasons to be religious).

(I am well aware there are many books explaining the book of Kuzari in detail. First, I am only referring here to online sources. Second, I am talking about specific explanation of Kuzari Principle and clear elucidation of its logic and application.)

Rambam and “Moshiach from the dead”

Without going into the discussion of the topic myself and giving my own thoughts on it, I just wanted to post these links, which in my opinion have the best, the clearest and the most detailed argument regarding the issue online (at least from Lubavitch perspective). In them, the author discusses what the famous statement in Rambam means and how it can be and should be (according to the way one has to learn Rambam¹) interpreted.

Different styles in leading

I may have posted this before. Courtesy of TRP.

Creativity is not being afraid to make mistakes

[I am reposting this.]

A little girl was drawing something. Her teacher asked her: “What are you drawing?”
“G-d.”
“But nobody knows what G-d looks like!”
“They will in a second...”

If you are not really interested in the subject, you may find yourself interested in the speaker’s accent and English humor. I especially liked the part about professors (“College professors exist in their heads — and a little to one side”).

Belarus’

My grandfather on my father’s side was a partisan in Belarus’. The partisans were parachuted into a Nazi-occupied area and lived in small communities in forests. Their goal was to disrupt local Nazi operations — a mission they continued to fulfill until the main forces liberated Belarus’. (On this map, green areas were under control of partisans and were mostly in the forest-rich Belarus’, Northern Ukraine and Western Russia. Partisan missions went as far as Russia, Southern Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Eastern Poland.)

They constantly hunted the Nazis and were constantly hunted by them. They could be betrayed at any moment by the civilians and oftentimes were. In many cases, partisans burned down the villages of suspected collaborators, while Nazis burned down villages of suspected partisan sympathizers.

There were people who could betray you among your closest friends, and there were people among Nazis whom you could make contact with. And there were people who were playing on both sides or suddenly changing sides. In other words, nobody could be trusted.

My father said that his father never talked about what he had to do during the war.

This scene from a recent Russian serial film shows a group of partisans taking a Nazi-occupied fortification and headquarters in order to recover documents regarding chemical weapons. Another group is working on stopping a train carrying these weapons and blowing it up. This is all happening next to the town of Baranovichi, which is prominent in Chassidic history.

What is interesting to me is to observe how cheap a human’s life was during a battle. Your friend with whom you shared the same spoon and the same tent could fall right next to you, and you had to keep on going — or share his fate.

The whole episode is interesting, in my opinion. I find the very last scene fascinating.

Hypocrisy

Gemara states: “a kasha never killed anyone”. (“Kasha”, in this case, means a question or a logical paradox, not a cereal food from Eastern Europe. Because the latter has indeed killed people from time to time. Mostly by its bland taste, but sometimes through rat poison added by an angry wife. Anyway, back to the main point... By the way, be my guest to skip until the main point below.)

Ah, war, war...

Эх война, война, война...

Дурная тетка, стерва она.

А война, война идет,

А пацана девченка ждет.

— Любэ

Interesting clip about everyday realities of WWII. Also, a nice song. (Here is an English version with the translated lyrics on the right in the info section. For ladies only, here is a version with a woman singing. As a rule, Russian sounds 10 times more beautiful when it’s sang or spoken by a woman.)

Release the floodwaters!

Since I have no time to write new posts (life, Watson), I am referring you to an old post of mine, which has nothing to do with the parshah, with Peisach, or with any of the current events... or so it would seem. It’s quite long, but do not despair.


Enjoy.

Old vs. new

Don’t think that by doing mitzvos, you’re increasing the amount of G-dly Light in this world, and eventually, as a result of that Light, Moshiach will come. That Light is the light of Geulah.

P.S. Please answer the new poll on the right. It’s actually a serious question (not serious in the sense of pertinence to immediate life, but serious in the sense that each of the first three answers is a response of a particular school of thought in Yiddishkeit).

Gedeilim experience

This Shabbos I had a pleasure to read a book about a great Jewish luminary.

Let me start over.

I was staying with a very nice Lubavitch family, and in their basement found a book about one of Israeli “gedeilim”, which I was scanning through while waiting to depart for mincha. Then I read some more. Then, before going to sleep, some more.

Suddenly I realized why Circus Tent publishes all these misnagdim-bashing posts and makes fun of “gedeilim” biographies.

You know how the Rebbe sometimes analyzes a sugya in Gemara or Rashi or Chassidus and shows how there is a problem in the traditional understanding of the concept? He takes it apart — and for a few seconds, you realize that indeed, this makes no sense — until the Rebbe goes down a few spiral twists and uncovers the hidden depth in the sugya. And suddenly, everything is illuminated. It’s a bit of a yerida l’tzorech aliyah experience. Descent for the sake of ascent.

Well, this book was full of experiences of yerida without an aliyah. I would read a story about this rabbi or some contemporary of his and wait for a punchline... and it wouldn’t come.

Just an example. The book relates how the rabbi was at some sort of simcha with a bunch of other gedeilim. Suddenly, the Lebanese (Turks? Syrians?) started shelling the city. People ran into the building from the street searching for cover, tables with drinks and food were turned over, lights went out, everyone was lying on the floor, screaming. One of the people asked the main character of the book: “Rabbi, what should we do?” The rabbi answered: “Say vidui.”

That’s it.

Umm. OK. If the book wasn’t so thoroughly dry until that point (it mostly lists how many pages of Gemara per week the rabbi would manage to learn at different points of his life), I would suspect this to be an attempt at deadpanning humor.

The book continues. Later, people asked this rabbi: “And what was R’ Aaron Kotler doing at this moment?” He smiled and replied: “What was the leader of our generation doing? He was pleading for his life. He was crying: ‘Please, Hashem, I don’t want to go yet. I still have so much of your Torah to learn.’”

Hmm. Alrighty then...

Perhaps I lack the required eidelkeit.

Being a jerk intentionally vs. unintentionally

In his famous sicho (second one here: “Conditional Guilt Offering”), the Rebbe says the following:

In general, sacrifices atone for sins committed unintentionally, for even a commandment violated unknowingly requires atonement. Although the person did not intentionally sin, the fact that his unconscious thoughts led to such behavior is an indication that he is spiritually lacking. For if he was not lacking, he would not have sinned, even unintentionally, as it is written: “No evil shall befall the righteous.”

A person is held responsible and therefore must bring a sacrifice for a sin committed unintentionally because it is his fault that he sinned. Before committing the sin, he conducted himself in a beast-like manner. This strengthened his animal soul, leading to his unintentional commission of a sin.

This reflects a further point. A person’s unconscious behavior what he does without thinking is often a powerful indicator of his nature, reflecting his fundamental concerns and sources of pleasure. A tzaddik derives pleasure from G-dliness, therefore his deeds involve good and holiness. When, by contrast, a person unknowingly commits a sin, this indicates that undesirable factors are his source of pleasure.


Indeed, from a certain perspective, the blemish generated by committing a sin unknowingly can be considered more severe than that resulting from the conscious commission of a sin. The fact that a person consciously performs a deed says nothing about the extent of his involvement. There are times when he does something willingly, but his heart and mind are elsewhere. But when an act is performed without conscious volition, it reveals something about a person’s true nature, telling us about the inner “I” that lies deeper than his conscious self. Instinctively, this inner “I” directs his conduct, leading him to perform certain deeds unconsciously.

This reminds me of what a chossid once said: “I almost prefer it that a person inconveniences someone intentionally, than if he does it because he doesn’t know better. In the first case, he knows full well the results of his actions — but, nu, he decided in this case to choose his own pleasure (or whatever it was). He knows he is acting as a jerk, just in this case he succumbed to his yetzer ho’rah. In the second case, however, he doesn’t even have a concept of thinking about what effect his actions will have on other people — it’s as if other people don’t exist.”

Recently, I found myself in agreement with the chossid. I was wondering about what is worse: when a person hurts someone intentionally or unintentionally (not accidentally, like stepping on someone’s foot — the hurt is a direct result of his actions and could be foreseen; just the person never gave it a second thought and never considered for a second he is actually hurting someone else; or, perhaps, someone else’s feelings did not matter). In both cases, it’s rather terrible, but perhaps the person is a worse human being in the second case...

Get a job!

Jensen and Smith (Journal of Population Economics, 1990) report:

This paper analyzes the effects of unemployment on the probability of marital dissolution. Based on panel data for a sample of Danish married couples, we estimate a dynamic model for the probability of marital dissolution where we take into account the possible effects of unemployment for both spouses. We also control for other factors such as education, age, presence of children, place of residence, health and economic factors. The empirical results show that unemployment seems to be an important factor behind marital instability. However, only unemployment of the husband has an effect, and this effect is immediate.

Who knew, eh?

The only question is: would the above study consider husbands who warm the bench sitting and learning Gemara (and take the numerous coffee breaks) all day long employed or unemployed?

(For the cynics in the audience: no, I didn’t change my opinion of the so-called social “sciences”. I only quote from their studies when they support my point of view.)

Theodore Bikel

Of his Yiddish songs, I like Kum Aher du Filozof (a snag friend of mine used to say he liked this song because it makes fun of both chassidim and maskilim).

Tzu veystu vos der Rebbe tit
Beshas er zitst bi’ychides?
In eyn minut er in himl flit
Un pravet dort shalesh-shides.

His Russian accent is most charming:

Dark Night (original). I used to listen to this song over and over on a record.

What’s sadness to me?

Gypsies coming home (a rather liberal interpretation, but a very nice one)

(For the last two songs the titles in the player are wrong.)

From Songs of Russian Gypsy.

Be proud not of your ignorance

I find it annoying when people say, with hidden pride, that they don’t know Math, science, philosophy, don’t read serious literature, don’t know anything about a particular area, and therefore, they are not burdened by the problem of thinking about it, which makes their life so much simpler.

Or, equally, when people say in an off-handed manner something like “Well, I don’t know all these laws/minhogim/terms/names of holidays/have never studied Chassidus/philosophy/halacha/Kabbala/Gemara/Tanach”.

I am ok with admitting ignorance, sometimes even in a joking manner, but boasting of it is beyond me.

“I don’t do anything smart. I try to think little and know the bare minimum. In fact, a day on which I have stuck as closely as possible to my basic biological functions is a day well lived.”

Be tzniusdik

This is what happens when motogs intermingle excessively.



Somehow, even though I believe in blowing the brains out of someone who insulted your wife, I don’t find this scene so pretty or graceful.

According to the official Russian story, Pushkin wanted to defend his wife’s honor, but was not bloodthirsty, so he shot off baron d’Anthès’s coat button. Pushkin’s opponent was not so honorable. (Another “official” version, which the above clip follows, is that d’Anthès cheated, firing a step before reaching the boundary.)

Also, I’ve read the detailed pathologist’s report of Pushkin’s autopsy here. Apparently, in the last hours before his death, he was in so much pain, he tried to find a handgun to shoot himself, which his friend did not allow. According to the tissue damage report, the scene above actually seems rather accurate.

A story by Pushkin himself about a duel.

Molecular Biology and oral tradition

This post is not about Biology. But it may pollute your neshama, if you’re not careful. Better take your laptop to the bathroom while reading this (read the last line here).

A conversation between a graduate student, a technician and a post-doc:

— Can you precipitate cDNA-1 for only 3 hours after RT [reverse transcriptase reaction]?
— How many cells?
— 50.
— Hmm. No, I wouldn’t do it. Do overnight. By the way, you know, some people precipitate at room temperature. I don’t believe it [the method].
— You don’t believe it?
— I’ve never done it myself.
— I’ve heard people precipitating not at −20 but at +4.
— I’ve never seen these data. You can try and tell us how it looks. But the more important part is spinning.
— For 30 minutes?
— Some people do even 10 minutes. I would do an hour if you’re worried.

Later:

— Here’s some DNAse. But you know, K. warned me it’s fragile. Be gentle with it.
— Be gentle with it?
— Yes, don’t mix it by pipetting up-and-down. Just tap it, like you do with other enzymes for RT.
— OK, so how much do you add?
— Hold on, I have it here. [Takes the protocol for the main reaction. The notes for DNase application are hand-written on the margin.]
— Thanks. Let me copy that.

Oral tradition... And much of this stuff is like black magic. So much of it seems subjective, but it works. Discoveries are made. Cancer is treated much more successfully. We know so much more about brain development.

Much of it is in the books, protocols, published. But the way the information is transmitted is, at least initially, from person to person. And many of the tricks are not written anywhere. Most importantly, it’s nearly impossible to follow a protocol successfully without someone physically showing you how at least once.

I wonder if this is how the transmission of mesoira looked like.

Kids’ literature

“One must write for the children the way one writes for the adults: except, better.” — Korney Chukovsky

Perhaps it’s true not just regarding writing.

Of course, reading some contemporary Jewish books, one sometimes finds the opposite: they are intended for adults, but are written as if for children, except worse.

In other news, are you ready for Peisach? (I am not; I don’t even know where I’ll be spending it.) These people are.

Tradition, tradition! (Part 5) — Shtreimels

I guess shtreimels were indeed the hats of Polish nobility:



Of course, when your scenery looks like this —



— there is a reason to wear a warm woolly hat. And wearing it was a sign of nobility, because a hat like this cost a good amount of money. (Above pictures from some 17th century Polish footage.)

On the other hand, in this weather...



...perhaps such clothes would be more appropriate:



I refer you to my earlier post about traditions (see part 2).

(It is well known that the Lubavitcher Rebbeim did not wear a shtreimel outside of Lubavitch. I suppose the climate in Crimea or Carlsbad was much softer...)

Modern War of the Worlds

Everyone knows this story about radio broadcast of H.G. Wells’s novel about alien invasion of the Earth:

Some listeners heard only a portion of the broadcast, and in the atmosphere of tension and anxiety just prior to World War II, took it to be a news broadcast. Newspapers reported that panic ensued, people fleeing the area, others thinking they could smell poison gas or could see flashes of lightning in the distance.

Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'". While Welles and company were heard by a comparatively small audience (in the same period, NBC's audience was an estimated 30 million), the uproar was anything but minute: within a month, there were 12,500 newspaper articles about the broadcast or its impact, while Adolf Hitler cited the panic, as Hand writes, as "evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy."

Now see here:

Moscow — Millions of Georgians wrongly thought their country was being invaded after a spoof prime time news broadcast showed Russian tanks heading towards the capital Tbilisi and said the president, Mikheil Saakashvili, had been killed.

The spoof was broadcast on Imedi, one of Georgia's biggest TV channels, and most viewers missed a brief announcement at the start of the 30 minute broadcast explaining that the news bulletin was a simulation of "the worst day in Georgian history."

An agitated newsreader told shell-shocked viewers that the country's opposition had called in the Russian military to quell political unrest and showed key opposition figures apparently agreeing to work with the invaders.

The bulletin caused panic across the strategically vital former Soviet state which is still struggling to come to terms with fighting and losing a short sharp war against Russia in 2008.

Gripped by panic, mobile phone networks crashed, people started fleeing the capital, crowds rushed to stock up on vital foodstuffs, and there were reports of volunteer fighters preparing to resist. Other TV channels interrupted their own broadcasts to show Imedi's footage and, for a short period, some Russian media began to broadcast the "news."

When Georgians finally realised that the news bulletin was a spoof they were furious. Crowds mobbed Imedi's headquarters and opposition politicians angrily denounced the TV channel which is run by a close ally of the president, Mr Saakashvili.

Typical...

Literary reflex

Literate people raised in certain cultures respond instinctively to particular scenes or events of life by having similar scenes from their favorite books come to the surface of their memory.

For instance, the vast majority of people raised in the former Soviet Union upon seeing this picture (from the previous post):

(click on the image to see in full glory)

... will hear the following words in their mind (at least the first sentence):

The darkness that came from the Mediterranean Sea covered the city hated by the procurator. The hanging bridges connecting the temple with the dread Antonia Tower disappeared, the abyss descended from the sky and flooded the winged gods over the hippodrome, the Hasmonaean Palace with its loopholes, the bazaars, caravanserais, lanes, pools... Yerushalaim — the great city — vanished as if it had never existed in the world. Everything was devoured by the darkness, which frightened every living thing in Yerushalaim and round about. The strange cloud was swept from seaward towards the end of the day, the fourteenth day of the spring month of Nisan.

It was already heaving its belly over Bald Skull, where the executioners hastily stabbed the condemned men, it heaved itself over the temple of Yershalaim, crept in smoky streams down the temple hill, and flooded the Lower City. It poured through windows and drove people from the crooked streets into the houses. It was in no hurry to yield up its moisture and gave off only light. Each time the black smoky brew was ripped by fire, the great bulk of the temple with its glittering scaly roof flew up out of the pitch darkness. But the fire would instantly go out, and the temple would sink into the dark abyss. Time and again it grew out of it and fell back, and each time its collapse was accompanied by the thunder of catastrophe.

Other tremulous glimmers called out of the abyss the palace of Herod the Great, standing opposite the temple on the western hill, and its dread, eyeless golden statues flew up into the black sky, stretching their arms out to it. But again the heavenly fire would hide, and heavy claps of thunder would drive the golden idols into the darkness.

The downpour burst unexpectedly, and then the storm turned into a hurricane. In the very place where the procurator and the high priest had had their talk around noon, by the marble bench in the garden, with the sound of a cannon shot, a cypress snapped like a reed. Along with the watery spray and hail, broken-off roses, magnolia leaves, small twigs and sand were swept on to the balcony under the columns. The hurricane racked the garden.

At that time there was only one man under the columns, and that man was the procurator.

One, who thinks clearly, relates clearly

The above phrase is a Russian saying usually given by school teachers to students inquiring why they must learn how to write well. Learning how to write well does train one to think clearly. (Usually.)

The problem with most cases of bad writing is not confusion but cognitive dissonance. It’s not that what is written is unclear to you, but that your mind “trips” over an ugly expression or bad grammar. It’s like eating soup which has a slightly weird taste. Yes, you get the nutrients in, but because of that one little thing that’s off, you get no enjoyment. (Of course, this is all happening on Shabbos, which is the only time a frum Jew enjoys his food.)

And by the way, if your mind does not trip, it just means you have bad taste.

Anyway, what brought this on, you ask? This story from a Ch.info article:

Legend has it that the late Albert Einstein, having just completed a paper and in need of a clasp, spent a considerable amount of time trying to straighten-out a clip that was twisted and unusable. While struggling with the dysfunctional object, his assistant discovered a new box of perfect clips. Einstein took one of the new paper clips reshaped it and used it as an instrument to repair the old bent one.

In response to his assistant’s bewilderment, the renowned physicist declared: “I had just established a new objective; once set upon a goal I’m not easily deflected.”

Who was struggling? Einstein or the assistant? Also, doesn’t “late” here mean that Einstein was dead while doing all this?

And yes, cute story.

Good Shabbos.

G-d and existence of evil

On the topic of darkness existing vs. not, see this class on parshash Shmois:

In the following class, Rabbi Paltiel brings a very interesting analysis of Moshe Rabbeinu’s inability to speak — including Rambam’s philosophical analysis of the question of whether absence of ability to speak is actual characteristic or a lack of characteristic (is darkness an independent entity or is it merely absence of light?). Rabbi Paltiel compares and contrasts Rambam’s (and generally philosophical) approach to that of Chassidus.

The Speech of Moshe

I would also post a video of a debate about existence of evil vs. benevolence of G-d, but I won’t do so out of humility. But if someone wants it for the purposes of enlightenment, I can send you the link.

Polish duel — an explanation

Apparently, a lot of my readers misunderstood what’s happening in this scene. I even got an agry e-mail saying: “Interesting, I havent seen swordfight ending with one guy dying because his head was split in half... I think ever”.

My response:

That is not at all what happened!

The short guy didn’t want to kill the tall guy, because the latter would be useful in the war against the Swedish. So, he just tapped him in the head with the sabre (probably bruising the scalp and giving him a light concussion). Didn’t you hear what he said to the fallen guy’s chevra? Something like: “Now he is mine. And don’t worry: we don’t kill the wounded — a king’s custom.”

The clip actually shows how rational thinking and honor of man’s life prevailed over testosterone (of which both had enough). This is what it means to be a real man (not “human”, but davka male) — someone who can be a badass with his sabre, when needed, but then in the critical moment, can control himself to give his opponent a slight tap instead of killing him.

IIRC, samurai got to the level of proficiency with their katana swords to the point that they were able to split a fruit (and some say a rice grain, and some say a watermelon) lying on their assistant’s neck without killing the guy. (Now, how many assistants they went through before achieving this level is not clear from the history.)

So racist!..

An excerpt from this article:

The 2nd story involved a family who had a lady clean and cook for them for many years. They loved her as she was part of their family. As years passed and the lady wanted to retire, she bought a house in her native Poland. The family drove their beloved house keeper to the airport.

By the last checkpoint where the family couldn’t follow her any further she stopped and said: “Well now that I'm leaving you are surely going to miss my cooking!” “Oh yes, we definitely will,” the family said warmly.

Smiling she said to them: “You know, whenever I cooked for you, I always added a special ingredient with a special flavor: pork. That’s why you liked my cooking so much!” Their close ‘family friend’ turned around and walked to the plane leaving the family completely and utterly stunned.

But of course, the Chazal were just racist in all their laws and restrictions regarding intermingling of Jews and gentiles, laws about their wine and milk products, kashrus in general, not lending a gentile your dog, etc., etc. Nothing similar to what Chazal were worried about has ever happened since the times of Babylonian exile — for sure not in our times...

(Regarding the article itself: both a Jew and, lehavdil, a non-Jew can steal, r"l. Especially if paid “a few bucks an hour” — which doesn’t excuse anything, of course. But a Jew probably won’t put pork in your soup.)

I’ll elevate it, part 2

In the part 1 I described that chassidish yetzer horah sometimes tells us that we will be able to elevate something which we clearly know is forbidden or not advisable for us (on whatever level) as a chassidish excuse to engage in it. E.g., a bochur tells himself that he will do kiddush Hashem or have a mivtzoim opportunity by going to a baseball game, while in truth he just wants to go to the game.

But the opposite perspective is also true. Baal Shem Tov teaches us that anything that the animal soul desires has a spark of G-dliness in it which the G-dly soul could elevate — and that is the ultimate reason why a Jew desires this thing. Sure, at the moment he desires it with his animal soul, but the animal soul would not even pay attention to it, if the G-dly soul did not sense an opportunity for itself there too.

All roads lead to Moscow... I mean, to Moshiach

This post contains long quotes, but also summaries of their content right after, so those with brains eaten away by ADD, do not despair, skip the quotes and enjoy the post. Or else...

Od yeshama...

Typical scene in Western Ukraine... (For TRS and other fundamentalists who don’t watch YouTube — Jewish content here.)

How manifold are Your works, how wondrous Your creations!

“... in Your wisdom you have made them all.”

[Or, for the heretics in the audience, something about evolution and billions of years and millions of miles of genetic material copied and re-copied to produce this.]

A short macro video by Marco Faienza about his father’s little garden. It starts off a bit slow, but after about 1:35 it picks up.


My Father's Garden from Mirko Faienza on Vimeo.

This all looks nice at a distance, but I actually am not a fan of the creatures with exoskeleton getting close and personal. My friends’ home was infested yesterday with black ants, lady bugs and weevils. It’s especially dangerous, since they have a small child who is not averse to picking anything up and putting it in his mouth.

Make sure you don’t keep garbage inside your home.

Living in times of Moshiach through study of Chassidus

From Mitteler Rebbe’s biography:

[Mitteler Rebbe’s] greatness was not just in the abundance of ma’amorim he said or their length, it was also because of the tremendous depth of his explanations.

Commenting on that depth, the Rebbe Rashab said, “My hair fell out from concentrating on the Mitteler Rebbe’s Imrei Binah*.”

As for publicizing Chassidus among the chassidim, the Mitteler Rebbe encouraged his chassidim to constantly discuss Chassidus among themselves. This desire of his became their reality.

Perhaps this is why the chassidim say that the Mitteler Rebbe’s chassidim felt as if they were living in the days of Moshiach. The Rambam writes that when Moshiach comes, the world will be filled with the knowledge of Hashem. For the Mitteler Rebbe’s chassidim, this was their  reality. They were constantly immersed in the study of Chassidus.

___________
* Incidentally, I was given Imrei Binah as a present for my birthday, so if someone wants to be my chavrusa in learning it, please contact me.

* * *

In other news, this dude looks so Russian! Look at his energy and see the sparks which Chassidus Chabad absorbed.

Frierdiker Rebbe on “Modern” Judaism

Founders of the German communities, see what fruit has grown from the tree you have planted. You killed all positive feelings; you caught them like fish in a net. You squeezed out any juice. You exchanged the honor of Torah—of Jewish wisdom—for the games and idols of the non-Jews. The soul of G–d has been ripped from them. Who has wrought this shame? Was it not done in the name of the Torah, stirred together with alien thoughts? Who asked you to do this? What spurred you to do this? It was only the thirst for secular sciences, the wisdom of Jepheth, which has now completely consumed the Torah of Shem.
— Frierdiker Rebbe

It’s very interesting to me that if one reads Mendelsohn’s writings (sometimes quoted in Hirsch Chumash), one doesn’t see anything too problematic. Most of the times he sounds a bit MO; oftentimes, of all the sources quoted (in that particular instance, Ramchal and a few contemporary Jewish philosophers), his thoughts are the most chassidish ones (e.g., he says that fulfillment of a mitzva is more important than understanding of it — yep, the same Mendelsohn).

An exerpt from the letter by the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe about him and the long-reaching effects of his on German Judaism. As always, both the content and the form are amazing.

The point of the letter is relevant to today’s American Jewry as never before. Don’t tell me that the imagery that the above quote paints is not familiar to you. One doesn’t have to use labels to feel it.

Happy 8th of March to all women!

We want it now

Sometimes they are just words. Sometimes they are words with understanding behind them. It’s the feeling that’s more difficult to achieve.


“Geula Medley” by Moshe Benasher.



Other niggunim by Moshe here (check out “Shamil”).

Maximization

To clarify the last post:

Chassidus binds being religious and being human in a way that nothing else does. Not by compromising religion. And not by compromising humanity. But by saying that humanity is G-dly. And at the core of being a person is G-dliness itself.

— Rabbi Yossi Paltiel

Also, a nice post: “Shabbos is not a day of rest”.

AC vs. DC

There is a difference between bringing Torah down to people and bringing people up to Torah.

There is a difference between making Judaism modern and making everyday life Jewish.

There is a difference between conquest and assimilation.

It’s the difference between being a moderate and being a libertarian. In one case there is a compromise. In the other — maximization.

Regarding da’as

Everyone knows that tiferes is a combination of chessed and gevurah. Chessed wants to give infinite amount of goodness; gevurah wants to give nothing. Chessed wants to reward; gevurah wants to punish. Chessed is kindness; gevurah is severity. Convincing a drunk Israeli who is behaving like a beheima that he should go home to his wife (and then walking him home) is chessed. Punching him out and calling his wife to come collect her husband is gevurah.

Now, tiferes is the combination of the two. It’s not red; it’s not white; it’s a garment with stripes of red and white. It is a midda that successfully combines both emotions. That is why on the kabbalistic representation of the spheros, it’s in the middle — it’s a combination of right (chessed) and left (gevurah).

Now, da’as is also in the middle, and in the Chabad’s version of the tree of 10 spheros, it’s preceded by two spheros: chochma and bina. I always wondered whether the same way that tiferes is a combination of chesed and gevurah, da’as is somehow a combination of chochma and bina. Based on their traditional explanation, it’s hard to see how this is the case. Chochma (“the father”) is the beginning of a thought, its pure knowledge without explanation of the details. Bina (“the mother”) is a development of the thought to the point of understanding its details. Da’as (“the child”) is the connection of the thought to emotions, to reality — it’s the “care” about the thought.

Reading Mitteler Rebbe’s biography today, however, I saw the following:

Author’s Note: I read in In di Getzalt fuhn Chabad, written by a son of one of the Tzemach Tzedek’s chassidim, that chassidim say that Alter Rebbe once said: “My brother the Maharil writes exactly as I say it. My son [Mitteler Rebbe] writes it as I mean it, and my grandson [Tzemach Tzedek] writes it as I say it and as I mean it. This, in essence, is Daas; a combination of Chochma and Binah together.”