כי תשא - װען דו װעססט טראָגען

את ר"אש ב"ני י"שראל - ר"ת רבי

לפקדיהם - פקד יפקד אתכם והעלה אתכם מן הארץ הזאת : יהל"ם ,דער לעצטער אין טור שני

ונתנו איש כפר נפשו ליהוה - אפילו אן איש כפר װעט מײנען נ"ל

בפק"ד אתם - חסר, װײַל את"ם דייקא פרט לך הכתוב בענין פרט וכלל , פקודת יוסף . את"ם אתוון אמ"ת

ולא יהיה בהם נגף - בהם טאקע לא יהיה, אבער עהר - בגפו יבא ובגפו יצא . נגף יתהפך לגפן

בפקד אתם - פקודה שניה

:והוא רחום יכפר עון:

Role and importance of works of Ari z"l and his school - Part I

If I wrote everything that I have to say on this subject, I'd probably be labeled with all kinds of derogatory names by members of the entire spectrum - from the M"O and Dardaim and through the most kabbalistishe yerushalmis. Thus, I'll refrain from writing much but would still like to ponder some issues that I see important for establishing the contexts in which we all operate. I won't get into the subject of authorship and precedence, so those looking for that kind of a fight can move on.

First, let's rehash some history. If you remember, in the 1534's a scholar was born in Jerusalem to a mixed family - Ashkenazi father and Sephardic mother; his full name was R' Yitschak Ashkenazi z"l. After moving to Egypt with the family, he showed himself to be a prolific talmid chochom in Nigleh - under the guidance of R' Betzalel Ashkenazi z"l, author of Shita Mekubetzes and an important luminary of his generation. Later on in life (yet while still very young) , he chose seclusion and immersed himself in a very ascetic life and thorough study of Zohar ha"k.

At the age of about 35 years old, he moved to Tzfas where he founded a school of limudei Nistar, whose list of members reads like a "who is who" of the late Middle Ages and early modernity. The most famous and universally acceptable pupil of Arizal was perhaps R' Yosef Karo, z"l - Mechaber of the Beis Yosef, Kesef Mishne and Shulchan Aruch - the very foundation of Orthodox Judaism as we know it amongst almost all denominations of Judaism except a very tiny but important minority. Notably, he was fourty two (!) years older then R' Yitzchak. Other pupils in the circle are all venerable giants in every aspect of Yiddishkeit - nigle or nistar, halacha, piousness - you name it. Writings of Alshich and Ramak are a classic and a must have on shelves of people of any denomination. Therefore, people who attempt to outright dismiss what they dub "Kabbalah" and who disregard legacy of AR"Y z"l and his school are simply intellectually dishonest and can be safely disregarded.

When it comes to the actualy body of teachings that was formulated and presented in words by the AR"Y himself, situation isn't simple at all. First of all, as some have it, AR"Y insisted that nothing of the discourses that he delivered be written down at all. Then, it is more-less universally accepted that the only pupil authorized to disseminate the works was R' Chaym Vital z"l, on a condition of a severe punishment. Furthermore, anything that was written down was to be copied only in manuscript form and under no circumstances was to ever leave the boundaries of the Holy Land. So whatever did make it to our days, did so in violation of explicit directions of the very source of this wisdom.

One can speculate without end to the nature of all this secrecy. As I am not being meharher achar mitosom, I think it's safe to accept the simple and honest explanation. Most of the content that was delivered by AR"Y ha"K was very much a chiddush - concepts and statements that were revealled completely anew in this world, with no precedent, and he felt that it can be absorbed and understood properly only when delivered in the appropriate context, with all the "prefaces" and with the immense payload of classic unadulterated deep knowledge of Gufei haTorah - the vast ocean of wisdom passed down in the unbroken chain from Moshe to Neviim to Tanoim etc etc. The warnings and the threats weren't just empty words or attempts to draw attention and turn it into a forbidden fruit. They were very concrete and very real, and dangers weren't limited to drifting astray a la Shabbatai Zevi, but in a much broader and much likelier possibility of misunderstanding some detail in the writings that could render the entire mindset to turn to the opposite of the Holy.

For all intents and purposes, all these warnings and cherems were discarded time and again, and up until about a hundred years ago this material was available to pretty much anyone willing to invest time and mental effort, as well as risk being labeled a lunatic (that risk varied very much on the surroundings).

Now let's temporarily skip over the 1600's and most of the 1700's (we'll revisit the two grand heresies of those days and their connection on nidon didon); by the time of rise of Chassidus, core " Kisvei AR'Y Z'L " were almost unanimously accepted as a veritable source by the Lithuanian, Chassidic and Hungarian Jewry. Main disagreement was to what extent do the words of "mekubalim" trump normative halachah, but given that Ari z"l lived right on the boundary between Rishonim and Achronim, most felt that he deserved at least as much credence as his contemporaries. Yet, attempts to bring studying of his works to the mainstream public weren't undertaken, for a good reason, and even amongst Chassidim the most that one could find would be a recommendation to have a daily or weekly seder in "Etz Chayim" that would be pretty much "upgedavent" without investing much effort into it. Still, the works of R' Chaym Vital written down from his Rebbe were a strong source of inspiration for such a wide range of some of the best Jews to ever walk this Earth, that as I said before, anyone trying to simply write that off is deluding himself and his audience.

If you aren't bored deadly yet, hold on for the second part, where we'll try to see what does the subject of the works have to do with the simpler planes of existence ...

Mai ahani lon Rabonon ?

It seems that the nebech'l sees a major letdown with the Clujer Rebbe from USA zol leben for showing too much bitul in front of Rav Elyashiv. He sees that as a manifestation of "inferiority complex" when a Rebbe behaves himself as anything other then the capo di tutti cappi in front of someone who's almost twice older and is known to be a talmid chochom muvhak if there are any in our days. Let's not stray into discussing characters and ask silly questions such as "Is he really a Rebbe?" and "Is he really a Talmid Chochom?". I didn't have merit to know either but I have no problem assuming both statements.

What really bothered our circusman is that a Rebbe of "hundreds" of Chassidim really went out of his way to show respect in front of Rav Elyashiv. That he claims to be a betrayal of the mesirus nefesh that Baal Shem Tov ha"K and Talmidov had in founding and carrying on the derech.

Degel Machane Efrayim says in one place that the Oilom says how "Lomdim lernen Yo vechassidim lernen nit". (The word lomdim is used to refer to those who didn't count themselves amongst chassidim). Degel says further that what this really means is that Chassidim learn to be a nothing while "lomdim" learn to be a something.

It's not a secret that most established Lomdim in the times of Baal Shem ha'K and his first round of Talmidim weren't very keen on the Derech. While it wasn't a full frontal assault as later on with Avigdor and the rest, members of the Broder Klause didn't show a whole lot of respect to either Baal Shem ha"K or, as the story is known, to Rebbe R' Mechel for example (until they recognized him as a baal Ruach Kodesh, but that's beside the point).

Yet, with all that said, neither the Baal Shem ha"K nor his acknowledged pupils had any problem showing the very utmost respect, reverence and bittul in front of talmidei chachomim even when the latter weren't of their camp. From R' Chaym Tzanser (not Sanzer Rov but one of the member of the Broder Klause) to R' Sh"Z from Vilno (The Goen), and even later - RY"Y from Lublin and the Eizener Kopp who was described as a "bitter misnaged", all these people respected each other not along the silly lines of "You're a Snag, I'm a Chusid, I hate you"; because the main propety that they learned from the Baal Shem Tov ha"K was the true and real ענוה . Not of the show off kind where people compete whose signature has more "askufa nidreses" instances, but very real and to the core negation of self, which is really hard to attain and even harder to retain.

While I can't say what the Clujer Rebbe really thinks, here it looks like a show of true bittul really ticked someone off.

Back some time ago, another "defender of Jews" ש"ד saw a big problem with how much money is spent on Satmarer Rebbe's seder. In a typical concoction of hate and lie, the creature presents it in the same obsessively vile light that permeats his every word and every breath. Well, no surprise there - his sole agenda is spreading vicious lies, half-truths and other propaganda items that would make Goebbels blush.

But some months lo and behold, comes Chanukah and our very own circusman jumps on the bandwagon and berates his brother the "other" Satmarer Rebbe for what he calls an "ostentatious show of wealth" - apparently, his Chanukah leichter wasn't up to our nebechl's standards. He goes one to repeat the first ש"ד's ruse, except that he does it in a much longer and nastier way, peppering it with gratuitous pseudo-pshettelech and outright libel, taking the shaky high moral ground. Apparently, to get a license to use the "Derech haBaal Shem Tov", one must use a kezays aluminum leichter and a cardboard sukkah (living in a mansion and driving a new Cadillac is still ok).

The two posts have much more in common then what they differ on. And unfortunately, it seems that the posters aren't much better.

Sanhedrin daf 99 and 100 talks about various meanings of Apikoires as per Mishna; amongst others Gemora says that

אמר מר רבא אמר כגון הני דבי בנימין אסיא דאמרי מאי אהני לן רבנן מעולם לא שרו לן עורבא ולא אסרו לן יונה

On the other extreme, Shabbos 23b says

אמר רבא דרחים רבנן הוו ליה בנין רבנן דמוקיר רבנן הוו ליה חתנוותא רבנן דדחיל מרבנן הוא גופיה הוי צורבא מרבנן ואי לאו בר הכי הוא משתמען מיליה כצורבא מרבנן

As they say, Lacuna Ipsa Loquitur ...

P. S. I'm not testifying to the magnitude of any rabonim mentioned here. I'm not their follower, not their enemy and not their personal friend either, as I have no significant connection to either of them. But a fact remains that there are some of the people who carry the title nowadays, they are what we have - for good or not - and therefore I find those who make it their mission in life to denigrate both the living and lehavdil the dead, with half-truths and other questionable methods, to be less then exemplary individuals.

Chassidic map

For present and future reference .

A subtly interesting discussion on physics and religion

... is unfolding here . Nothing new yet, nothing original, but interesting nevertheless. That does not justify a catchy title titillating on giduf, r"l. Clean that up, eh ...

On the nature of Chassidus / װאס מײנט חסידות

װאס מײנט חסידות

מדרש זאגט אז "כי הכית אותנו מכה אשר לא כתובה בתורה" - זו מיתת הצדיקים. עס איז אונז אַביססעלע שװער פֿאַרװאָס איז דאָס צװישן די תוכחות גירעכנט ? לכאורה איז דאס גאר א גרױסע ברכה ! גיבצט נאר א קוק װי אזױ שײנע יידען זיצען פֿארשפרײטען חסידות" אײנער פאר'ן צװײטן און עס פעלט זײ נישט קײן רבי, קײן צדיק. הערצט זײ אױס און מען פֿאַרשטײַט בכלל נישט װאָס האָט דער סאטמארער רבי זי"ע געמײנט װען עהר האט געזאגט אז נישתכחה וכו' , אדער װאס האבן די אמאָליגע צדיקים געמײנט װען זײ האָבן געשריבען אַז אין אונזערע שפעטעדיגע דורות װעט דער װעלט זײַן אזױ אָהנגעפולט מיט כפירה אַז מען װעט קױם קעננען אַן אָהטעם געבן און מען װעטט זיך מחיה זײַן מיט סיפורי צדיקים אלײנס און עס װעט זײן מעהר חשוב װי סודות התורה אין דיע אלטע צײַטען. און דא זעהט מען א חשוב'ה ארומגעבארדעטער קאבבאליסט לעהרנט פאר א גרופפע יונגע לײַט און בחורים און מען שעפּט פֿון עהם תורה ויראה - לא תחסר כל בה .

װײטער האב איך א קשיא . גמרא סנהדרין זאגט אז מנשה האט נאך חזקי'ס פטירה אָפגעפאהרן פון יידישקײט ביז'ן גאָר ערגסטע ע"ז . פרעגט די הײליגע גמרא "חזקיה המלך װאס האט אױסגעלעהרנט אללע יידען תורה האט זײן זון מנשה נישט אױסגעלעהרנט ? /וכי חזקיה מלך יהודה לכל העולם כולו לימד תורה ולמנשה בנו לא לימד תורה ? אלא מכל טורח שטרח בו ומכל עמל שעמל בו לא העלהו למוטב אלא .../ . דאָס טײטש אז א משיח ודאי בלי ספק פון העכסטע נשמות װאס איז געװען אין דעם װעלט האט געהאט א זון א בעל עבירה װאס איז געװארן א בעל תשובה, אָבער נאר נאך יסורים, גלות וכדומה . פֿרעגצאַך, פֿאַרװאָס האָט עהם חזקיה נישט אױסגעלערנט דעם "חסידות" - װאָלט דאָס דען עהם נישט געהאָלפֿען ?

עס װערט געברענגט פון דעם נאהמען פון רבי ר' יחיאל מיכל פון זלאטשאװ (אױב איך געדענק גוט) אז װען עמיצער האלט אז נאר זײן דרך און נאר זײן רבי איז דער ריכטיגע װעג און אנדערע זענען נישט גוט, דאָס איז בחינה פון עבודה זרה ממש. עהר זאגט נישט פארװאס, אבער אזױ זאגט עהר, א כלי ראשון פון בעל שם טוב הקדוש .

אַמאָליגע צדיקים האָבן זעהר מחשיב געװען דעם דרך פון אמאליגע חב"ד . צאנזער רב איז געווען כמעט א חסיד פון דעם צמח צדק זי"ע , און אױכעט טאמאשאבער-קאצקער רבי, אלע האבן מחשיב געװען דעם דרך. אָבער װאָס , זײ האבן געהאלטען אַז דער ענין פון נישט האלטען פון קײן שום צװײטען צדיק - דאס קען אמאהל שעדיגען אױכעט. פֿאַר דעם האבן דער חוזה, רבי ר' ברוך, טאַקעה דער טאמאשאװער-קאצקער רבי רמ"מ - אַלע נישט געהאלטען אז דאס פאסט פאר יעדעם אײנעם .

אין עיקבתא דמשיחא עס איז דא טאלאנטליװע סוחרים װאססערע פארקױפן אז חסידות איז א לימוד װאו אלע אנדערע, װאו מען דארף האבן א חברותא , א מגיד שיעור מיט א פערהער. און זײ גײן רעדען פאר פערצען-יעריגע בחורים הױכע װערטער - זעיר אנפין'ס מיט אצילות'ן מיט פנימיות התורה . און טאקע די אײנציגסטע װאָס הערען זײ אױס מיט אינטערעססע זענען אטט די חסידישע בחורים און יונגעלײט, פֿאַר װעמען חסידות האָט מען זעלטען פארגעלערנט, זיכער נישט ברבים. די רוב חסידישע ישיבה'ס האָבן זײ אױסגעלערנט אז "פלוראליזם" פֿון חסידות'ן איז א גוטטע זאַך און װאַו מער מען לערנט, אַלץ בעססער - תוי"י, תניא, מאור עיינים , מאור ושמש , דגל מחנה אפרים - אן ערנסטע חסידישע בחור לערנט דאס אללעס כסדר, און פון דעם באקומט עהר שעיפה צו לערנען װײטער און טיפפער.

גמרא סנהדרין זאָגט װײטער אז עס איז מעגלעך אז אפילו א צדיק גמור און גאר א נביא זאל מאכן א גראבע טעות װען עס קומט צו ענינים פון װאָס טוט צעך בײַם יענעם אין רוחניות'דיגע קישקעס - "ואף אחיה השילוני טעה וחתם דהא יהוא צדיקא רבה הוה שנאמר ... " . גמרא זאגט נאך מער פון דעם - אז מען קען אױסנוצען דעם סאמע צדיק יסוד עולם צו טון די ערגסטע עבירות - גמרא רעדט פון ע"ז - "חטאת ירבעם אשר החטיא את ישראל מאי גרמא ליה אמר אביי ברית כרותה לשפתים שנאמר 'אחאב עבד הבעל מעט יהוא יעבדנו הרבה' : רבא אמר חותמו של אחיה השילוני ראה וטעה דכתיב 'ושחטה שטים העמיקו ואני מוסר לכולם' . אחיה השילוני דער בעל מיסד פון חסידות װער האט ניתגלה געװען צום בעל שם טוב הק' בענין החסידות - און זײן חותם האָט דער רשע - אבער באלד א מלך בישראל - אױסגענוצט צו אױפהענגען זײנע שמוץ . דאס זאגט דער זעלבע רבא זי"ע װער זאָגט "כגון אני [בינוני]" אױף װאָס איס געשטעלט האלב תניא.


אזױ װערען די בײדע קשיות פארענטװערט. חזקיהו המלך האט מנשה'ן טאקע אױסגעלערנט חסידות, נאָר מנשה האָט עס אנגעכאפט װאו אן "אײנציגע װעג" - און מען קען עם נישט באשולדיגען, זײן טאַטע און זײן רבי איז דאָך געװען מלך המשיח כפֿשוטו - און דאָס האָט עהם אַרײַנגעשלעפּט ביז טיפֿן עבודה זרה און גורם געװען צרות רבות. און דער ענין פון מיתת צדיקים אלס א מכה שלא כתובה - אפילו אז מען זאגט אז גדולים הם במתתם - די מכה איז אז מען קען זיך טועה זײן אין זײערע װערטער אזױ װײט און טון פערקעהרט פון װאָס זײ האבן געמײנט און ארײנקריכן אין די טופפסטע קליפה היפך קדושה, און קײנער איז נישטאָ אָנצוכאַפּען דיר בײַ דער האַנט -"טהו נישט!"י

צום װאָס דרשען איך דאָ ? דער ענין איז פשוט. למוד במקום שלבך חפץ - לערן חסידות װאו סע'געפעלט דיך. צו עס איז דגל מחנה אפרים, צו עס איז אור תורה - כולם ברורים כולם קדושים. אבער געדענק אז סוף כל סוף, דו ביסט אחראי אױף זיך און נישט יענער. און װען מען זאָגט דיך "לערן נישט דאס , מײַן חסידות איז בעססער" - לױף װײט. און אױב אנטלױפסט נישט און טרינקס פון דעם בלאטטע - װעסט װערען א ציג - קלײן קעפיגע חיה װאס קען בע-ע-עקען און מע-ע-עקען, ואין עם הארץ חסיד.

A good post in a good blog

The Seforim Blog is a rare medium, in that it is relatively unbiased and relatively well researched and even academically sound, while not being either a mouthpiece of heresy or offensively contradictive to known facts and reality. This post addresses R' Y Baal Shem Tov ha"K as a person who lived, and his historical and Rabbinical context. Unlike the post itself, unfortunately some comments on it are far from being respectful or academically sound. But nobody expected otherwise.

Heikhi Domi Kiddush H'

R' Mendel Kaplan n"y, Lubavitcher Shliach in Toronto was mekadesh Shem Shomayim berabim by refusing to shake woman's hand in public. (There may or may not be a heitar to do so in private and in a business meeting - I'm not a posek, but there definitely is an inyan NOT to do so in public and when you're representing a religious socium and not a business enterprise). This was reported in mainstream media.

Of course the cesspools of the blogosphere started spinning a with a brownish whirlpool; nothing bothers these people more than a Kiddush H' - especially when it's done bepombi and by a chasidishe yid.

Are there more "Haredi criminals" ?

This lowly creature regurgitates a new hairball of lies and hate. He grabs a teshuva by Unvgarer ruv and proceeds to take it out of context and hammer Ungvarer Rov, a talmid chochom if there were any, a respectable posek born in the Old Country whose credentials are re-confirmed by Eli Wiesel who spent time with him in concentration camps - with lowly ad hominem attacks; as if he knows the family; as if the stories of personal dirt that he freshly concocted from half truths and full lies have any credence; as if the creature has ever posted anything that didn't reek from fabrications, lies and unmitigated personal hatred that can only come from a thing that never achieved anything in life and is the very definition of a total loser, a קורח מכאן ומכאן.

One never knows what may pass as a "historical document" a couple hundred years from now, so perhaps it's good to go on record and state that not just that anything the creature has to say on this matter is total non-sense, R' Menashe's treatment of relevant subject is certainly worth examining if one is interested putting together a full and true halachic Anschanung (vs. a political one, where you know the answer before asking the question). And no, despite what the creature (and this one, and all too many others) would like you to believe there aren't more "haredi criminals". There are as many or as few as you would care to count.

Misnagdim and you

Three hundred years ago, there a fight took place amongst the best and the brightest of our Sages. Some fought it believing that they're fighting the same war that was waged against Sabbateans and Frankists yimach shemom. Yet, some fought it because they knew they had nothing to do with Sabbateans or Frankists and the changes they were about to bring were changes for the good.

As in all schisms, the main front of this war was in the minds of the people, first and foremost the young generation that was supposed to "carry the torch". Most fought honestly and with full heart, for them it was a מחלוקת לשם שמים ; and for them everything is now peacefully resolved. But some fought dirty; the Propaganda war that had an interesting implication fruits of which we have to deal with to this day.

The worse detractors of Chassidism managed to create some persistent labels, stereotypes, that took on a life of their own. "Chassidim don't learn", "Chassidim davenen late", "Chassidim worship Rebbes with gleaming eyes", "C. don't question authority" et cetera ad nauseum. That in and of itself wouldn't be a problem with anyone. Problem began when people who identify themselves as "Chassidim" turned this into a self-fulfilling profecy, by living up to the low standards the propagandisten of yesteryear have invented.

This disease doesn't manifest itself in presence of a real leader; it's the absence of such that creates fertile ground of all kinds of fantasies that originated on the other side. In general, people who define themselves as an "anti-something" are vulnerable to this sort of flawed thought process. For example, this guy defined himself as an "anti" to another currently-defunct pseudo-intellectual loser (he did have a point from time to time, but that doesn't change the general picture) and since, he tries to live up to every stereotype and every image of a single-track minded imbecile that was ever conjured by the hateful chroniclers of our times.

On piety, lies and murder

"מדבר שקר תרחק ונקי וצדיק אל תהרג כי לא אצדיק רשע."
(Keep yourself far from a matter of lie; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked)

This posuk seems to jump from one extremity to another; distancing oneself from gratuitous lies and falsities is a pious property that's far from being a common one; yet, every code of every society known to man, at least in theory, would try and prevent systemic killing of the righteous and innocent. And what's the connection to "I will not justify the wicked" ?

Modern forerunners of the true atheist ideology (Hitchens being probably the most visible representative) theorize in what they consider one of their strongest arguments that religion in general has done more harm then good, and whatever good the religion did deliver - could've been achieved at least as good and probably in better fashion by an irreligious man adhering to a moral codex. They argue that common values such as respect for human life and property ownership aren't divinely given rights but are natural rules by which humanity would have, and will, abide even in absolute absence of religious thinking and even in presence of proactive atheism (a la Soviet Union circa 1930's). The more viral and repulsive strains of atheism known as "Atheistic Judaism" a/k/a "Humanistic Judaism" philosophize on the merits of atheistic ethics and how much better the world would be without religion, yet with a set of moral standards (usually, they theorize using moral standards that appear substantially higher then those proposed by religious norms).

Without delving too deep, what they're basically saying that people (themselves) will not kill, steal, rob or rape. The less obvious moralities - adultery or lying - are, I guess, middle ground, and usually aren't discussed. What they would like everyone else to forget, or not to know, is a well accepted and not at all controversial result in game theory with consequences in psychology and sociology; that in the "long run", participants will resort to behavior that "rationally" benefits them both - or will get booted out of the game. What's meant by "rationally" is the implicit valuation of risks, rewards, costs and payoff - current and future - associated with a decision, a choice or an action. Even the mildly theistic Pascal's wager, which is unfortunately the basis for too many people's inner beliefs, is based on this principle. So ultimately, someone who believes in possibility of future reward and punishment of unknown magnitude will often use that to offset whatever immediate benefit one may realize from "immoral" behavior. Meanwhile, the atheist who does not believe in reward and punishment beyond legal has no reason not to commit the crime other then an irrational reason of having to live with his conscience; and Darwinism is the first and foremost discipline that mandates that humans that were to abide by these irrational rule of conscience would be booted off the ladder quicker then you can say "natural selection".

Obama is to Odinga what Hillary is to . . . ?

Today, the very surprising and non-boring race for US Presidency got ever more surprising. Mr. Barak Obama, a Senator from Illinois, is doing better than anyone expected. A young, charismatic leader with shiny new appeal of untainted honesty, it seems that he got the votes that Mrs. Clinton would've not gotten even if she was all alone in the Presidential race.
Meanwhile, on the other side of Atlantic, what began as an election drama with a very tight race, an incumbent and a noisy oppositioner, is slowing degrading into a severe civil conflict. We all hope that Kenya, formerly the great African hope, oasys of stability and symbol of post-colonial success won't descend into total chaos and oblivion. We'll briefly dive into this topic to examine whether there are any lessons to learn.

Situation in Kenya is starkly resembling the standoff during the Bush - Gore election count. Except for the machete part, of course. Can you imagine hacking up your neighbor and setting his house on fire because he voted for Bush, or because he's of Irish lineage ? I am sure that some can, especially those with noisy neighbors, but no matter how tight or how contested the election results may be, and no matter how right the wronged party may look, and maybe even if we're in the midst of a recession it's pretty safe to say that citizens and aliens will start indiscriminantly looting, raping, pillaging and murdering other citizens and aliens on the basis of their political views and tribal or ethnical division. Civil unrest in US did take place, mind you - remember CH and other riots ? - but I can hardly conceive a non-scifi plausible scenario for such conflict to ignite.

Kenyan conflict rests on the shoulders of one man. Mr. Raila Odinga, a Kenyan bureaucrate who had a taste of power and absolutely by all means has to get the presidential seat. A charismatic educated gentleman, Mr. Odinga has an ego that will not let go. Not that I'm proficient in Kenyan politics, mind you. But it doesn't take a Ph. D. to get some basic undisputed facts and to arrive to a relatively neutral conclusion.

Under incumbent President Mr. Mwai Kibaki (elected in '02) , Kenyan economy grew progressively well. 2007 GDP growth is estimated around 7%, an amazing number for such a country. Opposition's - Mr. Odinga's - main problem with Mr. Kibaki's rule are economical causes; they contend that their tribe, Luo, is not getting a fair chance and now it's "their time to eat". Or at least such is the ruse that Mr. Odinga's rebel leutenants are feeding to rank and file street fighters, who in turn burn down villages, rape children, destroy storefronts and otherwise express their feeling of frustration and desire for a democratic election process.
Frankly, I do not care if there was fraud in Kenyan election. Margin between the two was around 1-2% ; the election wasn't rigged Turkmeni-style where a candidate gets 105% votes. And if there was fraud, they should've sorted it out between themselves. And if they didn't, the system - appearance of which is in place - should've stepped in and took care.

But none of the above happened; instead, the two gentlemen locked their horns and carry on with the instigations and inflammation while their country is undergoing a bloody process from which it may never recover and that will damage Kenyan national identity and unity forever.
Mr. Obama's father was a Luo from Kenya. Mr. Obama and Mr. Odinga have more then that in common, both running on the ticket of "change", both being charismatic leaders challenging incumbent "corrupt" powerhouse.

Before we go further, please me to say that not just that I don't subscribe to racist views, often I take a radical position to the other extreme.

However, I don't believe that an assertion that different ethnodes have different predispositions is either racist or false. Whether predisposition is in any way genetic is a matter of debate that will not be solved any time soon, but we're not anthropologists, biologists or sociologists. For the moment being let's become "empirical observationists", pragmatic people who look at reality and try to manage risk. And reality is that it appears to a naked eye that some ethnodes are not that well at governing. Even governing themselves. Now, self-government is a Divine Right that few can try to wrestle out with a legitimate argument ; every "nation", in theory, has a right to govern itself (unless, of course, it disturbs some major status quo - but let's forget that). In fact, one could even argue that a nation's record at self-government is somewhat of an admission test towards use of that nation's experience in governing other entities and export of their concepts, ideas and maybe even people.

In their majority, modern African leaders do not lack in education, charisma, drive or honesty. Mr. Raila Odinga has "all of the above". But governance isn't just about those qualities. It's mostly about compromise. It's about keeping everyone happy enough not to slit each other's throats while you do the good deeds in the office. And compromise means that sometimes you have to put aside your ego and give way.

Africa in general and now Kenya in particular are deficient in that property. Politicians engrossed in populism bet and lose thousands of lives because of well concealed egoistic narcissism. Politicians elsewhere aren't much better, but meltdowns do not happen and people step aside when push comes to shove - even incumbents. Consider the cases of Prodi, Putin or Nixon. Not so with African - consider Congo, Rwanda, Nigeria, Chad, Zimbabwe or even Messrs. Sharpton and Dinkins during the Crown Heights riots. Bloodshed to "prove a point" looks acceptable.

And now we're pondering installation of a well educated, well groomed, very respectable, charismatic and smart gentleman of Luo heritage into the position of The Man of Planet Earth. Reality is that no other person in the world is as influential or important as the President of the United States.

Stay tuned for examination of theoretical benefits and risks of having a half-Kenyan president and how it is so very relevant to the Hitchens and his argumentation.

Reb Pinchus Karlinskiy - 1909, in color.

Taken by Prokudin-Gorskiy, the official photographer of Tzar Nikolaj the Second, took this image in 1909. Courtesy of Library of Congress' website, this is the description of the man:

Pinkhus Karlinskii, the supervisor of the Chernigov floodgate, stands by a ferry dock along the Mariinskii Canal system in the northern part of European Russia. In the photo album of his tour of the canal system, Prokudin-Gorskii noted that Karlinskii was eighty-four years old and had served for sixty-six years. The canal system, known today as the Volga-Baltic Waterway, was constructed to link the extensive river system of the Volga and its tributaries to provide access from the interior of European Russia to the Baltic Sea

Languages non-dilemma

ערל שפתים אנכי

As mentioned before, the linguistic quality of produce here will be sub par. Expect typos and cumbersome speech. But that is the price one pays for ability to address the public in a dozen languages.

Don't take offense if you can't understand a post. It's not your failure.

Hitchens vs. Boteach

א באװאוסטער שטיק דרעק װער פֿיהרט אָהן דעם שילשול מיטן פֿעדער-נאָהמען "פֿארפאָללענע מעסײע" ברענגט אַ שטיקעלע ויכוח דערהערט אױף 92-שטראַססע צװישן צװײ באנדיטען שמוליק בוטח און קריסטען-פוהרער היטטשינס

שני תאַומים בביטניך - די אײן אײנציגע רעזולטאַט װאָס אַן אינטעללעקטואַליסט קען אַרױסנעהמען פֿון דעם איז דער חורבן נורא װאס קומט פאָר װען שמאָלער מוחות הײבן אָהן צו פֿירען טיש

Mr. Boteach has to pick his fights, simple as that. Hitchens is a primitive populist and his arguments are by good margin straw men and otherwise pre-structured fallacies; fighting him on his tilted ground is a losing proposition. Ever more so when you have no academic background of any sorts and you're used to explaining things using your fingers with the usual methods of tzwei pritopes - drei prichlopes. Frankly, intellectually dishonest academics are a hallmark of our age, give or take hundred years, and it makes the horizon look ever so dull and hopeless. Even a true luminary such as Bertrand Russell was an dishonest man when it came to giving credit to the "Old Testament", as is well known to those who read his biography. But Bertrand Russell left a scientific legacy worth pondering, which is not the case with today's gentlemen of Hitchensian or even Allan Nadler's "circle". Such are the fruits of elitist commercialized education, the epitome of hypocrisy.

כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם

איתא גמרא אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי חנינא: כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם וכו. מפרשים מקשים כל כך למה ועוד , הנה זה זמן רב אמרים דברים בשם אומרם ועדין לא בא. תוכל לומר שהדבר הנאמר הוא משתייך לאומרו בשרשו ; דבר חידוש או התרת הספיקות כאשר הביא הדבר בעולם דא הוה גאולת נשמתו בפרטית ותוכן פדות נפשו של בעל המאמר קשורה בענינים האלה שחידש . והיפך הענין , כשאומרים דברים שלא בשם אומרם אז מפרידים הגאולה מין הנגאל ח"ו , ויכול שמקלקלים הדבר בעניננו. והיפך השני הוא שאומרים "בשם אומרו" דברים שלא אומרם באופן הזה או לא אומרם כלל וכלל ; וכשתולים בוקי סרוקי באילנא רברבא ודאי הוא שלא מקרבים את הקץ הימין . וגם ידוע שאצל רוב עיקר התקון הוא שלא לפגום וכשלא יפגום כל כך, ממילא יתוקן .

ואם ההפיכים לעיל הם אינם בכלל מביאים גאולה ח'ו , ומדה טובה מרובה וכו' , הנה ברור שזה שלא פגם בהפרידו המאמר משם אומרו ויכול שגם תיקן ; קען זײן דאס האָט גי גמראַ געמײנט ? והוא רחום וגו

What that means is that when you cites sources, be sure to cite them undiluted and unadulterated as you never know how deep the meaning of original thinker went.

True Litvak

אָטט אזױ האט אױסגעזעהען אן אוהר-ליטװאק, דער נצי"ב ז"ל

This is how the Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva looked like in the mid 1800's. Behold the Netziv z"l, father of Reb Chayim Berlin der Moskver Rov and R"Y of Wołożyn from 1854 to 1892 (closure of Volozhiner yeshiva is a current discussion subject at a different, nebech, blog)

Not that today's "Lithuanian" politics is of much interest to me, but there is one interesting trend - the higher one holds the "Lita" banner these days, the further is one removed from the yerusha of real Lithuanian yiddishkeyt. The noisier his "cheilom", the likelier it is that his family came from Suceava ( שאץ) or Rabbat. Not that there is anything wrong with coming from Schotz or Rabbat ...

Sefer Sanegor

R' Eliezer Tzvi Tzfeifel z"l wrote a sefer under the name "Sanegor", printed in 1885 (5645) in Warszaw. It is an interesting polemic work that deals with detractions of Talmud by the "maskilim" in five maamorim; it's particularly interesting as it comes with a full page endorsement in fluent Russian, written by one Z. Minor , the Rav Mita'am haKahal. There are also haskomos by R' Chayim Berlin z'l , given in Moscow ; by R' Shmuel Mohilever z"l, rav of Białystok; R' Yosef Chayim Kro z"l of Wlaclawek and R' Mattis Strashun z'l fun Vilno.

The sefer itself is an interesting work, but it's the endorsement in mime-lushen that should catch your attention. For now, enjoy the original while a dedicated team of volunteers will donate a translation of this verbiage that does its author justice.

עוד אחד הגיע

אינאוגוראציאננאלער פאסט

סברי מרנן

Is this what the world really wants - Yet Another Blog ? Probably not. But there is an important niche to fill, and few stepped up to the plate so far.

First of all, this forum will try to fulfill current near-vacuum and deal with making sure that the three hundred + years of Yiddishe leben and Chassidus get looked at from an honest angle. Corners of the blogosphere that talk about things past and present are, unfortunately, ran by dedicated people , עמך יידן לײדער , whose agenda varies from being downright hate speech and libel to being snide and condescending. Nothing sells as well as controversy, and when one tries to honestly defend a point of view or a historical fact, it's all too easy to step over the quivering line of "acceptable behavior" and to lower one's standards, not that they were tall to begin with.

We'll try to give an even ground to those few and far in between who hold dear the concept of Truth as the ultimate discriminant and yet don't find such contradiction between their set of beliefs and what they know to be truth to force them out of their beliefs or down the path of intellectual honesty.

Metablogging appears to be the norm these days, and sometimes addressing others' statements is an outright obligation. So rather then participate in a discussion on a hostile blog where you find yourself reading things you wish you didn't, yet you'd like to speak up - here is the place.

So without further ado, maybe this will get somewhere.

רבותי

מי ביקש זאת מידך, פרעגען זיע שױן . היות און איך קען נישט שרײַבען האָט מיר געגליסט אַן אײגען בלאָג צו מאַכען. צו װאָס דאַרף איך עס ? פשוט אונז זענען מיר געװארען זײַט די והותר מיט די מזיקים ,שין -דאַלעדס װאָס פראװען הינטער-נעצישער הױפען לױט די צוואה פון בלעם הרשע , בערבוב טוב ורע מישט מען אױס אמת מיט ליגענט, לױט די צוואה פון בלעם הרשע, בערבוב טוב אורע מישט מען אױס אמת מיט ליגענט, דברים שבקדושה מיט היפך גמור .

די אלע סענסאציעס מען האָט שױן געהערט; רעבבע פלוני איז א מנובל, רב אלמוני איז א גנב, האדיא-נאַנאַשער פֿלייש איז טרײף װײַל שוחט האָט געװױנט מיט די קוהע וכו' וכו

אין ראָמאַניש זאָגט מען אַז דער חזיר טרעפֿט זײַן בלאָטטע. די פּראָפֿעססיִאָנאַלען זענען משקיִע געװאַלדיגע כחות און מוחות אױסצופֿאָרשען ערגעץ עפּעס אַ שטיקל נבילה, אַן אַלטע לשון הרע מיט אַ נײע מוציא שם רע. אַז עס איז דא אַזאַלכע מענשען איז קײן חידוש ; זײַט יונוס וימברוס זײ פֿירען זיך אין די װעגן פֿון טאַטעס און זײדעס און אַזױ װעט זײַן ביזן יום אַחרון . משה רבינו געהאַט אַ חשבון זײַ אַרײַנצונעמען און זעהט אױס עהר האָט בעססער געװאוּסט. .

אָבער מײנט דאָס נישט אַז מען מעג שװײגען װען מען הערט א דבר חירוף פון איינעם װער שטעלט זיך פאר א ייד. און װאוּ אזױ קען מען מבטל זײן דעם כישוף מיט רשעות פון בלעם'ס חברײא װען נישט מיט א בלאט גמרא, א שטיקל תוספות ועוד ועוד הכתב והמכתב - ראה זה חדש


מײנען זיע נישט רבותי אז אונז זינד מיר ח"ו הײליגער פון עטס. נײן און נײן. איפכא מילתא אונז זינד מיר גאר א גרעססערע בעלי עבירה, און מיסתמא נאך ערגער. אבער מיר גײן נישט מתודה זײן ברבים, און איר דארפֿט אױסניצען אײַערע חוש הדמיון פֿאַרצושטעללין עד היכן דברים מגיעים

אן עקסטרע אינטערעססע האפף איך צו נעממין אין דעם זאמשטעללין א בילד פון אמאליגער הײם כפשוטו , לױט די עדות'ן פֿון יידען אשר עינם ראתה ולא זר, און װאָסערע קענען עס אױסמאהלין מיט די עכטע פֿארבן און לײגען ענינים אין דעם ריכטיגען קאָנטעקסט.

עד כאן הקפה אלף ופרטים יבאו