Sunday 31 January 2010

Seeing Policies Everywhere 9

Re: The issue of using Plastic Overlays containing Vowels and Troppe.

Notice that in both cases [for better or for worse] the iiqqar hadin is set aside for policy purposes.


From Mahpach Group,
Ari Kinsberg:

«while looking up something unrelated i came across r. wosner's original teshuvah. it is from 1989.

r. menashe klein also had a teshuvah on the matter from 1990/.see below for both

shabbat shalom-ari kinsberg

R Wosner:

שו"ת שבט הלוי חלק ח סימן כטב"ה, יום ג' אמור תשמ"ט לפ"קכבוד ידידינו היקר הרב המפואר כש"ת מוה"ר יצחק פלדמן שליט"א אחדשה"ט וש"ת. יקרתו קבלתי ואשר שאל אודות ביה"מ שלכם שאין בעל קורא בשבת וחשבתם עצה שיש להניח פלסטיק על יריעות ס"ת וכותבים עליו הטעמים והנקודות ואותיות ס"ת רואים דרך הפלאסטיק ובשבת בשעת קרה"ת מניחים הפלאסטיק על הס"ת ובדרך זה כ"א שיודע קצת טעמים יכול לקרות בנקל. ובתשובת הדבר אומר דאעפ"י דמעיקר הדין הדבר נוטה להיתר היות שרואים צורת אותיות הס"ת דרך פלסטיק השקוף, והטעמים והנקודות אינם כתובים על הס"ת עצמו אלא על הפלסטיק, ועיין יו"ד סו"ס רע"ד, ועיין בתשובת שבט הלוי ח"ג סי' קמ"ו דמש"כ שם להחמיר לכתחילה בדין ס"ת המנוקד ע"י חקיקה בקלף שלא בדיו כלל לא שייך כאן כמובן. מ"מ אין דעתי נוחה להנהיג חדשות לקרא דרך הפסק פלסטיק או זכוכית הגם אם נדון שבמקום שצריך ראי' יהי' זה נדון כראי' גמורה ואכ"מ בזה, ואין זה דומה לבעל קורא שאינו יכול לקרות רק דרך משקפים שלו. ואל לנו להתחכם נגד המבואר בשו"ע או"ח סי' קמ"ב ס"ב דישוב שאין מי שיודע לקרות בתורה כהלכתה בדקדוק וטעמים אפ"ה יקראו בתורה כהלכתה, מ"מ יותר טוב שמי שהוא ילחוש לקורא הטעמים מתוך חומש בלחש דאם יודע להבין מתוך הפלסטיק ק"ו שיבין מתוך החומש. והרני דו"ש בברכה מרובה, מצפה לרחמי ה'

R Klein:
שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק יא סימן רמב להניח פלאסטיק מנוקד על הס"ת ולקרות כך עש"ק לסדר ויקרא התש"נ בנ"י יצו"א. בחודש אשר בו ישועות מקיפות, ישלח לנו גואל צדק בדחיפות, ויגאלנו גאולת עולם, ובתוכם ידי"נ הרה"ג וו"ח נו"נ כש"ת מוה"ר אהרן מאיר קרויס שליט"א מ' אב"ד מלבורן. רב בב"פ. מח"ס זכרון יהושע. אחדשכ"ת בידידות. מכתבו קבלתי וגם המצורף והיות כי הייתי בארצינו הקדושה לקיים מצות ובנה ירושלים עיה"ק ואך חזרתי הביתה לא יכולתי להשיב בלתי היום. ובדבר אשר נשאל מהרב יצחק פעלדמאן מבערכעם בעלגיע בביה"מ שאין להם בעל קורא מצוי בימי הקיץ ויש עצה לכתוב הטעמים ולנקד נקודות על פלאסטיק (בלע"ז) ולהניח הפלאסטיק על היריעות וממילא יהיה קל לקרות אפי' למי שאינו בעל קורא אי שפיר דמי. ולפענ"ד יש לעיין אי זה בכלל איסור של נקודות ולכאורה אין בזה איסור משום ס"ת מנוקד אלא שיש לחוש שהעולה יחשוד שזה ס"ת מנוקד שהרי לא יבחין שזה על הפלאסטיק וא"כ עכ"פ משום חשדא יהא אסור או שאפשר דאנן לא גזרינן גזירות משום חשדא אטו שיכתבו טעמים, ומשום הפלאסטיק שקורא ולא מן הכתב יש לעיין בזה אי זה מקרי בע"פ ולכאורה לא גרע מבעל קורא שיש לו בתי עינים (בריללען בלע"ז) שג"כ מפסיק בין הכתב ובין העין וכנראה דלא בעי לראות דוקא בעין פקיחא בלי הפסק רק כל שיראה הכתב כשר, וקצת ראיה מנפל שעוה על האות שאם כיסה האות לגמרי ואינו ניכר אסור לקרות בס"ת ומיהו מותר לגרור השעוה וחזר ונתכשר ולא הוה חק תוכות עיין מג"א ופר"ח ובאה"ט א"ח סי' ל"ב סי"ז ואם השעוה צלולה ונראה האות מתוכו אם הוא בחול יגרור ואח"כ יקרא ואם הוא בשבת שאינו יכול לגרור כיון שהאות נראה מתוכו יקרא כך וכשר ויצא ידי קריאה עיין ביאור הלכה א"ח סי' ל"ב סי"ז הנ"ל. וא"כ לכאורה הכ"נ כיון שנראה הכתב ע"י הפלאסטיק יהיה כשר לקראת בו מעיקר דינא עכ"פ. האמנם להלכה לפענ"ד אין לעשות דבר כזה אלא יקרא מי שהוא ויעמודשו"ת משנה הלכות חלק יא סימן רמב אחד לנגדו בחומש ויקרא לפני הקורא בלחש שלא ישמעו כל העם רק הקורא והוא יקרא אחריו כמבואר בש"ע א"ח סי' קמ"ב ס"ב בישוב שאין מי שיודע לקרות בתורה בדקדוק ובטעמים יקראו בתורה בברכה כהלכתה וכתבו הלבוש וש"פ דאם יש מי שיודע עכ"פ לקרות הטעמים מתוך החומש יקרא זה מתוך החומש לפני האיש הקורא בס"ת להורות הדרך בנקודות וטעמים וכיון שכבר מבואר בש"ע כיצד יעשו בכה"ג כן יש לנהוג ואין לשנות כלל. דושה"ט וכאש"ל בלב ונפש, מנשה הקטן

KT
RRW

Saturday 30 January 2010

Seeing Policies Everywhere 8

Why do we use Kosher Dish Soap?

Dish Soap is not edible, it is nifsal mei'achilah, so why does it need to be made with Kosher Ingredients?

Is this a mere Humra b'alma or a serious Policy Matter that requires by Policy - not mei-iqqar hadin - to use only "kosher soap"?

KT
RRW

Friday 29 January 2010

When Arguing Without Respect

More on the ad hominem arguer

Most of Talmud is arguing one's point of view and for the most part is a respectful debate


Yet there are those that want to argue disrespectfully so and so they attack the person with ad hominems instead of attacking the argument

------------------------

Let's play tennis. Two opponents compete with rackets, a ball, a net, and a court. The better hitter wins by simply outplaying his opponent within the rules. This is the usual Talmudic discourse

Now take an "ad hominem" arguer, a person who undermines his opponent and not his opponent's points of view.

It's like a tennis player who brings a shotgun instead of a racket and blows his opponent away instead of merely hitting the ball better!

This character assassin is the verbal equivalent of a tennis player who uses a shotgun instead of a racket. His interest in winning is not via debating points, but by "destroying" his opponent

When will we stop putting up with this?

KT
RRW

Results of Poll on: Who To Marry?

In our last poll, we inquired:

POLL: To Marry a Jew or a Non-Jew?


A man comes to you and informs you that he is going to marry one of two woman. One of the woman is a non-Jew. The other is Jewish but the man has no intention of observing the laws of Taharat Hamishpacha.

Without considering any other issue, would you advice the man to marry the non-Jew or to marry the Jew even though he will consistently have relations with a niddah?

What would you advice?

A) Marry the non-Jew

B) Marry the Jew

C) Not venture an opinion

D) Advice not to marry either, even though he won't
listen


Your Responses (Total 12):

Option A - 50% (6)
Option B - 42% (5)
Option C - 08% (1)
Option D - 00% (0)


Comments

Rabbi Hecht:
I was told that a famous gadol of the previous generation once used this question to illustrate the distinction between a "big talmid chacham" and a gadol.
He said that the former would clearly choose Option A for, in terms of severity of the specific aveira, sleeping with a nidda is much worse than sleeping with a non-Jewish woman. Relations with a nidda
h is an offence punishable by koreit but, in the case of sleeping with a non-Jewish woman, while there are disagreements on the exact nature of the prohibition -- even whether d'oraitha or d'rabbanan, an asei or lo ta'asei -- no one describes it in that severe category. (We are not discussing the case of public sexual relations with an idolatrous woman for which the principle of kanaim pogin bo applies.)
A gadol, he continued, would, though, choose Option B. This is a case for policy considerations and, in this regard, promoting a marriage between two Jews versus an intermarriage clearly has priority. In the case of two Jews marrying, there is a chance for a second generation that would be able to enter the kanfei haShechina as well as a greater chance for teshuva in regard to the couple itself.
Years later, though, upon relaying this question to someone else, before I could present the above answer, this person interrupted me and told me that he knew of another gadol who faced this exact question and advised the person to continue living with the non-Jew. It would seem he would choose Option A. So maybe the lack of a clear result to our poll has some validity.
In regard to this last story, though, as I further investigated the facts I found them to be somewhat different than the straightforward case posed in the question of the first gadol and could understand that the policy considerations voiced by this gadol would be inapplicable in the latter case. Basically, in conclusion, I would have to say that I would also choose Option B.



Thursday 28 January 2010

As We Drift into the next Dark Ages

Maybe the "world" isn't coming to its end in 2012, but any sense of enlightenment is disappearing fast.

Being rigid, dogmatic, and free of self-reflection is no longer the monopoly of a few extreme Hareidim

In the Jewish world, various fundamentalist sects and cults are making a comeback. Some even appeal to people to be "reasonable" as they eagerly close the minds of their recruits and toast them a l'chayyim with "kool-aid".

Recently R Zvi Hersch Weinreb came to Teaneck and discussed the concept of "zeitgeist" and so it is. The times produces a spirit, a mood, a prevailing

Islamo-Fascism has hijacked the Moslem World, Bible-thumping charismatic preachers have overshadowed their reasonable colleagues, and Europe is giving up on Liberal Xtianity altogether.

It's no surprise I guess that Jewish groups are following suit. "Where has all the Philosophy Gone" lamented Rabbi B. Hecht! (See http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-14.htm)

It's gone into hibernation until the next cycle of enlightenment arrives or when the Moshiach saves us again from our latest folly

Lamentably Yours,
RRW

A Rational View of the Mishneh Torah

I find it ironic that so-called "rationalists" take the Rambam's Mishneh Torah as absolutely Divine Perfection, as the epitome of ultimate Emet, as the iconic Word of the Almighty.

These Rationalists have a completely irrational reverence for the Rambam's Magnum Opus. They eschew mysticism, but mystically revere Rambam! Go figure.

The Migdal Oz was an early apologist for the MT and - the joke in yeshiva went as follows.:

"What is the source for this Halachah?"

Migdal Oz: "right here - the Rambam himself says so!". ;-)

Makes it kind of hard to belittle EG Papal infallibility when we Jews ourselves assign it to Rishon - even if arguably the single greatest Rishon!

Shloymie:
«Rabbi Wolpoe! You yourself learn tons of Rambam! You teach it. You've covered all of Sefer HaMitzvos, a bit of hs mishnayos, a lot of Mishneh Torah and a chunk of Moreh N'vuchim. So what's your beef with the Rambam!?»

Good question, and I have no beef with the Rambam per se, a few quibbles here and there - EG I don't buy Rambam's take against standing for asseret hadibrot - but overall I have no major issues with the Rambam.

My Beef really is with those who have made the Rambam into a Hassidic Rebbe or a quasi-Messianic hero.

Shloymie:
«NU! So what ARE you saying is a rational way to perceive the Rambam?!»

Take the Maharam MiRothenburg's approach. He immediately perceived the genius of the Rambam's organization and the clarity of his teachings as superior to virtually any other work out there And he reverently requested his Talmid to author "hagahot Maimoniyyot" to bring the Mishneh Torah in line with Ashk'nazic M'sorah.

Shloymie:
«So what?!»

Maharam was making a balanced rational and respectful statement:

1 That Mishneh Torah was a superior document to most. And would make an excellent limmud.

2 it was NOT perfected as is, but needed balancing with a "binocular" perspective. Thus came the Hagahot to help perfect the tome.

Shloymie:
«So practically speaking what are you suggesting?»

Learn a lot of Mishenh Torah - IOW Kabdeihu

But
Also learn MT with a Peirush - IOW Hashdeihu

Sholymie:
« For example?»

The best modern ones I've seen are Rambam La'am and the Moznayyim-Touger editions. Also R. Chavel on Sefer Hamitzvot.

Shloymie:
«What about R. Y Kafih's edition of MT?»

Good point. I'm simply not familiar with it enough to comment. It's expensive and hard to get, but indeed may prove worthwhile.

_________________

At any rate the Tur himself did recitfy some of the one-way- only approach of the Rambam by quoting Rishonic disputes, and giving a more expansive Point of View [POV] to Halachic complexity.

But for learning simple principles, the Mishneh Torah cannot be beat. But a good peirush makes a good reality check

I hope this helps

RRW

Emor m'at v'Aseih Harbeih - A tribute to my Dad OBM

This was originally drafted on 3 November, 2009 my Dad's 100th Birthday on the secular calendar.


As I've been reflecting upon my Dad's Menschlichkeit, I recall several of his favorite sayings and cliches. In his own silent, stoic way, he suffered the abuses of some. Yet when questioned he would most often change the subject. Why? He may have never heard of Sefer Shmiras Halashon, nor of its author R Israel Meir HaCohen, nevertheless he used to pithily say:


"If you have nothing good to say about a man, then say nothing at all."

What words of wisdom - and compassion. Why compound a situation by speaking ill of people?

It would be misleading to say my Dad OBM never complained about anyone. My Dad was a great Mensch but not a perfect Saint! But in reflecting how little he complained, and also how briefly he complained on those occasions, I am in awe of how little he paid back those who made his life difficult.



Here is a quote:

from the poet Thomas Carlyle, who translated the phrase from German in Sartor Resartus, 1831:
Speech too is great, but not the greatest. As the Swiss Inscription says: Sprecfien ist silbern, Schweigen ist golden - Speech is silver, Silence is golden

Words to ponder
Words to live by.


KT
RRW

Wednesday 27 January 2010

Parshat Hamon - for Parnassa

As a public sevrice
Yerushalmi: One who recites Parshas Hamon every day is assured that his food will not be lacking.

Click the link below for the complete text of Parshas Hamon:

Please keep in mind the Parnassah of victims such as those in the Haiti calamity.

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 7

A S'phardic Rav and I were discussing Post-Talmudic practices.

He mentioned to me that the idea of separate pots for meat and dairy is a later policy and is not rooted in Talmudic Law. IOW a poor family could continually kasher a pot back and forth , or for S'phardim rely on Na"t bar Na"T to use a day old pot l'chatchilah.

I'm not sure of the precise logistics re: using a day old pot.

He also said that since glass does not absorbed it is inherently Pareve and could "swing both ways" [my words NOT his]

Thus it appears that "separate dishes" is not an absolute Halachic requirement but a Policy

Note: I prefaced our discussion with a general observation that about 80% of what we do is Post-Talmudic. Of course this was "guzma" because I never actually went through everything we do, but things like Qaddish, the nusach hat'fillah etc. [Not the foundational principles] really coalesced in Gaonic times.

KT
RRW

Sources on Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh

With permission of
R Daniel Eidensohn
yadmoshe@012.net.I'll

This was a response to a query re: are there sources crediting Hazzal with Ruach Haqodesh?

I find the breadth of sources amazing.

KT
RRW


Leshem(2:4:19): The critical point is that every Jew is obligated to belief with perfect faith that all which is found in the words of our Sages – both in halacha, Talmudic agada and medrashim – are in their entirety the words of the living G-d. That is because everything that they say is with ruach hakodesh (Sanhedrin 48b). This includes even that which isn't relevant to halacha and deed…Also all their decrees and statutes are not the product of human intellect at all but rather are the result of ruach hakodesh in which G-d has expressed Himself through them. This is the great sound that doesn't end (Devarim 5:19) of the giving of the Torah at Sinai and it expresses itself in the Oral Torah…. Thus the Sages are just like messengers in what they say…. This is why the Bal Halachos Gedolos includes the Rabbinic mitzvos with the Torah mitzvos since all of them were given by G-d (Chagiga 3b)…We can conclude from all this that anyone who tries to analyze the words of the Sages in order to establish the nature of their truth places himself in great danger. That is because man's intellect can not properly comprehend this matter and thus a person can come to heresy from the endeavor. This is what Koheles(7:16) states: Don't make yourself too wise - why destroy yourself? A person who gets involved in this matter will find it very difficult to resist following his human understanding. He will end up going back and forth between the view of the Torah and that of his own understanding…. The righteous person lives by his faith because that is the foundation of the entire Torah….


Bava Basra (12a): R. Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise. Is then a wise man not also a prophet?12 — What he meant was this: Although it has been taken from the prophets, it has not been taken from the wise. Amemar said: A wise man is even superior to a prophet, as it says, And a prophet has a heart of wisdom.13 Who is compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater?14 Abaye said: The proof [that prophecy has not been taken from the wise] is that a great man makes a statement, and the same is then reported in the name of another great man.15 Said Raba: What is there strange in this? Perhaps both were born under one star.16 No, said Raba; the proof is this, that a great man makes a statement and then the same is reported in the name of R. Akiba b. Joseph.1 Said R. Ashi: What is there strange in this? perhaps in this matter he was born under the same star. No, said R. Ashi; the proof is that a great man makes a statement and then it is found that the same rule was a halachah communicated to Moses at Mount Sinai. But perhaps the wise man was no better than a blind man groping his way through a window?2 — And does he not give reasons [for his opinions]?3
See Ramban and Chasam Sofer on this gemora
Chazon Ish's Letters (1:15):It is at the roots of our faith that all that is said in the gemora whether it is in the Mishna or gemora whether it is halacha or agada—all these things were revealed to us through the medium of prophetic power
Chazaon Ish's Letter (2:24): The truth is that the generation after the Mishna witnessed a decline in stature relative to the Tannaim. The new generation knew for certain that the truth was always with the Tannaim. Once they knew the truth of the matter that it was impossible for them to comprehend something that had not been understood by one of the Tannaim—it was no longer possible to disagree directly with the Tannaim on their own authority. Therefore, they only taught what they understood to be the teachings of the Tannaim. Similarly with the close of the Talmud, the words of an amora—who was unaware of the teaching on that matter of a tanna—were not null. The only exception being Rav who because of his greatness his words were not null. All their conclusions were reached with Divine guidance and ruach hakodesh which manifested itself.

Sanhedrin (11a):With the death of the last prophets—Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi—ruach hakodesh left the Jews. Nevertheless, they still were able to utilize Bas Kol
Chasam Sofer (1:208):
Meshech Chochma (Vayikra 26:44):

Redefining RSR Hirsch's Approach to Judaism

I guess I am a bit of a contrarian, so bear with me. RSR Hirsch self-defined his life's work in terms of "Torah Im Derech Eretz" [aka TIDE]. This is founded on the immortal principles to be found in Avot 2:1 "yafeh Talmud Torah I'm Derech Eretz..."

Without taking away from R. Hirsch's own self-concept - I actually relate to Hirschian Judaism slightly differently. I would call it:
• Torah With Class
Or
• Orthodoxy with Class

To me Hirschian Judaism is about a "classy" approach to Torah and life. The best icons for me were Rabbis like the late Leo Jung and Isaac Swift who just exuded class. Rabbi Burak in Toronto also comes to mind, as do several others.

Now where would I find the foundation, the Y'sod for THIS revisionistic definition of Hirschian Judaism? Well B"H it's right there in the previous Mishnah! In Avot 2:1
Rebbe says,
"eizohee ..
Kol shehee Tiferet."

Let's translate Tiferet as Class instead of glory:

Rabbi said:
"Which is the proper path that a person should choose...? Whatever is classy for him and earns "classiness" from his fellows...

To me practicing Hirschian Judaism is practicing "classy" Judaism. Tiferet Judaism.

So add to the above list

Torah Im Tiferet.

KT
RRW

So you think you know where your Nusach comes from?

For the REAL history of our Nusach listen to this speech from Rav Binyamin Hambruger
http://www.yiwb.org/Rabbi%20Hamburger.mp3
--
Kol Tuv Best Regards,
RRW
NishmaRRW@gmail.com

Tuesday 26 January 2010

My Taste in Davening

One of my greatest Joy's at my old Shul, Cong. Ohav Sholaum - and at Breuer's as well - was the tremendous repertoire of music during the davening. Whether singing in the choir, or merely listening to it, I found the music positively inspiring

I remember way back in my NCSY days when we'd sometimes have davening where we would sing every song along the way. EG during p'suqei d'zimra we'd sing romemu, ivdu, malchutcha etc. Along the way. It was mostly fun and entertaining but more than that, it broke up the sheer monotony of reciting a gazillion lines of dry davening.

Some people have wondered a bit re: my attendance at the Teaneck Carlebach Minyan, my motivation is similar. To have a transformational davening to me - means having lots of music and ruach along the way. I happen to enjoy R Shlomoh's compositions a lot, but no more than Lewandowski or other great Jewish composers. [Probably David Nowakowsky is my favourite!]

At any rate, the iqqar for me is the musicality, the ruach, and the appropriate joy. along with that is congregational participation.

In the German tradition, much/most of the music - and even much recitation - was responsive in nature. [Think EG of sheer hakkavod or Yigdal] it made for a very stimulating davening. Much of the long YK piyyutim were responsive readings with a slight melody. It helped to undo the tedium.

For me, A well- arranged 3-hour davening makes time go by faster than a 90 minute dry one for me.

Even Qeenot on the 9th of Av at Breuer's is replete with special tunes for almost every Qinah. Every pizmon in s'lichot has a special tune of its own, too.

KT
RRW

Monday 25 January 2010

Jewish Tribune: Homosexuality and Orthodox Judaism

Originally published 1/25/10, 11:40 pm. Link no longer works.
The following is a link to my latest Tribune article:

Hollywood and Sinai: Inglourious B*sterds

Read the latest installment of
The Corner of Hollywood and Sinai
on the movie
Inglourious B*sterds

at the Nishma website
www.nishma.org


Seeing Policies Everywhere 6

Tearing Q'RIAH during Chol Hamoed

Sources:
SA 547:6
Beer Hagolah 8
Rema. There
Ba'er Hetev 4
Shaarei T'shuvah 4
Mishnah Brurah 16,17


Mechabeir:
Restricts Q'riah somewhat during Chhm Based upon mishna in Elu m'galchin

Viz.
ONLY relatives over whom one must mourn, plus Hacham, Adam Kasher....

Rema:
Bnei Ashk'naz [IE "Yekkes"] only tear for parents on Chol hamoed..

MB 15 Concludes: following Rema
"Where there is no clear minhag we tear on behalf of all of them [IE the ones enumerated by the m'chabeir] because that is the "Iqqar Hadin"

Implying where there IS a clear Minhag to the contrary that Minhag DOES Override "Iqqar Hadin" - [at least in this matter and probably for all laws of Aveilut]

We cannot CHOOSE this Minhag, however. The default IS indeed "iqqar hadin". We must acquire the minhag as a bona fide b'nei Ashk'naz [or another place with this Minhag]

How that happens is a subject for a future post BEH.

KT
RRW

Proposed New Sefer on Business Ethics

Given:
The Sefer Shmirat Halashon is IMHO one of the best organized s'farim in being "m'rakeiz" Talmud-Midrash-Zohar etc. On a single topic. I find this a definitive paradigm for combining machshavah on a single subject or group of related subjects.

How about a Sefer on issues of Business Ethics along the same lines? Combining statements about being honest - even to an eino-Y'hudi - and respect for property etc.? Prohibitions of g'neivas da'as, etc. Certainly the time has come for all of us to be more honest and introspective in our business dealings. A good book with ma'marei Hazal on the topic might inspire just such behaviour

KT

RRW

Thursday 21 January 2010

Taryag: Evolutionary or Revolutionary?

I gave several talks on this subject over the years on Shavuot
Night. This is also apropos for Parshat Yitro

How did Taryag Come about?


Briefly:
I see this as a machloqet between Rashi and Rambam re: the last Mishnah in Gid Hanasheh

According to Rashi aiui, Mitzvot accumulated up through Sinai - which was a "makkeh bepatish" to what was already evolving into Torah.

As per Rambam - Sinai was a clean-break from the past, and any pre-Sinai "proto-Torah" was erased and our Torah was established anew in toto in one fell swoop.

What forced the Rambam's Hand? I feel the Rambam was forced to take this position because any Torah NOT given via Moshe Rabbeinu was inherently revisable - EG mitzvot given to Avraham or Yaaqov COULD be trumped by a greater navi - which is unthinkable to the Rambam. [See the Rambam's dogmatic take on "Lo qam k'Moshe"]

OTOH Rashi was not so concerned - and you might also say that Moshe's confirmation @ Sinai removed that concern anyway.

------------------------

This dovetails with the "split" between Ashk'nazic approach to Halachah and the Andalusian-Sephardic approach

Ashk'naz - Torah is treated like "common law" and is based upon precedent, etc.
Batrai extends beyond Rav Ashi. L'mashal In USA constitutional law includes court rulings, NOT just the document and its amendments. And so
Minhag Counts
A lot like "oqeir harim"


Rambam holds Torah is legislated
First @ Sinai
Then later by Bd Hagadol in Yerushalayim [see MT hilchot Mamrim 1:1
Then Hasimat Hatalmud
Rav Ashi is final batrai.
Etc. [See haqdamah to MT and to Mishnayyot]

Rambam's Gestalt is Top-down. Authoritarian.
More Sinai like

EG You don't see a lot of "yeish omrims" in Mishnah Torah, because there is ONE way [or the highway! :-)]

The Shulchan Aruch OTOH drew from both schools, and that's where I often quibble because this eclectic method leaves a murky legacy at times about brachot etc. Sometimes SA waxes Maimonidean, [EG opposing Hanotein laya'eif ko'ach] at others Tosafistic [EG advocating L'hadlliq ner shel hanukkah in shul.]

. The Rema's virtual "rebbe" on Talmud was AFAIK the Mordechai, who did use the Rif as his core but was not exposed to Spanish rigidities..

These 2 schools play out even early in Jewish Halachic history, EG BS vs. BH
R Yihsma'el vs. R Aqiva, etc.

And might even go back even earlier.

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 5

The policy here is re: Kashrut "Kol d'efshar levarurei - m'varinan"

IOW we verify as much as possible and rely upon Rov and Hazaqah only as a fallback position.


RRW: See Rema YD 1 "Kol d'efshar levarurei m'varinan"

R Akiva Miller:
«Whatever we *can* clarify, we *do* clarify. (That Rema is not talking about food ingredients, but about who is qualified to be a shochet. Still, it's a great sound bite.)»

RRW:
It's more than a sound-bite if Posqim consider this a fundamental principle in issur v'heter.
Especially if they are applying it as an "unconscious" axiom.

------------------------

"Et hatai ani mazkir"

I always pooh-poohed learning Hilchot Sh'chitah as a [relative] waste of time for most rabbinical students. [Especially when NOT learning Hilchot Treifot with it.]


Many rabbanim insisted that Hilchot Sh'chitah teaches the student fundamental elements of p'saq

B"H I have become enlightened [the hard way] and I see that a number of POLICIES are embedded in Hilchot Sh'chita.

EG Talmudic Halachah requires no "S'micha" or "Qabbalah" for Sh'chitah, but Ashkenazic practice DOES!

It is simple to see how that gets extended to formal hashgachah for many areas of Kashrut. This is especially true today - when chemicals have made the industry highly sophisticated.

KT
RRW

Tuesday 19 January 2010

Seeing Policies Everywhere 4

See SA O"Ch 141:6
MB 18

Re: calling 2 Brothers in a row

Halachah permits
BUT
Due to ayin hara we don't do it "ein manichim"

[Note this is the SAME terminology re: women and sh'chita in Rema YD 1:1 IE "ein manichim"

So when it's halachically permitted
But still "ein manichim"
That's POLICY

KT

RRW

Monday 18 January 2010

On the Communal Nature of Mitzvot

It is obvious that the 613 is not applicable to the individual - it is only via society. "A societal endeavour to fulfill Taryag Mitzvot"

And so - How can an individual be accredited with ALL Mitzvot? See Ben Ish Chai Vo'eira year one, the 248 [R'MaCh] positive commandments may be fulfilled WHEN the individual commits to "ahavah bein yisroel" [Ahavah being the Hebrew cognate of the Aramaic Racheim]

Thus the 248 are fullfilled by each individual by means of their mutual love. See further how "l'machar = l'racheim" and how that brings about "p'dut"

May our Ahavat Yisra'el bring the ultimate p'dut Bimheira B'yameinu

RRW

Wednesday 13 January 2010

18. Acquiring a Scroll of Law

 -->
I was troubled by the recent Yeshiva University panel on homosexuality in Orthodoxy, but only as a symptom of (what seems to me to be) a much larger problem, only as I would be similarly troubled by a panel of the same format discussing Zionism or the Role of Art in Orthodoxy or any other such topic facing religious Judaism today. The venue was important politically, socially, and, I would say, morally. For a Torah-absent world, this was, perhaps, an important panel. But for a world that traces its lineage back to Revelation, this kind of panel concerns me.
When we reflect on the experience at Sinai, we envision a moving, inspirational occurrence. And this may very well be an accurate depiction of what happened there. But the essence of the experience is the transmission of Truth. Can the giving of the Torah be accomplished in a manner that does not make the heart race? Perhaps not. But when we study the giving of the Torah at Sinai, we are particularly attuned to the veracity of the gift, not its believability.
In a Torah World, there is an objective, attainable Truth. Though the modern scientist may be the greatest historical advocate of an atheistic conception of the universe, he is also one of my closest ideological relatives, far closer, in many respects, than the average spiritualist, politician or, truthfully, common theist. Because the scientist responds to reality with the overarching hypothesis that this existence is ours to comprehend systematically. That is, the scientist seeks quantifiable, verifiable, universally communicable answers. The manner in which a scientific discovery is presented will have no bearing on its eventual acceptance (at least among other scientists) as real or false: even the driest, dullest presentation of the roundness of the Earth will not make the world flat.
But political leaders will often rise or fall on the basis of their skills as an orator. So, too, the illusionist, the magician, the psychic, the preacher, or the activist. When I heard that George Clooney had arranged an MTV telethon for Haiti, I thought it was good and necessary. But, I hope, not for Orthodox Jews. What is my halachic role in this world tragedy? The factors that go into answering this question are complex and extensive. But my obligation probably does not hinge on George Clooney’s (or the cast of Twilight’s) ability to rouse my emotions.
This is not to say that my emotional response is irrelevant in halachic decision-making. Certainly the broad scope of viable charities today presents me with choices when fulfilling my tzedakah obligations. On a larger scale, my choice of community, shul and/or rabbi must predate ‘blind’ faith. The role of the individual in Halacha is essential. But personal choices should be propelled by the same fuel that is expected to fuel general halachic analysis: the pursuit of Truth.
While we do not really understand what the pursuit of Truth entails, we can accept that there is no Truth without honesty. To be honest, though, means more than simply expressing facts. It means that all agendas are abandoned for the only agenda that should matter to us, the Truth-driven agenda.
Was there a Truth-driven agenda behind the homosexuality panel? To a certain extent, I believe there was. But it is also obvious that the purpose of the panel was not merely to inform the public of a certain plight in modern Orthodoxy—it was also to increase sympathy and to convince the public that this issue requires more attention. Had the panellists admitted beforehand that they were going to speak about how homosexuality was a minor issue that did not deserve anybody’s attention (which is, obviously, not what they said), would they have been included on the panel?
George Clooney will not ask someone to speak on his telethon who will say that Haiti is not where we should be sending our money right now. Not because such an opinion is evil or unfounded, but because it acts counter to his agenda. I don’t know if this is a problem in a world that does not believe in an accessible, objective Truth. Since I believe that I am working my way towards something outside of myself, though, I do not want to be stirred towards sympathy, neither for Haiti nor for homosexuals (or Zionists or Jewish artists, et cetera), because such tactics distract me from the external and blur my focus.
But I don’t think we should be critical of the people who put together this panel. What else could they do? This is the environment in which they find themselves. Somewhere along the way, the Orthodox world became susceptible to persuasion. And not only susceptible to it but, apparently, endorsing it. I don’t know where it originated or how far back it goes. I know that the ba’al teshuva movement seems like an easy target: how can an NCSY advisor tell a sixteen year-old boy that his personal desire to be religious is significant and then tell him that, now that he is religious, his personal emotional responses should be secondary to his attempt at an objective assessment of reality? If we tell the non-religious person that his/her spiritual/emotional/psychological/philosophical impulse to enter the door into religion should be heeded, how can we tell the religious person that his/her similar impulse to exit that door should be dismissed?
But, most likely, the ba’al teshuva movement is a response to this reality, not the originator of it. On a global plane, the same can be said of the advertising industry: did infomercials create the 3am shopper or did the 3am shopper demand infomercials?
If teenagers are asking for spiritual satisfaction, isn’t it necessary for Judaism to have an answer for them? (Is it better that they look elsewhere?) If Jews are ignoring the tragedy in Haiti, doesn’t somebody (be it George Clooney or the local JCC) need to compel us towards, at least, awareness? If homosexuality is being compared to bestiality in an Orthodox yeshiva, don’t we need to present the depth and weight of the homosexual struggle?
Yes, of course we do.
The problem cannot be seen to be simply that a panel of this nature was held in an Orthodox environment. The much bigger problem is: why did anybody care? You’re telling me that the frum-from-birth Talmud-scholar with homosexual desires deserves a great amount of sympathy? This is supposed to be newsworthy?
I do not want George Clooney to tell me what to feel. I want to be presented with the facts and I would like to be able to trust myself to respond with emotional sincerity. Unfortunately, when I invite persuasion, I weaken my ability to accurately accomplish this task. Try, for example, watching a sad movie on mute (with subtitles)—without the soundtrack, you are less likely to cry. I think it was Woody Allen who said that with the invention of the laugh-track, television writers didn’t have to be funny anymore.
If we believe that a Torah World inherently includes accessible Truth, then we cannot accept an agenda driven by anything other than Truth. That means we have to fight against our subservience to persuasion. But before we can do that, we need to reintegrate the cerebral and the empathetic. It is not acceptable that a yeshiva student lacks the inherent ability to empathise with his homosexual chavruta. This sensitivity should emerge concurrently with the Halachic investigation. Until this happens, the Halachic world will continue to ask for emotional psak—“Rabbi, how should I feel about the homosexual?”—and will continue to be susceptible to emotional persuasion. We will move further and further from Truth as we lose our ability to be honest, and, though we will provide assistance to Haiti and spiritually curious Jews will gravitate towards Orthodoxy and, yes, the homosexual will be treated better by the halachic world, what will any of it have to do with Torah?

Know How to Answer the Heretic

We are inherently bound to our frames of reference. One of the ways to develop new insights is to consider other perspectives, even as we may disagree. I believe this is one of the ways that I have been able to develop new perspectives.

I recently wrote about this in my monthly Jewish Tribune article. See further http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/201001132493/Know-how-to-answer-the-heretic.html

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Tuesday 12 January 2010

The Challenge of Mysticism

Yossi Adler of Toronto recently sent me (along with others on his email list) the following:


See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147868969&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

“It also comes after Shas's spiritual mentor Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said in his weekly sermon on Saturday night that Shabbat desecraters are "stupid" and "worse than animals." Yosef's comments were made during a review of Shabbat laws.”

Other recent R’Yosef gems as reported by the Jeruslam Post include the following:

1. July 2009: “Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has argued that those murdered in the Holocaust were a reincarnation of sinners from past generations, Ma'ariv reported on Sunday.”
2. February 2009: “In a bid to stem defection of voters from Shas to Israel Beiteinu, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef warned on Thursday that anyone who votes for Avigdor Lieberman's party is a transgressor whose sin will never be expiated. "If someone plans on voting for a party that is in favor of assimilation, of selling pork, then his sin is too great to bear, his sin will never be forgiven," the Shas mentor said in a televised appearance without explicitly mentioning Israel Beiteinu's name.”
3. August 2007: “Officials from across the political and military spectrums slammed Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Monday for a sermon in which Yosef said troops killed in the Second Lebanon War lost their lives because of their lack of religious observance.”
4. July 2007: "Women should make hamin and not deal with matters of Torah," the spiritual leader of Shas, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, said in a speech to supporters on Saturday night.”

Obvious question: How many outrageous comments need be made by R’Yosef before we could disqualify this Rav as a gadol?


This was my response to Yossi's email:

There is a more fundamental issue here -- which explains why ROY has his following and why his acceptance by this following is actually strengthened by these type of pronouncements. This is the infiltration of mysticism into everyday Jewish life and thinking.

We live in a world of basic physical cause and effect and upon recognizing and analyzing this world, we come to certain conclusions regarding behaviour etc. Torah, from our perspective, superimposes itself upon this world -- not denying it but adding to it. As such, we do encounter statements within Torah that cannot be supported by our analysis of cause and effect but to us, this is a challenge, a problem, which leads us to accept that God has wisdom beyond our own and knows what He is doing. We, though, continue to live with questions and, for sure, do not see Torah as challenging our understanding of the world and its cause and effect -- and, as such, continue to apply this understanding in our lives. As such, these type of statements by ROY are discounted. Unless he can show that they are really some type of Halacha L'Moshe miSinai, as they are applied in an attempt to define our structures of understanding, we do not only disagree but find them challenging, problematic and embarrassing.

Yet much of the religious world does not see life this way. They understand the Torah as presenting a totally different realm of cause and effect that even challenges normative, rational understandings. In fact, they want a religion that offers a completely different way of looking at the world, a religion that says that you fell because your mezuzah was passul and not because you didn't tie your shoes properly -- in fact, chas v'shalom that you should even think that it was because you didn't tie your shoes properly. They want a world of complete mystical cause and effect, wherein nothing happens because of apparent reasons -- relying on apparent rational reasons even is wrong and reflects a lack of emunah -- but because of some realm of cause and effect that is 'hidden'. This is the extreme realm of mysticism and actually many, many people want it -- as they want to not have to deal with the normative world of cause and effect. As such they turn to religion and the religious leader, who can give reasons that apply different, mystical rules, is the desired one.

And this is what is happening here. ROY, like many Sefardim, is engulfed in the world of Kabbalah and mysticism. His theories all work from that realm and the cause and effect that it applies. And it is these rules that he applies, leading to his statements. As they totally don't make sense within the world of the rational, even of rational Torah, they seem to us weird and embarrassing. But to his followers, they are statements from someone who knows the workings of the 'real' world and the 'real' cause and effect. So while you are saying 'enough of this,' "we need challenge this man's voice," with each and every pronouncement his following actually strengthens because, almost the more outlandish the statement, the greater must be his understanding of the 'real' world and so his pronouncements, within the perception of his followers, only show that he really is a gadol.

BTW my understanding is that the GRA, who was a big mekubal as well, still maintained a connection with this world's cause and effect. IOW his mysticism did not lead him to reject his rationalism. I get this from the fact that the GRA was praised for never letting his kabbalah lead him to deviate from the words of the Shulchan Aruch. This of course cannot mean that he never acted contrary to the psak of the Rama or Mechabeir for the GRA often set his own halachic positions in contradiction with even all others. However even when he disagreed it was within the rational rules of halachic reasoning. The Kabbalah simply did not lead him to not apply rationalism first and as the direct determinant of behaviour.


What do you think? What should be the role of the olam hanistar in our everyday world?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Sunday 10 January 2010

More on Ahavat Yisrael and Lashon Hara

"Be as protective of every Jew's reputation as if he/she were our own brother or sister"

[See Chofetz Chaim Daily Companion, Day 25 pp. 50-51]


The aim of Sefer Sh'mirat Halashon is to engender "brotherly" [or sisterly] love amongst all Jews. If we succeed in acquiring this, lashon hara would only be applied in cases of danger.

For example, we would "rat" on our own brother or sister to the authorities if they were C"V abusing their own kids! Our brotherly love would be set aside in order to protect the victims. Classic To'elet.

But to say something negative w/o a tangible positive motive is verboten.
EG "I aced Professor Toughie while my brother flunked him" serves only to boost our egos via "the low road"

There indeed may be gray areas. What if a very nice "brother" is not abusing kids, but IS abusing alcohol? Do we run to our Brother's wife to tell?

In those cases I recommend consulting a Rabbi or Health-care professional FIRST. We should endeavour to make sure our motives are "pure" as can be before making "trouble".

IOW, if negative news MUST be related, it should be for non-egotistical motives and come from a "brotherly" attitude.

KT
RRW

Wednesday 6 January 2010

Rabbiner Hirsch and the Mishna Brura - A Balanced Approach

Pursuant to this previous post:

NishmaBlog: Rabbiner Hirsch and the Mishnah Brura

http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2008/02/rabbiner-hirsch-and-mishna-brura.html


Here is a "balanced" program for learning
Halachah
• Do Kitzur SA [EG 1 year cycle]
• Do Shulchan Aruch [EG 1 year cycle]
• Complete Mishnah Brurah [EG Mishnah Brurah Yomis]. I suggest using all commentaries on the page

Then one gains a well-rounded picture of all halachah and an in-depth view of Orach Hayyim

KT
RRW

Sunday 3 January 2010

Who Counts for a Minyan?

First, this halacha was sent out to its list:


"One may not count one who denies the truth of Torah Sh'baal Peh - aka The Oral Torah (and certainly one who denies The Written Torah received at Sinai via Moshe Rabbeinu) towards a minyan. [One may not count Conservative or Reform Jews towards a minyan.] Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Berurah 55:11, Piskei Tshuvos 55:21"


Then there was a "special clarification" on this sent out:


"Jews who sin out of a lack of knowledge of the mitzvos (aka 'tinok shenishba') [even if they sin in a mitzvah that the Torah prescribes the death penalty for] may nevertheless be counted towards a minyan. Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Berurah 55:11

One may not count one who denies the truth of Torah Sh'baal Peh - aka The Oral Torah (and certainly one who denies The Written Torah received at Sinai via Moshe Rabbeinu) towards a minyan. [One may not count Conservative or Reform Jews towards a minyan.] Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Berurah 55:11, Piskei Tshuvos 55:21

Clarification: Conservative or Reform Jews who believe in Conservative or Reform dogma that denies any portion of the Oral Law - Torah Sh'baal Peh, may not be counted towards a minyan. They may pray with the minyan, but are not counted towards the 10. However, Jews who consider themseleves Conservative or Reform, but do not knowingly deny the truth of The Oral Law (or any portion of it) are classified as Tinok Shenishba, and may be counted towards a minyan [bolded in the original email]."


Someone sent me the first email to ask me for my comments. I responded with a short presentation on variant viewpoints on this matter. This is clearly a situation of machloket on many different fronts. It is a most complex issue. Included in my comments, I specifically mentioned the view of Rav Moshe who makes a distinction between the Conservative/Reform laity and the Conservative/Reform rabbinate in regard to brachot.

It was thus not surprising to me that a "clarification" was sent out and that it specifically presented the distinction presented by Rav Moshe. How could one, in this age, discuss this issue without even mentioning Rav Moshe? But what really got me was that this list still presented the Halacha as monolithic. Even as it sent out one opinion and then sent out a clarification -- which really should just show that the matter was complex and there were divergent opinions on the subject -- they had to present the halacha as absolute, certain and clear -- i.e. no machloket.

It just seems that the idea of machloket within Halacha is terrifying to so many people. Let me re-phrase that: it just seems that the reality of machloket within Halacha is terrifying to so many people. What does that state about the state of Torah in our world? Do these people really believe that the only way to express Torah to the masses today is by deviating from its very truth?

Rabbi Ben Hecht

How did Rabbinic Judaism, ever get off the ground in the first place? A Story

Originally published 1/3/10, 9:01 PM.
The epitome of this blog post below:

«It's my experience that even the believers are skeptics to new concepts, gezeiros, etc.»

How true. No amount of evidence will change most people's minds once they're made up.

"Still a Jew hears what he/she wants to hear and disregards the rest" [apologies to Paul Simon]


And it's even harder to change what they do.

Enjoy this cute snippet.

KT,
RRW

How did Rabbinic Judaism ever get off the ground in the first place?

Imagine, if you will. Chaim Yankel comes home from the First Congregation Anshe Yavneh Shul around 10:30 Shabbos morning in the year 101 AD.

"Shprintze, I'm home - "
""You're so late!"
"Well," he said, "we had a new Rav in shul today, and he made us repeat the shmoneh Esrai"
"You're kidding. What for?"
"He called it Chazoras Hashatz".
"Hmmm," she says, rearranging the table.
"You can't do that," said Chaim Yankel.
"Why not?"
"That's Muktzeh!"
"What's that?"
"Err, never mind..."
She rushes to kiss him.
"Stop!"
"What's the matter?"
"You're a Niddah!"
"What?"
"You're a Niddah."
"No I'm not. I'm a Zavah."
"Not anymore you ain't. And we now have Harchakos."

"The next day, Chaim Yankel, whose kids were all married off, found himself signing up at the "Second Congregation Anshe Yavneh". The Reish Gelusah is not getting to first base with his mispalelim, no matter what kind of believers they are. It's my experience that even the believers are skeptics to new concepts, gezeiros, etc.


But! The Resh Gelusa will have success in introducing this "stuff" to the kinderlach in yeshiva. It is the kinderlach who look at the bowl of fruit and refuse to eat the strawberries. »

From:
Baal Habos:
March 2009
http://baalhabos.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html

Friday 1 January 2010

Results of Poll on: What Drives Loshon Hara?

In our last poll, we inquired:

What do you think drives Loshon Hara?

In your opinion, what is the one, most salient reason that allows for a proliferation of loshon Hara and/or rechilut?

A) the underlying low quotient of Ahavat Yisroel or Ahavta lerei'acha kamocha within our communities;

B) the underlying lack of "giving the benefit of the doubt"
[betzedeq tishpot amitecha; dan et kol ho'odom lekaf z'chut]

C) the general lack of gravity or seriousness attached to harmful speech

D) the desire to feel good about oneself at the expense of another [saei'ach bikolon chaveira - schdenfreude]

E) ego and surety that one is correct in saying these things


Your Responses (Total 16):

Option A - 00% (0)
Option B - 19% (3)
Option C - 25% (4)
Option D - 19% (3)
Option E - 37% (6)


Comments

Rabbi Hecht:
While no one chose Option A, which places the main cause on a lack of Ahavat Yisroel, aspects of this weakness is also indicated in the choice of Option D and to some extent Option B. In an overall sense, though, the poll seems to indicate that the real issue revolves around how we view evaluating and judging another, i.e. the very process of personal decision making. This problem finds itself expressed in variant ways as indicated by the distinctions in the various options.
Option C would seem to indicate that people would seem to believe that there is fundamentally not even something wrong in the very process of judging others. A review of the laws of Loshon Hara would clearly challenge such a viewpoint.
Option E would seem to indicate that the major problem is that people believe that as long as the process is honest, it is okay. Again, the laws of Loshon Hara would challenge such a perspective as the prohibition applies even when the said statements are true. In addition, there seems to be a prevalent problem in that people are so sure that they are right and, of course, that their decision making processes function properly. The further problem with this is that, with such a belief, a person could even mistakenly justify their loshon hara through faulty halachic reasoning that their ego tells them is absolutely correct.
Option B, in addition to its indication of a problem in Ahavat Yisroel, clearly shows the weakness of many in their own decision making processes. Dan lekof zchut is as much a virtue of the intellect, demonstrating the ability to see multiple possibilities, as it is an aspect of the virtue of caring.
What I see from the poll, is that people perceive the problem of Loshon Hara as not a weakness in our feelings towards others but a weakness in how we see ourselves and our functioning as decision making, and as such cognitive, individuals.

Rabbi Wolpoe:
Even if Lashon Hara was not a problem at all - I would still recommend reading RIM haKohen's sefer "Sh'mirat Halashon" as a course in "Ahavat Yisrael" - along with the Tanna d'vei Eliyahu. B'Tzedek Tishpot Amitecha is another factor weighing in to our judgmentalism.
Until being dan l'kaf z'chut becomes a way of life, there will never be peace on our world. Without a doubt in my mind, this is the single greatest cause of hostility and a leading cause for mis-interpreting facts and jumping to faulty conclusions.