Why is it that Rabbi David Feinstein seems to be persona non grata in the Chareidi world?
It cannot be an accident that the Posek Hador's son, about whom I have heard first-hand testimony regarding his abilities as a poseik and lamdan and yoeitz, wouldn't have some role to play in Tzorchei Tzibbur unless there was some directed effort to exclude him.
So what's going on?
The phrase in the headline refers to a concept in halacha, where the value of a mitzvah is reduced, to say the least, if the mitzvah came about as the result of a sin. For example, eating stolen matzah on Passover.
I am thinking of another, less halachic usage. Today my congregation held its annual meeting. The machasheifa, about whom I have blogged in the past,was in attendance. So were my supporters, three of whom joined the board and two of whom will be on the Executive and one of whom became the new president. Kehila Kedosha Anshei Yehupitz had its first positive, optimistic meeting in a long time. Things are really looking up and I'm happy that my wife and I were able to play a part in it.
What's the problem? Well, half a year ago, machasheifa told the then-shul president and since then has been whispering to others in the shul in an effort to get rid of me, that the shul is worse off since we arrived. She was paraphrasing Ronald Reagan's line in the 1984 Presidential debate. So today in my remarks to the congregation, I said, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, that the shul is in many ways better off today than it was four years ago.
A notable part of the happy mood I was feeling was due to the fact that the witch was sitting there, eating her words, wallowing in her own hatred while I continue to be successful, to her disappointment. I had to control the urge to look in her direction, stick my tongue out at her and go "phhffftt."
I wish I could truly and sincerely consider her a persona-non-grata, and just move on. But when I have to see her six days a week, it's hard to ignore her.
That's what I meant by "mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveira".
At the risk of sounding selfish, I proclaim the following:
The comments section is for people who basically AGREE with me, and want to point out another aspect of the topics I cover. It is not for people who totally disagree with me to tell me how stupid or wrong they think I am. Get your own blog. I'm not only interested in mere "ditto"'s, but enough with this outright treason!
I know how cynical the frum world has been about Federations and all their multi-acronymed manifestations. Rabbi Emanuel Feldman, in his pulpit-primer Tales out of Shul as well as in his other lesser-known treatises, pokes a lot of fun at them.
Yes they can spend a good deal of time in mutual admiration for the money they give.
And yes, the claim that their organizations deserve august titles like "United Jewish Community" or "Associated Jewish Federation" is mighty presumptuous.
But the fact is that their mailing lists are longer than any other organizations. And the non-threatening nature of their message makes them the ideal vehicle for spreading yiddishkeit all over North America. I have shuddered at some of the disastrous relationships between frum kehilos and Federations in some cities. What a shame! What a waste!
Even if you perceive the Federation types as being the shallow end of the Jewish pool, remember, "Hashem desired a Dira B'Tachtonim". And you high and mighty types sitting in Kollels and Agudah shuls aren't anywhere near the tachtonim. As you spend the coming year feeling all proud that another Daf Yomi siyum is coming up, remember the millions of Jews who don't know what the word Daf or the word Yomi or the word Siyum means. And Federations are a road to their minds and hearts, despite the obstacles.
So this story is out about how Malcolm Hoenlein did something wrong by not telling the press that Tenet denied threatening to resign if Clinton would free Pollard in 1998. Follow that?
Does it make any difference?
No.
I'll tell you why:
Pollard was a Navy analyst. He was familiar with the codes that the President of the USA has in his football (the Nuclear button) to authorize the launch of Nuclear weapons from Nuclear submarines. When he was caught, the security of the Nuclear submarine fleet, that's one of three prongs of the USA's nuclear deterrent (the other two being the silos and planes) was jeopardized. The subs all had to be called in so that the double-locked lockboxes could be opened and new codes put in them. This took about a week.
So from a military defense standpoint, Pollard's indiscretion put the USA's nuclear program in jeopardy for a week.
Of course I'd like to see a Jew freed from jail, especially a Jew who provided information to State of Israel to help it defend Jews. But I'll tell you one thing: If I was President of the USA, I would never free Jonathan Pollard. If the administrations are led by capable and serious Presidents for the next 50 years, Pollard will die in prison.
Here's an ethical will for today's Jew.
Tonight marks ten years since the Lubavitcher Rebbe passed on.
Many of the Jewish newspapers have excellent summaries on the state of the Chabad movement after 10 years. Check out the Jewish Week and the Forward for more.
Lubavitchers call him "Nosi Hador", Leader of the generation.
What does that mean?
A leader sets the agenda. Even those who curse the Lubavitcher Rebbe and speak about how awful all this messianic nonsense is and sukka, shalosh seudos etc would HAVE to admit that the Lubavitcher Rebbe's agenda is still our agenda. Any honest appraisal of the Jewish scene today will bear this out.
www.lukeford.net is a recently discovered blog that...well,... fascinates me.
I know someone on high must disapprove with my fascination. But it's there. A relative through marriage told me about Luke's escapades on protocols.blogspot.com in a very critical manner. It was as if he was telling me, "I hate this guy. Look at his blog and you'll hate him too." But then I looked and read and I can't help but admire the fellow in a straightforward way.
Why?
Because when he's right, he's right. And when he's wrong, he is so honest and straighforward about knowing that he's wrong that it doesn't pay to rebuke him. There's humor, but there is no self-deception. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, he doesn't evade reality.
There. I've said it.
Why do babies totally freak out? I mean. SPAZ!!! what's up with that!!?
This blog is about the life of a rabbi in Yehupitz. I did not intend for it to become a neo-con/anti-neo-con discussion group. Occasionally I have some thoughts on politics. But that's it.
neo-con? neocon? What's a neocon? Why am I a neo-con? Because I'm Jewish? I am quite content to be considered an "old-conservative".
Is the term neo-con popular so that non-conservatives can derive the linguistic pleasure of referring to their opponents as cons, which is also the abbreviated form of "convict"?
I have a serious question. This is NOT rhetorical.
I have been reading about how some quarters blame Ronald Reagan for the AIDS crisis.
My question is: What did they want him to do? Cure AIDS? Have presidents "responded" whenever a disease hits the streets?
Before I took this pulpit in Yehupitz, one of my rebbeim told me that a yekkishe (stereotypically efficient German Jewish) Rov has all his Yomim Noraim droshos ready before he goes on summer vacation.
I have already begun preparing my Tishrei classes and sermons. True.
One fear I have is that events might have other ideas. A week before Rosh Hashana 2001, 9/11 happened. Had I been prepared, all the sermons would have become irrelevant. Then last year, some wild events in Yehupitz a week before R"H forced a rewrite as well.
Let's hope for a peaceful summer.
JamesJones writes:
"inherent philosphical emptiness..."
Can you cite us an example, mate?
Clinton had a philosophy, no doubt about it. You might not have liked it, maybe because Clinton's was a complicated, rigorous political philosophy, and not lazy name-calling like Bush junior's. But, all the same, it was most definately a philosophy.
Clinton had a philosophy. It was called electoral expediency. I wouldn't even grant him the dignity of calling him a liberal.
"Complicated and rigorous"? I can't even dignify that with a disagreement. I will grant that Hillary seems to have a philosophy. But Bill? Please...
lazy name-calling
Have you not read of the plethora of four-letter words that were spewed during the 8 Clinton years, at Cabinet meetings, between Bill and Hillary? For what it's worth, I don't care. Goyim curse all the time. But to use that as the pejorative is funny...
As for examples of philosophical emptiness:
Bush I: "read my lips" flip-flop. Reaganomics flip-flop in '80. Pro-Choice to pro-life flip-flop same time.
Clinton: Welfare reform, pro-gay marriage at first then SIGNS the Federal Marriage act (he could have let it pass by not signing it, unless Congress was adjourning.) just about every issue Dick Morris polled on.
Bush II: Fiscally Conservative--> Drug benefit. Anti-Campaign FR, signs the bill. More to come, I'm sure.
Alexis throws too many volleys to be taken seriously. I am not a professional blogger. So I don't have time to address the dozen or two dozen silly quotes, attributions and policy errors Ronald Reagan made.
I will write that my respect for Reagan and his presidency is not of the ditto-head variety. That is to say, I do not agree with everything he said and did over the course of his presidency, let alone his lifetime. But do I find a few absurd quotes "scary"? In the context of two terms that succeeded in promoting conservatism, well-placed patriotism and eliminating communism, no. I don't find it scary.
"Wacky Quotes" are always good tools for the talking points people, which is what Alexis sounds like. But they rarely reflect the overall reality of a man.
The most dangerous part of Alexis' essay is that last paragraph: The world's a very complicated place; only the dim and simple folk - like Reagan, like our current president - see only black and white, and no grey...
Seeing gray is very nice. Judaism and its legal source book, the Talmud, is full of analysis that sees more than two sides to an issue. But when at war, to insist diplomatically and politely that we focus on the gray when the other side wants to bury us is suicide. Two such cases are the Cold War and the current war against Islamo-fascism.
President Reagan was the first US President I remember the USA having. The Jews I deal with in my community are liberal Democrats for the most part. One of them refered to Ronald Reagan as the "second most dangerous American of the 20th century". When I asked him why, he told me that it's because Reagan felt HE was right and others were wrong, instead of a more benign moral relativism. That is why I think he was one of the greatest Americans fot eh 20th century.
My family is from Eastern Europe. Those from Eastern Europe, especially Jews, were the few who understood how correct President Reagan was when he called the USSR an Evil Empire. I don't think even Reagan grasped how true his words were.
When beholding the inherent philosphical emptiness of the 16 Bush-Clinton-Bush years, I long for a Ronald Reagan. Especially now in this time of war.
Ah, the clarity!
I spent a lot of time crying last night reading this this blog.
I just wanted to fly to LA and give him a hug.
FWIW, I recognize his son from pictures, but did not know him personally.
God bless that man. And his family.