Hirsch and Kabbala II

Introduction

This is the follow-up to my post which- perhaps misleadingly- was called R' Hirsch against Kabbalah. 

Here I quoted from The Nineteen Letters Rav Hirsch’s view that, through misconception, Jewish observances had become “magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds”.  Seeing the concept of mitzvot as affecting “extra-mundane dream worlds” had led the mitzvot to be seen as mechanical devices for affecting the spiritual world

In contrast, one should view mitzvot as making man better able to fulfill a this-worldly mission.  The following is part of an interesting correspondence based on that post.

Adam

From all I've experienced of 'current Chassidic and Charedi Judaism' the entire kabalistic view of Jewish life and purpose is no different than the very non-kabalistic. Both hold the the point of life is to utilise this world for the sake of achieving something higher than this world. Both hold the way to do this is through indentifying the which decisions are the right decisions, conquering 'self' and consistently making the right choice not the easy choice.

Both hold this is done (only) in the realm of the physical, the ritual [although I am of the opinion that there is no act that is considered purely ritual in Judaism - every act has personal meaning and is performed to enhance the actor's relationship with Hashem - and not (only) in some lofty spiritual way, but in very 'real' (as if the other , isn't!) intellectual and emotional terms], the emotional and above all the day-to-day.

To suggest otherwise for either on behalf of one betrays a lack of knowledge of the other. (Not that I claim to have expertise in either, but just the opposite. It's clear to anyone who has had a little education in either that the above is true)

Also, I would suggest that the comments from R.Hirsch above are talking about those throughout history who pervert Kabalah by turning it into a pseudo-religion or who use it for personal benefit. who the past and current 'Chassidic and Charedi world' also disown. Obviously having not seen the text inside, this may be incorrect. Quotes in context will prove one way or the other.

Neil Clarke

You are both right and wrong here, Adam. The first point to reiterate is that, as I said in post, the issue is not with Kabbalah itself, whatever that actually means. The issue is with the beliefs that people (Orthodox Jews) teach as 'kabbalistic beliefs'.

How else can I use the word? What else shall we call the mystic teachings which he is rejecting?

The area, therefore, in which you are absolutely right, and I made the same point myself, is that there is nothing wrong with the 'sources' of Kabbalah and that mode of learning. You are further right that Hirsch bemoans the misunderstanding of those sources. He says that they "are an invaluable repository of the spirit of Tanach and Talmud, which has unfortunately been misunderstood".

The question then is what the misunderstanding consists in, and this is where we will disagree. Hirsch is not saying that people have misinterpreted these other worlds, or been taught by the Kabbalah Centre! The misinterpretation lies in taking them to be·
talking about other worlds in the first place.

In their 'aggadic context' they are invaluable in helping us understand the world and leading to the purification and betterment of man. As such, a lot of the symbolism discussed in the Horeb is based on Zoharic explanations. But (just as he makes clear with regard to aggada generally) ones we take them as 'literal' we have misunderstood them.

Now you must admit that when elements of the chassidic and charedi worlds talk about 'other worlds' and utilise mystical explanations they take this, in some sense, literally. Now when I say 'literally' I'm not accusing anyone of crude anthropomorphism [or whatever the word is which builds those worlds in terms of our own] . This is why I said 'in some sense' they are 'real' worlds.

The real question is that does he think people have misunderstood the nature of these real worlds or does the misunderstanding consist in taking the kabbalistic sources to be talking about other worlds in the first place? I take it from your comments that you agree with the first, whereas I suggest the second.

When he comments on the Korbanot saying "they are neither a transitory concession to a generation still steeped in heathen views, nor do they form a chapter of kabbalistic, magical mysteries.... Their meaning and purpose is teaching the way to keep the ideals of the Torah". Here he first takes issue with Rambam (as he does often) and then with a kabbalistic view talking about the mysteries of the universe. If he accepts the Zoharic explanations but says they don't talk about mysteries of universe, then he is saying that to do so is a misunderstanding.

Both sides to the above question have been held. The first position, that whilst he didn't USE mystical teachings, he was in no way against them was held by Dayan Grunfeld and Rabbi Elias.

However, R' Danziger says the following:

"A non-apologetic reading Of Rav Hirsch’s words will indicate he is referring to two opposing, rather than complementary, approaches. He is not complaining that the ethical does not complement the extramundane. No amount of apologetics can get around the hard fact that Rav Hirsch calls the extramundane worlds of (what is in his opinion) “misconstrued” kabbalah “external DREAM-worlds”"

Also R' Aryeh Carmell on why he follows R' Hirsch in using the Zohar despite omitting mystical references:

"This too is not surprising when it is remembered that Kabbala itself is essentially an exploration of the internal world of the unconscious mind and especially of the non-ego layers of the human psyche." [hence why acceptable]

My Magic-Box, or Phylacteries

After accusing my brother of being responsible for much ‘internecine’ conflict, we got on to discussing whether a word can be part of language if no-one (or nearly no-one) knows what it means.  Clearly, yes.

Whenever someone asks what ‘tefillin’ are, someone always helpfully responds that they are ‘phylacteries’.  Given that neither the person giving the explanation, nor the person receiving it, know what phylacteries mean, it is a bit of a conversation stopper.  The person who originally asked is too embarrassed to question any further.  There is the implicit assumption that as it is a translation, or explanation, they should now have a good idea what it is. 

It is quite clear that ‘phylacteries’ is part of the language- even if (now) only as a synonym for tefillin.  Presumably phylacteries did have some wider meaning in English such that, rather than being a translation, it compared it to a class of things that an English speaker would already be familiar with.  I assumed it would be something like “ritual clothing” or “strapped boxes” or some other category of which tefillin was one member.

Out of curiosity, I looked it up.  The first definition was just a description of tefillin.  The second however, was “amulet” which means: “an ornament often inscribed with a magic incantation or symbol to aid the wearer or protect against evil”.  This is a bastardization of the practice and is, unfortunately, indicative of the superstitions that have entered Jewish consciousness.  No doubt this is what Rav Hirsch complains about when he says:

institutions which were designed and ordained for the internal and external purification and betterment of man as mechanical, dynamical, or magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds, and . . . thus the observances meant for the education of the spirit to a nobler life were but too frequently degraded into mere amuletic or talismanic performances

Even today Chassidic groups will be put tefillin on people even when there is no kavannah (intention) or meaningful experience of any kind.  It is not done as a mitzvah, or done for the symbolism (e.g. to dedicate emotions and intellect to Hashem), or done as a prayer aid, or pride that you are now Barmitzvah, or as an expression of solidarity with your people.  For me, this is worthless.  Others will thing that sticking cow to your head will influence ‘upper worlds’.

Judaism doesn’t need magic, but then again, there is no need for internecine conflict.

---

Afterthought:

If you want spiritual improvement, do the mitzvot.  If you want to be “protected from evil”, stay away from the miracle workers.  You are need of much more sensible advice than wearing tefillin, such as that proffered by the ‘Brisker Rov’, Reb Hayym Soloveitchik (HT: here):

Two women, who came for advice, gave me their story the impression what this interesting man [Brisker Rov] stood for.  One of them had an epileptic child.  She had had a dream in which a miraculous cure was indicated and wished to know the rabbi’s advice.  He remained calm.  “You take him to Warsaw,” he said, “and consult a specialist, as I told you before.” 

The second woman had a more complicated case.  Her husband claimed a commission on a real estate transaction with a Polish noble.  The latter refused to pay, and as R. Hayyim afterwards explained to me, properly.  The claimant was one of the numerous “Luftmenschen” of the Pale, men without any definite occupation, who had heard of an estate that was for sale, talked about it to the count or to one of his employees and after the deal had been closed demanded a compensation.  The count in good old eighteenth century fashion told him, if he should bother him again, he would give him a sound drubbing.  R. Hayyim asked: “what do you want me to do?”  “The Rabbi shall give my husband a blessing so that he shall find grace in the eyes of the Poriz.”  “I can’t give you a blessing,” was the reply.  “The Aibishter alone cane give you a blessing, but I advise you to select a representative person who shall talk to the Poriz, perhaps he may obtain a concession”. 

Or as (possibly apocryphally) told of his grandson Rav J.B. Soloveitchik:

Talmid: Rebbe, can you bless me?

Soloveitchik:  What are you? An apple?

My Religious Journey

Here is an essay that I had to write when applying to yeshiva.  Given the context, you can take some parts of it with a pinch of salt, and other parts are more restrained than they otherwise would be.  However, it is a reasonable account of my take on Judaism and how I got there.

-----

Understanding my background and the development of my Jewish views will help you to understand my inspirations and my reasons for applying to the Shappells Summer program. I come from a traditional, involved but largely non-observant Jewish family. Nevertheless, the fact that I was raised in a small, provincial community was a blessing that meant I was far more involved than my peers from larger communities. In a community like ours, everybody got involved with the synagogue and Cheder, sent their children to Jewish youth movements, and learnt basic skills such as leining and the ability to lead a service.

My road to observance was, and is, a slow and gradual one that has been going on throughout my life. For example, I first remember saying no to a pork sausage when on holiday at 11 years old. Continual development saw me refuse to eat both rump steak and ice cream in the same meal at 14 (!), first voluntarily wear tefillin on a Hanoar Hatzioni camp at about 15 and start to be Shomer Shabbat on the very day I started university. There have been numerous milestones since, but there is no rush to observance. Judaism isn’t a race to the finish line but one where one must “gird up strength like a lion... for the service of his Creator” every day.

The reasons for increased observance at such a young age were largely either non-cognitive or due to general intellectual virtue, rather than grand notions about the ‘truth’ of Judaism. For example, I was moved by the rabbi who taught me from barmitzvah who insisted I was ‘religious’ when I was adamant I wasn’t, and taught Judaism in such a sincere and candid way. Equally, I was upset at a hypocrisy that said I couldn’t go to a friend’s party because it was Shabbat but where we instead stayed in and watched television. An example of intellectual virtue was when thinking about the so-called ‘small things’ such as how we dress. Should I base my actions on the fad of the moment or the results of thousands of years of discussion?

My first experience of Jewish hashkafa- when I was old enough to appreciate it- was through various outreach organisations on campus. One thinker who stood out was Rav Dessler whose writings were both clear and resonant. His position on issues such as ‘free will’ influenced my thinking. Most impressive, however, was the effect that his work had on the people who read it. This internalisation of thought and translation into practice is perhaps the most impressive feature of Chareidi Judaism in general and mussar in particular.

Despite this, the first work that inspired me and gave me a Jewish world-view that I could call my own was Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed. “Philosophy...” in the words of Wittgenstein “...is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language”. Through his analysis of homonymous, hybrid and metaphorical words, Rambam shows how misunderstanding our language results in “false notions and perverse methods”. Through untangling the knots of our thought, and understanding its limits, we assume the correct position before G-d. His work showed me the value and uniqueness of Judaism, firstly because the errors of thinking Judaism warn us against and the philosophical pretentions he identifies are much in evidence today. Secondly, the battle against this type of thinking is encoded in our entire way of life. This, for Rambam, is the essence of us having a ‘divine law’ as opposed to the ‘conventional law’ of other nations. All our actions are directed at destroying the idolatry of false thought from the world.

Since then, I have accepted some of the criticisms of Rambam’s philosophy by people such as Rav Hirsch, Shadal and Rav Soloveitchik; particularly with regard to areas such as ta’amei mitzvoth and biblical exegesis. Judaism has a constructive, as well as destructive, element. Rav Hirsch contends that Judaism’s world-view should “develop creatively from within [its received tradition]” and as “a science from itself” rather than be focused on external philosophy. For Rav Soloveitchik this specifically means a “philosophy of halacha”. Thus, two books of his that have inspired me are The Halakhic Mind which details how such a philosophy may be achieved and The Emergence of Ethical Man which is the best example I know of its application. Personally, I follow Rav Hirsch who has wider conception of the sources from which ‘the way’ or mission of Judaism is to be derived. Equally, he has a more practical focus indicating, through his conception of Torah Im Derech Eretz, the way Judaism, l’chatchila, should be enacted in the world.

As such, my philosophy is based on these ‘modern’ elements of Orthodoxy, although they are rooted in the tradition of the Kuzari. However, I’m also cognisant that the need to develop a philosophy at all is a symptom of galut. We still have the Fast of Tevet to mourn the loss of the First Temple where we could see the Urim v’Tumim and so, the tangible presence of G-d in the world. I think Chassidic interpretations of Tanach, such as those of the Izbicer Rebbe, can give a ‘taste’ or ‘feel’ of that world. We learn how through being ‘authentic’, we can realign G-d, ourselves and the world. In other words, they show us the redemptive qualities of our choices and actions.

Other inspirations include Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. They have done so much to clearly and intelligently articulate the vision of Judaism to a wider audience, as well as having done so much within our faith. It makes me so proud to be a Jew, for example, when Rabbi Sacks preaches to the House of Lords or European Union. He helps to fulfil the Torah verse that the “nations, which will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’”

As you can see from this, most of my Jewish learning has centred around hashkafa, or learning other Jewish subjects from English-language books. The next part of my Jewish development is to progress my textual skills so that I can learn the Sifrei Kodesh in the original. I have tried to learn some Mishneh Torah with friends and could, with difficulty, learn it independently. Equally, I have spent a year learning gemara on WebYeshiva, giving myself an introduction in ‘how to learn’ and the style of argumentation employed. I try to learn from the Aramaic with a chevruta but need many aids to get anywhere. My lack of ability in these areas is a major motivation in deciding to attend yeshiva. It will provide the focused environment and the expert teachers I need and will hopefully serve as a springboard for future learning. The summer program at Shapell’s provides ‘intense skills-oriented Torah learning’ and its general focus on developing textual and analytical skills mean that it is the perfect yeshiva to further my goals.

Equally, you will have seen from my development that I have drawn inspiration from different strands of Judaism: Chareidi Judaism for its transformative effect and Avodat Hashem, Modern Orthodoxy for drawing its philosophy directly from the sources, Chassidut for giving an insight into the redemptive quality of the mitzvoth and Torah Im Derech Eretz for providing the communal organisation that is best suited to furthering the Jewish mission. As such, I feel I espouse Shapell’s derech that all the Torah’s ways are pleasant. The yeshiva will provide many role models that I can learn from and be inspired by. Whilst, textual learning is the main aim, you will provide a nurturing environment in which to do it.

R' Hirsch against Kabbalah

I was reminded of these quotes by a conversation I had yesterday (you know who you are!).

The good Kantian that Hirsch was he could never accept all these other world that Jewish mystics dream up, to escape to.

What should have been eternal, progressive development was considered a stationary mechanism and the inner significance and concept thereof as extra-mundane dream worlds. . . Practical Judaism which comprehended in its purity, would perhaps have been impregnated with the spiritual became in it, through misconception, a magical mechanism, a means of influencing or resisting theosophic worlds and anti-worlds (N.L., p. 187).

Oh, but for those extra-mundane dream worlds! I must say, I can't be against them as much as R' Hirsch albeit that my sentiments being rather the same. In fact, I'm always quite clear the problem is not with kabbalistic, mystical or chassidic ideas themselves. Then again, maybe it is with those, but not against the sources and beliefs they derive from. The problem is when these original beliefs are taken out of context and turned into something quite alien. They are shorn free of their halachic or aggadic context and made into pseudo-philosophical beliefs. Same words, different beliefs. But anyway, the point is that 'in their place' they... well.. have a place.

The problem that I do have with these beliefs, in common with R' Hirsch, is not simply theory but how it affects the Jewish attitude to the to man, to the world, to G-d and thus, to our task:

A perverted intellect comprehended the institutions which were designed and ordained for the internal and external purification and betterment of man as mechanical, dynamical, or magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds, and . . . thus the observances meant for the education of the spirit to a nobler life were but too frequently degraded into mere amuletic or talismanic performances (N.L., pp. 9-100).

Kabbalistic views of other worlds, as expounded through current Chassidic and Charedi Judaism, takes away from Halachic Judaism. This is not to say practically, because shemura matzot and all, mystics tend to be extremely strict in halacha (or at least ritualistic elements anyway). They do the acts, as R' Hirsch says above, but what is the quality of the acts? Halachic Judaism frames our attitudes and world-view in a particular way. Now, in this, sense Kabbalah often leads away from what Halachic Judaism teaches us is the main focal point of G-d's will for us: THIS WORLD. As R' Wurzburger (tzatzal) says:

Since, according to Halakhic Judaism, it is our task to seek to encounter God’s presence primarily in the lower realms of being (ikkar shekhinah ba-tahtonim), we must not escape from this world by a flight into transcendental spheres. The human task is to create an abode for God in the here-and-now

Thinking of mitzvot in terms 'other worlds' makes them 'mere amuletic or talismanic performances'; perhaps ways to get our seventy virgins in heaven!

Kiruv proofs: Rambam and Rav Hirsch speak out

Rambam, the master of criticism, speaks out against the popular theologians of his day, the so called defenders of the faith.  He criticises the Mutakallemim and the method of the Kalam philosophy.  These are mostly 'Mohammadean' but was very worried about the rise of such philosophy 'amongst our co-religionists'.  He thinks the right way to respond to such people  is to say to them: "'Will you mock at Him, as you mock at man?' for their words are indeed nothing but mockery."  These are the people who in trying to bolster religion bring all sorts of 'proofs' to demonstrate the fundamentals of our faith. 

 

In the specific case I will draw from here they try to prove that the world was created (sound familiar?).  He says that "all the proofs of creation have weak points, and cannot be considered as convincing except by those who do not know the difference between a proof, a dialectical argument, and a sophism".  [Proof of the soul kind of misses the point of why we hold the belief, don't they?; it is not something that simply 'is' but something we are called on to be]. In all cases the proofs are "questionable because propositions have been employed that have never been proved".  [As you know, 600,000 people couldn't have lied about the revelation, but on whose authority do we accept that there were that many people? The thing whose very truth we are trying to establish?]  The mistaken tactics of these mediaeval kiruv workers include  mistaking the imaginable for the possible. [Of course one can imagine that G-d created the fossils a few thousand years ago, but really? Really really?]

 

But hey, what's the problem?  If people end up believing the right things, who care about the method they get there?  Turn a blind eye.  They have grown up 'children of the gentiles' .   They want proofs, give them proofs.  But Rambam very well sums up the danger of such an approach:

 

I will not deceive myself, and consider dialectical methods as proof; and the fact that such a proposition has been proved by a dialectical argument will never induce me to accept that proposition, but, on the contrary, will weaken my faith in it and cause me to doubt it.  For when we understand the fallacy of a proof, our faith in the proposition itself is shaken.  It is therefore better that a proposition which cannot be demonstrated be received as an axiom, or that one of the two opposite solutions be accepted on authority

A proof is not only not possible but undesirable!  Here he is not criticising 'dialectical arguments'.  These are the kind of arguments that help you 'see' the world in one way rather than other [the glasses through which the world is seen in correct focus].  Ultimately proofs where there is none, will lead to the destruction of the basic axioms of Jewish belief.  It will fundamentally misunderstand what they are.  These are the principles by which we understand everything else.  Why put forward a fallacious argument that in the end leads to doubt about the very propositions we are trying to protect?  Rambam saw it as a major task to bring down such proofs along with the proofs of the alternatives (in this case the eternity of the world).  Both fundamentally misunderstand the role of such doctrines.

 

As ever, R' Hirsch puts the points beautifully:

 

What is the use of torturing the youthful mind with "proofs" of the existence of G-d... and the rest of what is called rational religion or rational theology?  In reality the maturest mind of a philosopher knows no more about the essence of G-d than the simple mind of the child; nor is it necessary for the moral behaviour of man in this world to know more than the Torah tells us about G-d.  It is not the longing for the world beyond which is the essence of Jewish piety; it is.... to use all the material and spiritual means at our disposal for the noble and enobling purpose of the great edifice of mankind which G-d wants to erect from the generations of the human family.

 

The 'knowledge' of G-d that the Torah gives us isn't the kind of knowledge which waits approval by proof or evidence.  Nor is it the kind we would expect to be.  Is creation simply teaching us some lame 'fact' about how old the world happens to be?  Have those master theologians happened to stumble upon and discover that we are made of a 'spiritual substance' which all those ignoramuses have somehow happened to miss?  A* for your history lesson about that little rock in the middle of the Sinai dessert.  No these aren't facts awaiting discovery but the very starting point of our search:

 

The basis of your knowledge of G-d does not rest on belief, which can, after all, allow us an element of doubt... [The] fundamental truths accordingly are completely out of the realm of the mere believing or thinking and are irrefutable facts which must serve as the starting point of all our other knowledge with the same certainty as our own existence and the existence of the material world we see about us.

 

Hirsch rather runs amok with the notion of 'fact' and especially 'irrefutable facts'.  Nevertheless the point holds, that 'knowledge of G-d' is the very means by which we frame our experiences and our knowledge.  One doesn't wait upon proof of some vague philosophical concept of 'physical world' before acting on it (philosophers have tried unsuccessfully for centuries). [ We don't proof we have eyes by looking for it.  The eyes is not 'in the visual field' but is the very thing that sees.]  It is as Rambam says (if we do have to be philosophical) an axiom.  This might all be nonsense, but that's the very point... If its wrong to believe in G-d or creation (etc) it is not because its false but because it's nonsense.  Either acting upon G-d's word 'makes sense' or is simply a condition of madness.  I keep using the metaphor of sight: either these doctrines are the right prescriptions for our eyes or they are fundamentally blurred.

 

I've got a bit philosophical here, and I don't want to make it seem that I have tried to make it clear what the roles of these doctrines are in Judaism.  Or why we should hold them (as opposed to thinking they are nonsense).  Or what the beliefs lead to.  In fact, I haven't shown much.  But kiruv methods of 'proof' are fundamentally misguided, practically, theoretically and Judaically.  Practically because they will lead us to doubt the fundamentals of faith.  Theoretically because the arguments are logically fallacious.  Judaically, (and this is what I haven't claimed to show) because they miscontrue those very beliefs they aim to defend.

Urinating on the motorway, Arabs, environment, Israel and the Palestinians, prostitutes and water buffallo.

Just a few completely random points about urinating on the motorway, Arabs, environment, Israel and the Palestinians, prostitutes and water buffallo.

---------

IF YOU ARE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, DON’T PISS ON THE HARD SHOULDER OF A MOTORWAY. Apparently it’s illegal, but it’s probably not the worst crime in the world. Obviously you are putting yourself at risk, but then driving when you desperately need to go, can’t be much better. You know… when you get to that point where you have to keep moving otherwise it’s unbearable?!?!?

But if you are illegally here and without a driving license, you don’t want to be found out because you needed the toilet. That’s what happened in ‘Traffic Cops’ last night which I was watching for want of anything better to do (you know, one of those filler programmed for Wednesday nights. Why do they put rubbish programmes on, on Wednesdays?). You know, you’d think they would want to keep their heads down or if you are going to get deported, you might as well go out in style.

But when nature calls…

------

An interesting note by Rav Hirsch (from the 19^th century) on the positive qualities of Arabs. Funnily enough, it was in article on Jewish women.

“The monotheism of Abraham, the Hamitic sensuality and thirst for freedom that stamped the personality of Hagar, and the virtual fanatic belief in the providence of Almighty G-d, drawn, as it were, by Hagar from the ‘well of the Living One Who sees me’- this mixture of qualities has shaped the traits for which the Arabs are known to this day and with which they have made their own contribution, in the form of poetry and scholarship, to the spiritual symposium of humanity”

‘Nuff said

------

I got the overwhelming desire today to buy a car. Why? So I can conscientiously not use it! I hate it when people (and I don’t know why, but specifically Jews do it) drive to university when it is less than 15 minutes walk away. It’s disgraceful. Apart from being horrendously lazy, it’s horrific for the environment.

Now when environmental protestors say that people shouldn’t fly or say that horrendous taxes should be put on it, that’s just stupid. Some people need to fly, others want to fly but only do so occasionally, and those who are filthy rich… well… they are going to fly anyway. Stopping flying is not only something that you cannot achieve, it might not be desirable to achieve.

What really matters for the environment is these small things that you can do stuff about. Yes I know it would take a hell of a lot of not going by car to make up for one plane journey. However, firstly there are a lot of people that can ‘not go by car’. It is practical and unless your are bone-idle, there is no reason not to walk. Thirdly, going by car for a short journey bespeaks a whole attitude and if you won’t drive if necessary, you wont do other things either.

Now I’m probably guilty too. I do accept lifts to morning service. It’s too early and I don’t have the wherewithal to move, let alone put up a principled stand. But regardless of whether I get in the car, the car will be driven anyway. I would never ask for there to be a lift if there wasn’t one already going. And that’s why I want a car, so that if no-one else is going, I can in principle refuse to take people!

An expensive gesture, buying a car for that reason!

-----

Good news of sorts. Following a decision from Ehud Barak, travel restrictions are being eased for Palestinians in the West Bank, and the PA police (or at least a loyal subsection of them) are getting new equipment. This is following on from continued negotiations between PA and Israel. Also, talks between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas continue. This can only be good news if it helps the lives of Palestinian civilians, and increased Paelstinian compliance in aiding Israel’s security. It’s a shame that it is primarily motivated by one-upmanship against Hamas. Rather than (by either side involved) a real concern for peace or the lives of civilians, it is trying to score political points against Hamas in Gaza. Bloody politics. Please G-d, they find a way to help the humanitarian situation in Gaza without having to give political credence to Hamas.

Although one of my points is proved. Criticism from a friend is far more effective than criticism from someone that hates your guts! The good news in part arose from criticism of Ehud Barak by Condoleeza Rice. The Americans overall (and rightly so) agree with Israel about things. As such, Israel has an incentive to listen to them. Where criticism is needed, it should be given (and probably doesn’t happen enough). Criticism from Palestinian groups, on the other hand, is ineffectual and shows that they don’t really have the interests of Palestinians at heart or if they do, they are very misguided. When you justify suicide bombings, deny Israel’s right to exist (however you dress it up) and will criticise Israel come what may, the criticisms will be as effective as a one-legged chair. When you preach immoral things, your valid criticisms will not be listened to.

----

The following incident reminded me of situations with ‘money boxes’ designed to stop people swearing (i.e. put 50p in if you say **** etc) where the child swears, gets told off and says “I’m not ******* swearing, ok?”. This is what Rabbi Ezekial Landau said in court:

"Everyone should know that the wife of the Chief Rabbi is a prostitute and there is a fine, 100 adumim for each utterace that she is a prostitute, and you should also all know that if I had more money I would call her a prostitute again, however I currently do not have the money I will have to satisfy myself with the fact that I have already called her a prostitute."

The following reminded me of when certain Catholics will defend to the hilt not wearing condoms because that is what the Pope decrees, but are quite happy to have sex before marriage (which I’m sure he’s not too fond of):

A Latin document records a troubling incident from 1404 where, "a German speaking Jew visited a non-Jewish prostitute on Shabbat and he refused to pay her, he explained that he could not pay her as it would violate the Shabbat."

It’s fun reading about prostitution!

----

Last but not least, I have decided I am a filthy animal. I was watching the ‘One Show’ where they were looking at a reservation park with water buffalo in. They happened to mention that they had cloven hoofs. All I could think about “I wonder if they are kosher!” I couldn’t get it out of my head. I’m a bad man!