Sunday, February 22, 2009

Interesting Posts and Articles #121

  1. The YU Commentator has an article by Dr. Bernstein on Kugel speaking on campus. (ht: Hirhurim)

  2. Highway robbery.

  3. Kankan Chadash presents the continuation of the argument on Lookjed about teaching Rambam's position and teaching that Hashem is gratified by our mitzvos.

  4. Frum Satire wonders why the rabbis hate Lipa so much. Though it is not all rabbis.

  5. Rabbi Slifkin, on his blog Zoo Torah, posts about the New York Times on Nishtaneh Hateva. And how animals are growing to smaller sizes and giving birth at earlier ages, which is precisely how Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 24b applies it.


Anonymous said...


In a previous blog post in regard to the incident of R' Schorr at the wedding with Lipa, you gave a rationalization for R' Schorr's outburst. The reasoning went something like this: Although you disagreed with R' Schorr, still you said that since he mistakenly considers it avoda zarah (or for some other reason)therefore it is understandable that he had his angry reaction, and therefore R' Schorr is not a bad guy.

However, I think this approach is flawed. On must realize, that most bad people think that they are good, and think their behavior is justified. Sadaam Hussein thought that Shiites are bad and deserve death etc.
Rare is the bad person who thinks that he is evil. People who have killed jews over the ages have thought that Jews are evil and therefore deserving of death.
According to your logic, those murderers were not all that bad since if they were correct that Jews were evil they would deserve death. Another example, Yeravam Ben Navat thought that he is doing the right thing and that he is a tzaddik. He was still evil. People who do evil things are evil, it doesn't matter that their wickedness stemmed from an idea that if true would warrant their evil deeds.
Perhaps their wickedness is that they have those evil ideas or perhaps they have those evil ideas because they are wicked (I'm not sure what comes first).

I would appreciate a response.


joshwaxman said...

It is a great question, and bli neder, I will try to get around to expanding upon the question and then explaining myself.

In the meantime, I think I clarified on a related point in this follow-up post, here -- I'm not sure if you saw it:


Anonymous said...

I had previously read both of your posts on the incident with R' Schorr.
I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
This is a great blog - and by the way, we agree over 90% of the time!


Anonymous said...

Sorry for being repetitive - but let me give one more example to drive the point home.

Had someone killed Hitler - that would have been a good deed.
But if someone would have killed Ronald Reagen claiming that he is worse than Hitler - that would be evil. It is not mitigated by the fact that he really thinks that Ronald Reagen is worse than Hitler.

The reason that his excuse does not serve as a mitigation is because he could only actually believe such nonsense because
of his wickedness.



Blog Widget by LinkWithin