Tuesday, July 11, 2006

PARTING WORDS

Posted here yesterday (Thread: The rest is up to you):


At 4:32 PM, berl, crown heights said...

While I agree with ESOB in terms of better time usage for Mekushor, I am left wondering – who in the world thinks they actually have a stake in the publication of my comments?

Actually, I have a pretty good hunch who that might be...
So let them get this: my writings belong only to me – you (and you know who you are) have no say in this matter.

* * *
As to the future of the Berl Yeimi:

The overwhelming majority of people that I've heard from tell me that I should give this undertaking up (and use my time better). I admit that they have a point - but I say, "All work and no play make Mekoshor a dull fellow."
Nevertheless, I have decided to bring it to a close. The Berl Yeimi will live on - but you'll just have to do the work yourself.
Zol enk alle habben lange, gutte, gezunte, chassidishe yohrin.
:-)

- Mekushor

Monday, July 10, 2006

THE REST IS UP TO YOU.

I was recently asked to stop publishing the Berl Yeimi. Since it all began (with a joke and a dare) I've had a good time with it (even if it takes more of my time that I had expected), so I ask the readers:
1. Keep it going? Please state your opinion & reason.
2. Shut it down? Please state your opinion and reason.
I await the readers response before I decide.
- Mekushor

Friday, July 07, 2006

THE SHLICHUS CRISIS

Posted at mentalblog.com (thread: Simon Jacobson as a free marketer)


...My interest in the definition of the "head shliach" institution is not academic - I know many sincere yungeleit who are unsuccessfully looking for shlichus positions for years! In this situation, yeshivas simply can't keep telling kids that shlichus is the only thing to aspire to, when in reality relatively few of them will ever be able to "go on shlichus"! Most of our kids are by design not trained to do anything else, so as a father I am, naturally, very worried. Simon's free-market thesis appeals to me, but his ideas do not seem practical under the current feudal "head shliach" set-up...

berl, crown heights 04.04.05 - 4:49 pm / Link: #


...in this we have become no better than the misnagdim - every boy there (bar the really retarded ones) thinks he is going to grow up a "rosh yeshiva", every girl - a wife of "Rabbi Akiva". But today we are now no better, just different terminology for the same ugly notion.

:-(

berl, crown heights 04.04.05 - 6:11 pm / Link: #

Thursday, July 06, 2006

YIDDISH

Posted at mentalblog.com (thread: mendy-says):

Q: Berl, at what point does a usage of a Yiddish word become accepted enough to be "legalized"?
(ex.: זעהן-זען, איהם-עם etc)

A: First, I have to make it abundantly clear that I am not a grammarian of the Yiddish language and never have purported to be. That is why I am careful to phrase my musings on Yiddish usage in form of questions to the imaginary "yiddishisten".

With that disclaimer out of the way, let me say this:

1. It seems to me that the examples you site pertain more to the realm of spelling, for which, strictly speaking, there are no real (as in "old and established") rules. To the best of my limited knowledge on this subject, all Yiddish spelling rules are very recent conventions. (Earlier, on [mentalblog], we had a discussion on the old phonetic spelling of Yiddish). To me, the examples you site are merely different spellings of the same words that reflect different pronunciations of those words in different dialects. That should be always be "legal", regardless of what the spelling conventions and dictionaries say.

2. Now to the "meat" of you question. You ask: "at what point does a usage of a Yiddish word become accepted enough to be "legalized"?"
Given that Yiddish is a זשארגאן it would seem that כשמו כן הוא - it should have no "rules" at all. So if Yiddish speakers use a particular word – it should automatically be "legal". However, there is a serious wrinkle to that approach. In year 2005 we are not dealing with very many real native Yiddish speakers. Even the dwellers of "Williamsburg rat holes" - that do speak Yiddish to each other in their daily lives – speak a crude, simplified version, one that ignores gender subtleties and is void of rich old idiomatic expressions. With the young folk that speak Yiddish in CH – it is even worse. To anyone, that spent time listening to real old-world Yiddish speakers, it should be very clear that, at best, we are talking about a crude slang that is based on Yiddish. That being the case, it would seem to me that gender, case and conjugation mistakes commonly made by contemporary Yiddish speakers should not be viewed as acceptable "usage of the word".
berl, crown heights 06.21.05 - 10:29 am #

That was too long. Needs clarity. The answer depends on what the goal is.
If the goal is to be linguistically correct, then whatever the contemporary speakers do is, by definition, legitimate. If however, the goal is to preserve the language of the Jews of Eastern Europe - then it is not.
[If the goal is to be an ivri - to be "different" then the subtleties of old Yiddish should not matter. But I know for a fact that R’ Gish speaks a beautiful old Yiddish and is somewhat fanatical about it. Go figure.]
berl, crown heights 06.21.05 - 10:48 am #

And from another thread (Oy! for Reb Maishe, the Alter Rebbe’s son):

Who said Yiddish was dead?
here we have an exchange that is a fine specimen of New Yiddish - a.k.a."Yinglish". Thank G-d, lo almon Yisroel!
berl, crown heights 07.22.05 - 7:28 pm #

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

LUBAVITCH, IT'S THE IDEAL WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT: A CONVERSATION (PART 2 OF 2).

Posted at mentalblog.com (Thread: Housecleaning rules ):

As to “lubavitch”, I have seen the real thing, I have seen men who were giants of spirit.
Because of that I know "it works", not because of any theory, supposition, or hope. At the end, we are not even talking about the same thing when we say “lubavitch”.
berl, crown heights 10.16.05 - 11:55 pm #

But Berl, Lubavitch is a real, talking, breathing thing. It consists of its people and its mosdos, its leaders, its culture, etc -- not some oved in the back of a beis medrash somewhere (who anyway would be considered by many to be a looser).
Boruch der ayzel 10.17.05 - 12:00 am #
to me 'lubavitch" is only a description of an ideal, nothing more. everyone else must pay cash! dos darf men oich iberkayen?
berl, crown heights 10.17.05 - 12:05 am #

B.D.A., "OVED in the back of a beis medrash somewhere (who anyway would be considered by many to be a LOOSER"), I like the pun, עובד – אובד :-)
faruq 10.17.05 - 12:05 am #

faruq, the pun may work more than you realize - check out Iben Ezra on arami oived ovi...
berl, crown heights 10.17.05 - 12:07 am #

רשב״ם works better for me...
faruq 10.17.05 - 12:09 am #

well, according to IE, the beginning of the verse speaks of the same man as the end, so I like it better. Also, IE is the one who explains the verb oived :-)
berl, crown heights 10.17.05 - 12:12 am #

though I understand your affinity to Rashbam as well, it is more familiar to call Avrohom the arami
berl, crown heights 10.17.05 - 12:15 am #

berl, true, but Avrohom the First resonates better with me :-)
faruq 10.17.05 - 12:15 am #
[And] Berl you are talking about the ideal. We are all here because we love that ideal. Others are forced, however, on a day to day basis, to contend with thereality.
Boruch der ayzel 10.17.05 - 12:12 am #
Berl is in a murky state. On hand he feels a fanatical partisanship of the movement, on the other hand he denys that any individual is bound to and by the movement or it’s institutions. This is simply crazy.
Tzemach Atlas Homepage 10.17.05 - 12:10 am #
TA, I would rewrite the sentence: “On the one hand he feels a fanatical affinity to the ideals of the movement, on the other hand he denies that any individual is bound by the movement as such or its institutions.”Would that edit job keep me out of the loony bin?
berl, crown heights 10.17.05 - 12:26 am #

[TA wrote:] "if you truly only cared for the ideals you would not get all insulted every time someone attacks the movement as such."
maybe caring for ideals only is, itself, only an ideal for me thus far...
berl, crown heights 10.17.05 - 12:46 am #

"maybe caring for ideals only is, itself, only an ideal for me thus far..."

berl, gezunte makifin debina!
faruq 10.17.05 - 12:51 am #

A dank far alle vunchen, vechein lemar
berl, crown heights 10.17.05 - 12:53 am #

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: A CONVERSATION (PART 1 OF 2)

Originally posted at mentalblog.com (thread: Housecleaning rules), regarding the issue of the tragic incident involving a Lubavitcher bochur beating the Rebbe’s elderly sister-in-law:

I vividly remember Rashag standing on the bima in 770 on the Monday after the beating calling her name out for a mishebeirach. I was horrified and disgusted by that beating and never-ever encountered anyone here who felt differently. I therefore took great offence at Schneur's audacious call to the general Lubavitch population for a 'cheshbon nefesh' for that event.
Now, if you or Schneur know something about specific people being somehow responsible, then address those specific people by their names. Or are we now officially in age of ‘collective responsibility’?
berl, crown heights 10.16.05 - 2:51 pm #

People often call a group to an account even though individual members of the group always have their own unique opinions. The fact is that Lubavitch never done the followings:
1. Publicized and internalized the full horror of what happened.
2. Did chebon nefesh about the atmosphere of hysteria that lead to the event. Let’s not open the case of the two officers of the Rebbe who are widely perceived to have contributed to the hysteria, some say even mislead the Rebbe in this regard.
3. Did some seder of atonement as a group for the crime that was committed against the Rayatz’s daughter.
4. Held the perpetrator accountable instead of arranging his quick escape by the officer of the organization.
Tzemach Atlas Homepage 10.16.05 - 3:42 pm #
“People often” do wrong things, that is not a good enough reason [for you] to do something, is it? You can only “call to account” those that did something wrong and no one else. Period.
berl, crown heights 10.16.05 - 7:42 pm #

What do [you] feel I have to 'atone' for in this regard?
It is easy to call on faceless 'group' to do something. It’s a whole other story when you are forced to realize that you are talking about many 'berls' who did nothing wrong in this case in machshovoh, dibbur umaaseh.
berl, crown heights 10.16.05 - 8:24 pm #

You certainly accept the fact the movement does have a face when you speak about
the good of Lubavitch.
Tzemach Atlas Homepage 10.16.05 - 9:08 pm #
I strenuously object to your impression that I feel entitled to “take credit for the good of my group even though I personally had nothing to do with it”. I might be happy and proud for things Lubavitch has done, but I absolutely feel that 100% of the credit goes to the doers and no one else. I am conversely not at all prepared to take any blame for someone else’s wrongdoings. This is the key pointing this particular argument. This is not an attempt to defend anyone who is guilty, but a demand that an accusing finger be pointed strictly at those individuals.
berl, crown heights 10.16.05 - 9:15 pm #

Inside my head I really do not think of a movement with “a face.”
I think of “Lubavitch” as derech hoaveidoh or the Rebbeim and teiras hachassidus. And then there are individual Chassidim, the people.
berl, crown heights 10.16.05 - 9:20 pm #

Berl, when Ron[ald] Reagan said that Russia was an "evil empire", he certainly did not refer to many of the good people in Russia. But the statement was perfectly true. When Schneur or I said that it was an evil moment for Lubavitch why do YOU get insulted? Can you accept the fact the movement has a face that is not your own?
Tzemach Atlas Homepage 10.16.05 - 8:45 pm #

"People are part of Lubavitch of their own free volition." This is a naive approach to the realities and dynamics of any large movement.

You remind me of the types I encountered in Russia many times, the ideologues of communism who believed that Lenin was well intentioned, theory of communism perfect if only allowed to be executed as it was intended. They ideas of communism were true if not for the “individuals” who messed it up.
So you know when a President wins with 51% of the vote they call it a landslide. You can gage this (beating) issue by polling the average Lubavitchers about what do they know and what do they think. The result is not in doubt; hence the accusatory finger at the movement is not misplaced, because this result is indicative of the lack of cheshbon nephesh on the part of the movement that trickled down to the majority of it’s members. As they are manipulated within the totalitarian group without basic glasnost. In the end it is all about glasnost.
Tzemach Atlas Homepage 10.16.05 - 9:35 pm #

The ideologues of communism who believed that Lenin was well intentioned, theory of communism perfect if only allowed to be executed as it was intended.

Mimmoh nafshoch:

1. if it is the belief in anything being "perfect" that is always problematic, then you can't accept such an attitude toward anything at all, including the ten commandments, Moses, and G-d Himself.
2. if, however, you can accept such an attitude as sometimes legitimate, then comparing every such case with die-hard communists because of this similarity simply does not wash.

As to “lubavitch”, I have seen the real thing, I have seen men who were giants of spirit. Because of that I know "it works", not because of any theory, supposition, or hope. At the end, we are not even talking about the same thing when we say “lubavitch”.
berl, crown heights 10.16.05 - 11:55 pm #

Sunday, July 02, 2006

IN DEFENSE OF THE "FFB" (SHIDDUCHIM FOR MIKUROVIM - PART 3 OF 3)

Posted at mentalblog.com (Thread: Baaley Tshuva - worse than sephardim)

P A R T - T H R E E:

1. BTs are discriminated not in any institutional way, but as a natural human response to "immigrants". The level of this discrimination is, therefore, directly proportional to the level of BTs cultural integration: A man who will gladly have his daughter marry a BT lamdan that is also fluent in Yiddish, will not even consider a BT that breaks his teeth over kiddush.

2. BTs attitude to frum natives lacks humanity. That is a first step toward integration and mutual acceptance.

3. BTs, like most humans, make all the "sacrifices" to better their own lives. No amount of whining will change that.
berl, crown heights 10.07.05 - 8:39 am #

[A commenter wrote]: "My theory is that FFB's and BT"s come from opposite places: While growing up as a FFB means maintaining the status quo, becoming a BT means rebellion against the status quo...” …bla, bla, bla... FFB's have the Torah knowledge and can talk the talk but, can they walk the walk?

I also made it quite clear that in my view your "attempt to analyze the sociological differences between FFB's and BT's" is a bunch of hateful drivel.
berl, crown heights 10.08.05 - 9:34 pm #

[And] this is [exactly] the kind of drivel I was referring to here in my point #2 here:
BTs attitude to frum natives lacks humanity. That is a first step toward integration and mutual acceptance.”
berl, crown heights 10.08.05 - 8:50 pm #

... and while we are at it, let's also solve the following problems (listed in no particular order of importance):
1. Peace on Earth
2. The energy crisis
3. Migration of Mexican workers
4. Geriatric care crisis
berl, crown heights 10.08.05 - 9:17 pm #

And now for some final words of clarification:

[Berl was asked to] "please back up your assertion that my analysis is 'a bunch of hateful drivel' with some reasoning."

OK:

hateful – because reducing frum Jews to faceless creatures who merely “imitate their parents” and, by virtue of their birth, probably can’t “walk the walk” is dehumanizing and, therefore, hateful.

(as an aside, if your ancestors had opted to “imitate their parents”, and instead of “rebelling” had stuck to the derech Yisroel sovo, you too would be spared the pain of the BT experience. More importantly, we would all be spared the endless “... monologues” and “the BT dialogues”)

drivel – because your thesis leads to the inevitable conclusion that following in parents’ footsteps has an adverse “sociological” effect of turning a person into a lifeless zombie that is all “about static sameness and doing things out of habit and routine.”
(I leave the word bunch without explanation)

berl, crown heights 10.09.05 - 12:53 pm #


View my Stats