The Pirate Puzzle

This riddle is an intro to the next post I'm working on... :)

There are 5 pirates on a ship - the captain, 1st mate, navigator, cook and cabin boy, in order of descending rank. These pirates are all motivated by the same things, in order:

1. Self preservation trumps all.
2. Greed. They would do anything to get one extra piece of gold, short of giving up their lives.
3. Bloodlust. They enjoy seeing other people die, and if it doesn't cost them anything, they'd just as soon see their own comrades snuff it.
   

They discover a treasure of 1,000 gold coins, and a discussion ensues about how to divide it up. They agree and swear a blood oath that:

1. The lowest ranked pirate (the cabin boy) will make a proposal of how to split the gold.
2. The pirates will vote on the plan
3. If the plan wins by a clear majority (no ties!) the plan will be implemented.
4. If the plan fails to gain a clear majority, the person who proposed it will walk the plank, and they return to step 1 with the next ranking pirate.

Then a genie pops out of a bottle that they found with the treasure, and gives them all the gift of infinite intelligence for 15 minutes, during which they will be making their proposals and voting. (They don't suddenly become moral or lose any of their other motivators - they just become instant experts in game theory.)

After the proposal and voting - who is still alive, and how much money do they have?

I won't post the solution... just yet... :)

(Hattip - Sruli Shaffren who introduced me to this riddle)

Adopt a Soldier!

Please visit this link and adopt a soldier!

Be a player, not a spectator!

It's been a couple of weeks since the Likud primaries, and most of the dust seems to have settled.

In summary, the Likud membership selected a powerful array of candidates who have declared and demonstrated loyalty to Eretz Yisrael. Only through the dirtiest machinations and abuses of democracy did Netanyahu manage to shunt Moshe Feiglin from 20th place to 36th. At this writing it is still unclear as to whether Michi Ratzon's appeal against his demotion (collateral damage with Feiglin) will bear fruit; either way, Feiglin won a huge moral and PR victory. For a solid week, he was the top news item in Israel; every news agency was filled with interviews and quotations from Feiglin.

And most importantly, once given the opportunity to present his own case, Feiglin was outstanding at winning over people's hearts and minds. Just reading the talkbacks to every article that dealt with him, whether on Haaretz, Ynet or NRG, it was staggering to see what proportion of people support him! Well over 50% of talkbackers have been supportive of Feiglin - and this on the most left-wing of news sites!

I sense that a major sea change has come over Israel. The people are finally getting access to a point of view that to date has been blackballed by the mainstream media - and they like it! It may well be that Moshe Feiglin does not get a seat in the coming Knesset, but this is of secondary importance. What really matters is that the media embargo of Feiglin and his views has been broken, and the people of Israel, when presented with an alternative to the suicidal path of Oslo, "land for peace" etc., are ready for the change.

But it's not going to happen in these elections.

The Israeli Knesset elections of 10 February 2009 are not so much a referendum on the direction of the country, as a vote on which bunch of losers is the least likely to accelerate Israel towards the abyss. Barak, Livni and Netanyahu do not disagree about the paradigm of leadership, only about the price at which they are willing (and desperate) to sell off Israel's strategic and historical assets. Whoever wins these elections, my most likely scenario is that, like the last n governments, the coming one will disintegrate in a matter of 2 years or so.

And that, dear friends, is what we need to start preparing for - now.

When the next government falls, there will be new primaries in the Likud, to choose the leader of the party. Around 100,000 people - the membership of the Likud - have the right to choose what face they will present to the Israeli electorate. Only about 50% of those people actually vote, meaning that 50,000 people will select the prime ministerial candidate and Knesset list, for whom (I'm guessing) roughly 3,000,000 people will have to option to vote.

Let that sink in: about 3,000,000 voters are only entering the political game at the stage when the candidates have already been chosen. If you don't like the options on display, tough noogies - you just gotta hold your nose and vote for the least bad option. Moreover, each individual's vote is a tiny fraction of the total electorate. On the other hand, a mere 100,000 Likud voters are going to have the option of choosing, for the first time in history, a leader of the Likud who is Yarei Shamayim, who believes in the justice of the cause of the Jewish people, who views Jewish history as having started with Avraham Avinu and not Theodore Herzl - and who will be able to lead our nation in the spirit of the Torah.

This is not just a nice-to-have. It's all very well voting for your favorite sectoral party and hoping that they'll be able to influence the government - but while the splinter religious and right-wing parties are bickering and haggling over their little patch of turf, the leadership of Israel is continuing to accelerate our national train towards the precipice of disaster. We are in the midst of a national emergency, and if we are to survive we desperately need leadership, not self-interested kingmakers.

If you really care about the future of Israel, and you really want to make a practical difference to the direction that this country is taking, then stop being a spectator and become a player. Join the Likud. It costs all of 96 NIS a year for a couple, or 64 NIS for one person. You can only vote once you've been a member in good standing for 16 months, so now is the time! If you sign up now, you will be in a position to vote when the next primaries come around... and you will have the power to determine the future of Israel by selecting a worthy leader for Israel's ruling party. With enough like-minded people joining the party, we can realize this dream.

Don't let your yetzer hora start making excuses for you. This is a time for action, and you can be a part of the revolution that will change the face of Israeli leadership.

Click here, print out the form, fill it in and fax it to the number provided.

Eis laasos laShem. Do it now.

Speed as an expression of hashkofa?

Let me start by admitting that I'm not the fastest davener in the world.

Actually, that rather understates the point. I think I must be well slower than the median, because I don't remember the last time I actually got to answer physically to a kedusha rather than relying on shomeia k'oneh, unless it's been at my home kehilla, Shivtei Yeshurun, where we do give people considerably more time to finish their silent amida.

I can understand that different people will daven at different speeds, and I don't expect everyone to cater to my preferred pace. But as one who is more sensitive than most to slight variances in the speed at which the shaliach tzibur davens, I am a little disconcerted by what I perceive as a tendency specifically among "dati leumi" communities to pray at a much faster pace than "charedi" shuls. I don't understand why this is, because it doesn't seem to fit into any of the classical philosophical or political areas that are under dispute between the DL and Charedi communities: it's not about Medinat Yisrael; it's not about "Chadash asur min haTorah"; it's not about tz'nius; it's not about relating to the non-frum world. Tefilla (and kavana during prayer) is about our relationship with Hashem, and that's an area where it shouldn't make any difference whether you believe that the State of Israel is holy or evil incarnate.

In case anyone has misunderstood me, let me be clear: yes, this is a gross generalization. I know plenty of "dalim" who daven way slower than I do, and I know plenty of "charedim" who go so fast that I cannot believe they are actually saying all the words. But the general rule is that "dalim" daven fast and "charedim" daven slow. I don't understand why this is, and I'm hoping that you will illuminate me with your comments.

Likud Primaries Dilemma

I am wavering on who to vote for in the upcoming Likud primaries.

Obviously I will be supporting Moshe Feiglin and all the other Manhigut Yehudit affiliated candidates. But I have 10 national votes + 1 regional + 1 oleh (I think - pls correct me if I'm wrong), and AFAIK there are only 4 actual MY candidates:

1. Moshe Feiglin
2. Sagiv Asulin (youth)
   
3. Asya Entov (olah)
4. Shmuel Sackett (oleh - competing with Entov? Or is he regional - Yo"sh?)

If you're wondering why there aren't more MY candidates, it's because the remainder of the MY supporter base's votes are being used as trading chips by the MY top brass, in exchange for support from other candidates and their supporters. Thus, for example, MY is supporting Keti Shitreet from Beit Shemesh for the Jerusalem regional slot, and she in turn is punting Feiglin among her supporters (we hope).

This political vote-bartering is pretty much what used to happen in the Likud merkaz, when that body used to select the Knesset list. Now that it's in the hands of the party rank and file, our votes are going to be a lot harder to control.

This, I think, is especially so in Manhigut Yehudit, where the membership by its very nature is very independently minded and doesn't just do because it's told to. An example of this is the little brouhaha caused by the Keti Shitreet deal, which has alienated Freddy Moncharsh, a longstanding and dedicated MY activist who had previously announced his intention to compete for the Jerusalem spot. I'm not going to get into the politics of who said what, who's in the right and who backstabbed whom - it is sufficient to note that we in the Jerusalem region now have a choice of voting for, inter alia, a non-MY person who has the endorsement of the MY top brass, or a MY person whom we know shares our values and will promote them in the Knesset.

I expect there will be similar conflicts of interest surfacing before Dec 8. I doubt MY will do any deals with the likes of Dan Meridor or Asaf Hefetz, but it is entirely probably that they will support mediocre candidates and not come to terms with top class people like Benny Begin and Moshe Yaalon. I'd like to vote my conscience, but then I also don't want to undermine MY's bargaining ability next time around, if people realize that they don't have any control over their voting members.

Another little complication - Rambam in Hilchos Melachim states clearly what the criteria are for appointing someone to public office: male Jews-from-birth who are shomer Torah umitzvos. I'd love to vote for Ayub Kara, given his almost embarassingly vehement pro-Jewish, pro-Eretz Yisrael views - but he's not even Jewish! I'm not sure just how frum Begin and Yaalon are, and Asya Entov is a woman. I don't even know if there are 10 candidates competing who meet Rambam's qualifications!

I'd love to hear what you think, even if you're not a Likud member. Please leave your comments!

The Great Lerner-Abutbul Debate

Insomniac post follows.  Since my thoughts on the hastily (and very well) organized debate between Shalom Lerner and Moshe Abutbul at Beis Tefilla last night are keeping me awake anyway, I may as well share them with you...

• Overall I have been very impressed with the decorum and civility between two serious candidates in a very close contest for the mayorship of Beit Shemesh.  At least these two appear to be keeping themselves above the disgraceful smear campaigns that have been conducted by some other interested parties, some of whom I would have expected to know and observe a little bit more about hilchos loshon hora.  'Nuff said.
• The candidates had to field some very tough questions, and well done to the organizers for not pulling any punches!
• On the qualifications for mayor, I scored a tie.  Both men have a long and impressive track record of public service, and both were able to present adequate administrative resumes.
• On who will be able to unite the city more, I think Lerner got the edge.  True, Abutbul can point to his shadow coalition with Labor, Dor Acher, Gimmel and Shas, but that attests more to his ability to wheel and deal politically than his ability to reach out to people who are different to him.  I think Lerner is more accessible personally to more different types of people.  
• Abutbul played down the issue of the extremists, suggesting that the conflict has been largely instigated by the outgoing mayor for political reasons, and with him (Abutbul) as mayor, he would be able to ease the tensions significantly.  My concern is that he intends to do so by conceding to the biryonim and gently persuading the others that it's all in their best interests.  Lerner is much more aggressive on this point; he made it clear that while everyone's views will be respected and taken into consideration, there will be zero tolerance for violence.  I made that a big score for Lerner.
• Abutbul's idea of a separate minhelet for RBS is interesting, though not compelling.  I like the idea of having a more personal branch of the iriya, but I'm not hung up on it.  I don't think Lerner had given it much thought; he dissed it by presenting himself as the person to speak to, rather than a decentralized call center of sorts.  Abutbul was very quick to point out that this is exactly what Vaknin did with his "mayor's open line", but  I didn't catch exactly why this was a bad thing.
• On the youth - well, everyone agreed that it was a high priority, and the debate was more of a "your word against mine" as to who had been more involved and effective in dealing with youth at risk.  Here the debate got a bit caustic from both sides, which I thought was uncalled for.  I have no idea who really has a better track record here, but I thought Abutbul sounded more sincere on this point.  Put it this way: if I was a teenager having an existential crisis and I could choose who to go to for a warm embrace, I'd choose Abutbul.
• There was a little exchange where Lerner criticized Abutbul for having dished out jobs in return for political support, to such an extent that he had nothing left to offer the Gerrer Chassidim.  Lerner, by contrast, has a practically clean slate, and will be able to appoint people on merit.  Abutbul retorted by saying, "Whoever gets on the bus last has to stand."  This elicited a spontaneous round of laughter and applause from his supporters, but in retrospect it left me cold.  That was basically a public admission that he's planning to be running the same kind of gravy train that Vaknin did.  You support me, I give you a job.  That's pretty cynical, and I thought it was a major gaffe on his part.
• "Where's the money going to come from?"  Lerner disappointed me here.  While he said all the right things about fiscal responsibility, he came down hard on Abutbul for promising a hospital in Beit Shemesh, which he said was unrealistic given the budget constraints.  That, IMHO, displayed a scarcity mentality and a lack of imagination.  Abutbul responded by citing the example of Teddy Kollek, who supported Jerusalem's budget by fundraising overseas (though I can't remember the figures he quoted).  I don't know if he's right about Kollek, and I don't care if the world is in financial crisis - what struck me here is that Abutbul appears to have vision, creativity and the will to achieve, and all Lerner could do was nay-say it.  Analogies to Obama came to my mind here.  Big score for Abutbul.
• There were a list of smaller issues, like the Ma"ar, Route 10, techonological development, parking, etc. on which the candidates basically agreed with each other on all points.
• Abutbul's closing remarks were ordinary to positive; Lerner's were a shocker.  Up until then, the debate had been basically respectful - then Lerner played the race card.  Basically he said that we cannot elect Abutbul - because what will everyone say if a Shasnik becomes mayor?  I actually physically squirmed, because I could not believe he had said that - and nor could a large portion of the audience, who started clicking their tongues disapprovingly.  His intention was to say that it's bad PR for a city to get a Charedi mayor, because non-charedim will get scared off and either move out or not move in.  And you know what - he may be right, but to say it outright like that was in despicably bad taste.  Can you imagine John McCain telling people that they shouldn't vote Obama because a black man is too scary a thought for some people to countenance?  By me, that ranked as the dirtiest comment of the evening - far worse than Abutbul's self-incriminating comment about the first-come-first-served, seats-for-supporters gravy train.  

Overall, I'm now thrown into confusion.  I walked in a Lerner supporter and I walked out undecided.  I guess that means Abutbul won the debate as far as I was concerned.

In summary: Lerner wins on the tough stuff, like dealing with miscreant biryonim and clean governance.  I think he would serve my personal interests better, being that I believe he would develop Beit Shemesh a lot more aggressively in the direction that I envision it - plus he has a strong pro-Eretz Yisrael record and deserves recognition for that.  OTOH, Abutbul is a more  inspiring candidate, who seems to have a lot more of a personal touch, charisma and creativity.  I like the fact that he is willing to dream a bit, because those kinds of visions can become reality.

Right now, I'm still inclined to vote Lerner, despite his closing remarks, and despite his lack of creativity.  I think he'll be a competent mayor, certainly better than the current one, though I have no great expectations of him.  While Abutbul is the more exciting of the two, I'm not comfortable with the company he keeps, and I don't have the warm, fuzzy feeling that his vision for Beit Shemesh and mine are fully aligned.

At the very least, what this debate has done is persuade me that having Abutbul as mayor would not be the worst thing in the world.  I'm voting Lerner, but if Abutbul wins, I won't be too upset, and I'll be watching with great interest to see how he performs.

Don't ask my Rabbi, ask me!

I think I'm going to take a lot of flak for saying this, but this attitude of having to ask your rabbi for his instructions of who to vote for truly gets up my nose.

Last election Rav Shteinman allegedly paskened a chiyuv on every G-d-fearing Jew to vote Gimmel, which placed me in a dilemma, because Rav Ovadia Yosef had already allegedly promised me a chelek in Olam HaBa for voting Shas. And the previous elections I knew that voting for Rav Kaduri ZTzL's flash-in-the-pan party would bring me such unbelievable segulos for mazal, brocha and hatzlocha - how could I not vote for them?  

So now I'm reading the comments on Rafi Goldmeier's Life In Israel blog about how these Rabbis say not to vote for Tov, but others say it's OK, while another bunch privately endorse Tov but feel they can't come out publicly and tell anyone to vote for anyone other than Gimmel.

Marei d'chulei alma! What is this narishkeit?! You have a group of good, koshere Yidden who want to influence the city in a positive direction - but you are paralyzed and unable to exercise your own judgement until the Rebbe has told you what to do! Do you not have a brain of your own? Are you simply a robot who will not act without input from The All Knowing Rabbis? Do you also check with the Rebbe what color granite to use in your new kitchen, or what brand of printer you should buy for your home office?

Yes, there are halachic considerations, and for this the Rabbonim are there to advise us on whether or not Caesar Stone can be kashered for Pesach - but beyond that, the choice is yours as to what color scheme you want to use in the kitchen. Likewise the requirements for someone to be chosen for public office are matters of halacha - and it seems to me that the slates of several parties competing in the Beit Shemesh municipal elections conform perfectly to halacha. In no particular order, the lists of Gimmel, Shas, Beyachad (Mafdal), Chen and Tov all consist entirely of upright, koshere Yidden who are all at least halachically qualified for office, and even the Likud list could arguably fit the definition.

Given that you have a halachically acceptable range of at least five or six choices, it's up to you to decide who will represent your interests best in the city council. Whom do you trust most? Who do you think will be most effective? Whose agenda do you agree with?

Asking the Rabbi for instructions on decisions like this looks like piety, but IMO it is a willful abdication of responsibility. Life is so much simpler if you don't have to make tough decisions yourself and you just leave it up to the Rabbi. Then after 120 years if HKBH asks you, "Why did/didn't you do such-and-such?" you can simply shrug and say, "I just did what my Rebbe told me." And if your Rebbe was wrong or misinformed (am I allowed to suggest such a thing?) you expect that Hashem will say, "Oh well, that's all right, then, I'll punish him instead. You move along to your chelek in Olam Haba now."

I don't believe in self-abnegation and abdication of responsibility; I believe in self-esteem and accountability. Hashem gave us faculties of rational thought, not so that we could delegate our thinking to others, but so that we could use it to understand His Torah and apply it to our daily lives. If we realize that we do not know enough to make an informed halachic decision (and that happens plenty to me!) then we are forced to turn to someone else whom we trust and who is likely to be able to advise us correctly. That's the role of the Rabbi - your trusted spiritual advisor whose advice you rely on to make sure that your Olam Haba is safe. But ultimately, whether or not you choose to follow his advice, only you are accountable for your actions, and after 120 years you will not have your Rabbi shielding you from the Heavenly court; it's just you, your mitzvos, and your non-mitzvos.

I asked one of my trusted spiritual guides recently, "How do I know whom to trust as a spiritual guide?"

His answer, in short, was, "It's very difficult... but I will tell you one thing: if anyone uses the phrases 'Daas Torah' or 'The Gedolim Say' - run a mile! Run a mile, because these are conversation stoppers used by insecure people to squash debate."

There's a lot more space to develop on this theme, but I'll leave it for a later blog entry IY"H. Meanwhile I think I'll hang a Chen poster next to the Shalom Lerner ones on my mirpeset. If I burn in hell for not voting Gimmel, at least it's because that was my choice.