=scegtt

R. Shlomo Carlebach
an Excerpt on Tamuz, from the Moshav Mevo Modi'in Newsletter "Good
Times" Volume I , Number 1, June '04:
This doc is =scegttt , Text only from =scegtt; Notes to be
DeepSix'd as =scegttn

I've not yet identified the Source:

Retyped from Volume I: Number 1 -- of the Moshav Mevo Modi'in Good
Times Newsletter.
Chaim Rosenbloom, Editor, I reckon

Excerpted from a transcription by Emunah Witt (presumably of a
Mishakanot Teaching).  Further Source info not given.
Apparently the Source is not =t-m; and  not any other file I have
as input.  So it must be something in the collection of Leah Sand
or of Chaim Rosenbloom.  And Leah Sand ain't back in town 'till
Fall.

Irrelevant note:  Today make I mention of my sins, once more.  I
have said, most wittily, that this book of excerpts from the Holy
Beggars' Gazette presumably has editted them inappropriately. 
Haztkele tells me that they ain't edited; they're verbatim.  

--------------------------------------------------------------

Chodesh Tamuz, everyboy knows, is the month when we have to fix
our seeing.  
{gtt-1}

This fixing is re'eyah, fixing our eyesight.  
The sign of the month is Chet.  
In Sefer Yitsira, it says, chimlik ese ches briya (G_d made the
letter chet to rule with vision.)  
The month's astrological sign is Cancer.  If you remember, Cancer
always walks sideways, but never forward.

The Iishbitser says: "What is the essence of Sefer B_MiDBaR:
Remember, we were learning it all these years:
 B_RAShIT  is the book of the beginning:  beginning of the world,
beginning of Israel --  AvRaHaM , YiTzChaQ ,Y'aQov.  SheMOT is the
book of redemption, the book of the Torah.   V_Y_QRA is the book
of serving G_d.  B_MiDBaR  the fifth [sic; but 4th] book, is
something else.  

The truth is, ou can serve G_d day and night, you can do
everything right, and you can still be off.  You can be completely
off.  Off is not the word ... [3-dots Good Times; most likely
signifying pause, not elision] It is possible to have prophecy; I
see from one corner of the world to the other 
{gtt-2}    
and what I see is true and I am still off.  It is possible to know
everything and still make the biggest mistakes in life ... [3_dots
Good Times] ... the biggest mistakes in life.

You know, the spies have clear prophecy.  And they know
everything, everything, which will happen until Moshiach comes ...
[3_dots Good Times] and they were completely off.  
{gtt-3}

Korach -- remember -- the Yismach Moshe says that Korach remembers
everything he did in all the lifetimes.  
{gtt-4}

He [the Yismach Moshe] says: "I want you to know that I was in the
time of Moshe Rabbenu and when Korach came, Korach wanted to be
the High Priest instead of Aharon.  It's a miracle that I remained
neutral because it was impossible, impossible not to fall for
Korach ... [3_dots Good Times] very hard."
{gtt-4a}  

That means Korach was really the Holy of Holies.  
So if you know when Moshiach is coming,   

["Good Times" -- Oy, the Newsletter of the Happy Minyan maybe? --
punctuates it thus; but I reckon, better:  "So if you know:  When
Meshiach is coming -- ]

"Tsaddik k'tamar yifrach" 
TzaDIQ K_TaMaR Y_PRaCh
(The righteous will blossom like a date tree) 

the last three letters of QoRaCh Korach's name.  

{Comment (sa):  Huh?  Korach is simply three letters, QRCh.  And
anyhow, where's the qof in that quote.}

Korach will be a gevaldt; Korach will be the head of Leviim.  And
yet he was off, mamash off.  And Korach, he goes somewhere else. 
This is even heavier.

Bilaam is on the level of prophecy like Moshe Rabbenu.  And off is
not the word.  He's the lowest.  
{gtt-5}

And even Zimri if you remember the Ishbitser Torah, Zimri hs clear
prophecy; Cosbi is mamash his soul mate and he is the Holy of
Holies.  Rememer the Ishbitser says that Zimri never had one evil
thought his whole life.  Kulo Kodesh (totally holy).  And yet he
was off.

And here comes Pinchas.  Pinchas is something else.

For Chodesh Av, just remember, we were learning it a thousand
times:  a rebbe, a teacher, you can change; you can have another
teacher. A father, you can't have another father.  That's all
there is to it.  A father and a mother you cannot change.  If G_d
would only be our teacher, then maybe we'd take another G_d. But
since G_d is our father, there's nothing we can do.  Also, G_d
can't take another people to be 'HIS' chosen ones because Am
Yisrael are G_d's children.  
{gtt-6}
There's nothing G_d can do."
{gtt-7}

[END EXCERPT IN GOOD TIMES]
[NOTES WILL BE DEEP-SIX'D TO =scegttn]
===============================================================
sa, Mevo Modi'in 24 June '04 -- 5 TaMUZ -- 5 Jumaada al-awal
================================================================
=scegttn
NOTES TO =segtt          
This doc is best read under EinsteinWriter (W.EXE)
because the intelligibility, if any, of much of many notes
is schematized by successive block-indents 
In EinsteinWriter these are called by the commands 
  .L1 , .L2 , .L3 , .L4 , .L5, .L6 , .L7                
Each of which must be typed  at the leftmost possible position,
then followed by a Carriage Return

But under a T.EXE convert of a W.EXE doc into ASCII, 
those layout commands are stripped out, and everything goes FL
So to enable a Reconstitute, I've doubled them with dummy solamit
commands:
   #L1 , #L2 , #L3 , #L4 , #L5 , #L6 , #L7

So you must -- manually, I think, since each must be followed by a
CR -- retype the  .L1 , .L2 , .L3 etc. commands as indicated.

Note that each successive block-indent is 5 spaces indented from
the previous.
So the standard set of values would be:
 .L1=10  , .L2 = 15 , .L3 = 20, .L4 = 25 , .L5 = 30 , .L6 = 35,


-----------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY
As_it_is_said: "No comments from the Peanut Gallery."
As_it_is_said: "Oh Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?"
               "Up in the balcony where the seats are cheaper."

----------------------------------------------------------
NOTES TO =scegtt

{gtt-1}  
As David Herzberg, z'lb, might say:
Spelling right is parve pudding; but a lucky typo is a bit of art.

#l2
So I says to Shoshana:  He's drinking good wine with King
David.
#l3
And maybe Falstaff stops by to say hello, for a moment.
#l1
{gtt-2}
{Comment (sa):  More like a flashlight than a floodlight I bet.}

{gtt-3}
{Comment (sa):  
I read in a Movie Review of the Brad Pitt flic Troy, 
that the Greeks were like short -- about 5 foot 4 inches.

So maybe the people of Israel were about that size then too.

And also I read somewhere that the Philistines, the Sea People
were tall, about 6 foot 
#l2
(I suppose made refugees in one of those prehistoric Iron-age
shifts, maybe when the dark-haired people came down from the
Balkans and took over Greece).  
#l1
So if they're taller they have longer arms.  
And so they would have maybe a half-foot advantage in a sword-
fight.  
So before you try to take over the land, you'd better modify your
weaponry.  So then the Spies -- 
#l2
and I think of the 12, each had his own troops, and each went
to a different part of the land -- 
#l1
did just what a good military intelligence officer is supposed to
do, in reporting "we were like grasshoppers in their sight".  
Or maybe it took 40 years to get the Armaments trip together.  
#l2

     This is Reason 1 of the IInd dozen reasons why I want to
rejoin the Reformies 
#l3
(a silly word to apply to forms of religious Judaism, 
'Reform'; 
#l4
but the word 'Reconstructionist' is great -- like,
chadesh yamenu k'kedem -- it's what many of the
best at Moshav Meor Modi'in have tried to do -- 
#l5
Moshe Kousetsky was one of the first, he kept
a flock of goats in the fields behind the
Moshav, before Sharon put down that city of
Modi'in, when the Bedouin still found it a fit
place to live. 
#l6
 Ah, suburbia.)  -- 
#l3
I mean, like, there's limits to what orthodox exegesis
of Torah, apologetics really, can do; a closed universe
of thought.  "Their world of ideas is an aviary."(sa)}
#l1

{gtt-4}
George Robinson once said, best's I recollect, that once someone,
maybe him, asked Little Joe about reincarnation.  Little Joe said: 
You only get one.  

HIK seems to say something similar, but not unequivocally.  

And, best's I recollect,  PVK once seemed to hint (Abode Camp mid-
70s)  that Noor Inayat Khan, z'lb, was the, or a, re-incarnation
of Joan of Arc.             

But like:  The notion of 're-incarnation' would seem to fall apart
under conceptual analysis.  It is tied to the conceptual problems
of the analysis of the notion of 'self-identity.' 

Like for starters:  surely the personality falls off:  so if so
then what_means re-incarnation without continuity of personality.
#l2

So OK:  PVK shows in detail (Zenith lectures) that there are
many levels of self-identity, and shows how one can let these
-- garments, really -- 
#l3

(and by the way, I'm pretty sure a descendent of 'The
Levush' -- 
#l4
my paternal grandmother's maternal grandfather, if
I've got that right, was Reb Nochem Jafee of
Grodno; this is maybe in notes I sent to
www.jewishgen.org , and also to Dorot at Bet
Hatfutsot)
#l2

-- fall away, and still find oneself robed  in higher levels -
- light, I suppose -- and still preserve a  sense of identity
by shifting one's identity to those higher levels -- 

-- but of course at some point ego does droop off, 
#l3
and now you get into the sort of area Woody Allen tries
to joke about -- 
#l4
like, what good is eternal life if you can't go out
to a really good singles bar up there -- nothing
tacky, you know -- at least just once in a while --

#l5

-- oh well, time to come too late to Minchaa --
#l1

Ok, take it from the top but quick:
'Re-incarnation', whether it is a fact or not -- 
#l2
or rather, whatever it may mean in terms of the dowery that
we bring to delivery room, if not to the womb 
#l3
(and the whole question of the morality of abortion
hangs on what comes down when; 
#l4
and now I don't know who one could trust to answer
that) -- 
#l1
is at least a useful metaphor, tho it may be a mischievous one. 


{gtt-4a}:  Oh, fuss_'n_feathers.  Lots of folks walk around
wearing too much charisma like a monagrammed designer zoot suit
with padded elbows.  Just don't look directly at the sun, shift
down a few floors, and stay on the rational plane.         

    They say yellow is a power color.  If you see someone wearing
a yellow shirt, before doing business with him put on a pair of
sunglasses.

    And anyhow everyone knows:  the reed can bend with the wind.

    Though too, at any interview, I prefer to remain standing;
sitting ain't natural.  If you must sit, do it on the edge of the
chair, knees down, relaxed but alert.                              
     

{gtt-5}
Maybe you want to say:  Bilaam is on the same level as Moshe
Rabbenu -- like on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon.  But that's
just not so.  On opposite sides, yes -- like, everyone knows, a
mystic sees stars, so a fool beats himself on the head until he
sees stars and says, I'm a mystic too.

That's a cute way to put it; too cute.

I'm trying to show the relationship of what Baalam is doing, or
rather, taken to represent, to 'the left-hand-path', 
#l2
(black magic, even if used only for knowlege, not to harm
others)- 
#l1
and --- this is not the right-hand path, 
#l2
the sort of thing that Castenda's Don Juan represented -- the
Knight who has to be brought in to fight against the guys in
black 
#l3
-- mean streets & all that -- 
#l1

it's counterposed to the true mystic.  
#l2

And that really is, I guess, what they're getting at in the
morning bracha -- "who gave the rooster enough sense to tell
day from night" -- we should all be as wise as that dumb bird
--  
#l1
    I mean, Moshe Rabbenu brought down the Torah, the whole
halacha, the way to walk through life without falling into the
ooky Reed Sea-Swamp.  

And what did Balaam bring down -- just one quick glimpse into the
future; big deal.  
#l2

And even so, so what -- all one can forsee -- 
#l3
it's about time to get back to Frank Herbert's Dune
books for a few hits -- 
#l2
is the presently most likely, or maybe the default, path -- 
#l3
and this is MacBeth's "beware the fiend that lies like
truth" -- 
#l4
though "Shakespeare", whoever he was, offered only
the most simplistic example of that in that "play"

{gtt-6}
Slow down Hobo.  Avraham had two kinds of son:  legitimate,
eventually, and love-child, meanwhile.  

For who is to say Hagar was not loved, for all that he took her as
an obligation, and from love for his wife -- 
#l2
I almost typed 'life', and maybe that was the right --
#l3

more than word, more than concept, 
#l4
only in Judaism do words truly have existence -- 
#l1

But back to "haveth childers everywheres" (Skeleton Key to
Finnegan's Wake)

I mean, back to Kitov:   the Torah was offered to all the nations,
but only we took it -- 

but everyone knows, this was not a one-shot stock-option Bob; it's
still an opt-in situation, "and evermore shall be so" -- 

so that was a most mischievous -- shucks, not mischievous,
disruptive, anti-helpful -- line to say, however retrospectively ,

"the WORD will be taken from you and given to the Goyim"  -- 
#l2

my mother said of her grandchildren -- don't play favorites. 
I found a box at David's Chocolate Chip Cookie Store in
Harvard Square that said "David's Cookies" and bought it to
give to my nephew David for Christmas.  My mother said:
"you've got to get a box too that says "Mathew's Cookies"
[for his brother, Mathew] -- that's the way civil wars
start."

#l3
Well, I'm dancing around the point as usual, but shucks,
why not do it a bit, everyone likes to dance now and
again
#l1


{gtt-7}
This is one of those easy paradoxes that the Schoolmen (or
whatever y'all call 'em) loved.  It goes best in Hebrew, of
course:  "ein ma l_asot"

It indicates, of course, the necessity of the religious premise --

which I try to express in my lost essay, "Quodlibet est, est unum,
verum, bonum", 

where I try, and I think it flies (like it or not) 

I say:  where I attempt a sort of Kantian transcendental ontologic
proof via the verifiability criterion of meaning:  

viz: that we cannot but conceive of Deity, of the Divine ground of
human being, 
therefore it is meaningless (by the verifiability criterion of
meaning) to even attempt to conceive, much less postulate, the
contrary 
#l2
(or is it contradictory; I ain't thought that one out yet), 
#l1

therefore we must say (in the context of Kant's 'transcendental
idealism / empirical realism', or whatever he said) that such
exists.

Remember -- 
#l2
this should be swallow-able from a Wittgensteinian context,
(tho I'm not sure I recall now just how) -- 
#l3
it's merely an 'empiricist' -- 
#l4
 or whatever you call those guys who go maybe from
Locke (though Whitehead would disagree) to,
paradigmatically, Hume, and on through Russell -- 
#l3

fallacy to suppose that for Kant the Ding-an-Sich is the
ultimate reality which we, oh poor creatures mired in
maya, can never perceive -- 

for if so, what's the sense of talking about it; there's
none; so it's nonsense; so there -- .  

"Says Kant, you may think there's a Ding-an-Sich, but
it's merely an epistemologist's shtick" (sa)

So again:  the Ding-an-Sich is that of which it is
meaningless to speak.   Again, the world is necessarily
"sicklied o'er with the pale caste of thought" (Hamlet)
-- 
#l4

I mean, we'd all like to be the Noble Dog, or any
of the other kinds of goyim -- 

#l5

(Woody Allen does this delightfully in one of
his movies, Annie Hall I think:

 confronting an absolutely handsome,
Benneton_on_toast, Connecticut of course,
couple outside a yuppie-fying Greenwich
Village Art Film Movie Theatre -- six foot,
blonde, and practically a tennis racket and
try martini in each tentacle -- 

He says:  "Well, I don't have a thought in my
head."  
And she adds, like a good wife-to-be: "And
neither do I."  

John Lindsay was that, but he didn't make it
to President. -- 	
#l4

-- but the truth of the matter is -- and thhis is
part of the morning bracha, "who has made me " -- 
#l5

well, the only way they could to put it, and
it's really gauche, I mean, how can I take
THAT to the chablis-&-brie party -- is, 'not a
goy'.  

(Of course 'goy' is non-pejorative in Hebrew,
merely means, one of the (other) nations, but
by Americanized yiddish it has become
pejorative) -- 
#l4

I mean this is really the psalm of David 
#l5
(as I know it from the King James Bible, I
think -- fine book, that) 
#l4
"what is man that THOU art mindful of him -- and
b'nei Adam 
#l5
(translated "the son of man" -- but b'nei Adam
in modern Hebrew just means, 'oh, anyone' -- 

so Jesus is delightful in saying, "John ["the
Baptist"] abstained from everything, and they
put him down for it, and b'nei Adam here
[referring to himself, sort of as 'your
faithful servant' or 'shmendrik here' ] has a
bit of wine now and then, and -- they still do
a put-down -- 
#l6
I mean gvalt, the religious Establishment
was no better in the Good Old Days -- oy
- 
#l4
that THOU visitest him -- yet THOU hast made him
but little lower than the angels -- 
#l5

I mean , Lucifer was surely right -- (him and
Korach) -- THAT  bag of guts gets the Divine
Torah -- 
#l6
(I've got to write quick, before I dash
to the privy) -- 
#l5
I mean, REALLY

("some trivial snub/ of that preposterous
couple of slime and mud / ridiculous in our
Courts of State 
      'our'
surprisingly one couldn't then, by wave of
wing, or even flash of cape
reascend then, duly apogetic of course,
returning to urgent business.

Beelzabub.    
(Lord of the flies -- 
#l6
most elegant flies no doubt, all fallen
thinggummies too maybe 
#l7

-- Yeats' little clockwork creatures
of Byzantium  maybe; who knows, 

and who should want to; better to
cook pancakes with soysauge for
breakfast, and a glass of orange
juice --  that's Zen, Charlie
#l2
                             
With Wittgenstein it's like as soon as you enter the room
you're immediaely caught up in conversation, conversations, 
conversation that never ends --
 
you want to say, wait a minute, I want to step back from this
for a minute -- see it within its frame, before I have to get
in there -- but you can't 
#l3
Did Cavell, one would assume get around to comparing
Wittgenstein with Erich Rohmer's movies:  Mon Nuit Chez
Maude, etc.
#l2

I mean, there is much limitation to Wittgenstein's later
work; 
it makes no room for transcendent mlysticism, nor for the
realms of introspection -- it really is merely middle-range -
- tho deeply so -- but still, just a much mmore sophisticated
refinement of the sort of British John Bull Roast Beef
realism that runs through Moore -- 
#l3
an antidote to those interminable foggy drizzly days
when you've almost forgotten what a pretty chick can be,
and you can't stop from wondering ("stop my mind from
wandering" (Ringo, Beatlles, "Fixing a Hole") whether
the world is really real 
#l4
(someone said that before me -- linked empiricist
skepticism with the miserably tedious English
weather -- said it much better too) 
#l5

-- and that's what's wrong with faggots --
hyper-masculinity, they lack the humility to
comfort a woman and change a diaper -- 
#l6
                                   
Well, once again I've failed to see/say
this clearly -- 
#l7
"the day breaks / your mind aches" -
- tho this ain't that 

(magnificnet line, by the way; by
John Lennon I assume, 

Soemthing about being caught up one
disasterous night

(and someone at Katona's once said,
this is a hippy pad in Placitas,
1967, where they were wont to play
rather atrocious music 

-- Procol Harum with his plastic
organ and a bottle of booze topped
with chauvinist self-pity 


in the loop of the mutual self
destrucdtion of "a love that should
have lasted years"
 
But I digress.

==================================

so ok, put this in W.Exe with all the block-indents, flag 'em as
#2's etc.; t.Exe post and go on with the day.
Wasted all morning on this    

=================================================================
sa, Mevo Modi'in , 24 Jun '04 -- 5 TaMUZ
Shanti. Chantilly. Shiskabob.
==================================================================