Shabbos 102 The evasive מכה בפטיש (hammer-blow)

Shabbos 102 The evasive מכה בפטיש (hammer-blow)

One of the most difficult categories of forbidden work on Shabbos must be the melacha of מכה בפטיש, literally “striking with a hammer.”

After all, when a hammer is used constructively, it will usually be used as part of other forbidden categories of work, such a building, and when it used to destroy things with no positive intention, it will usually be מקלקל (a destructive action,) which is only rabbinically prohibited .

Yet this is indeed list in the Mishna (Shabbos 73a) as one of the 39 categories of work forbidden on shabbos, and it is essential to understand what it is.

The Mishna on our daf lists this melacho as one of those which has no minimum quantity required for liability.

Rashi gives both a general rule and an example of this melacha.

He gives the example of the hammer blow given to a stone by those who hew stones, after it has been cut out of the rock but not completely detached .

The stone is then hit with a hammer which causes it to detach and fall from the rock surface.

This is the final stage in the act of hewing a stone, and Rashi then tells us the general rule that the final stage of any melacha makes up the melacha of מכה בפטיש . He told us this rule back on daf 73a as well.

In truth though, numerous difficulties can be raised with both the rule and the example.

Firstly, as Tosfos points out, a forbidden category of melacha needs to involve an action performed in the work of the mishkan, and no quarry work was involved in that at all ( there were no stones in the mishkan, and constructing an altar from hewn stone was actually forbidden- note also how the Aron, Menorah, and Shulchan were all made of one single piece of beaten gold, and NOT of anything that had been cut into parts and then joined together !)

Secondly, if מכה בפטיש is the final stage of any מלאכה, surely it is already included in that מלאכה itself , and why should it get its own category? Does that mean that any melacha done from start to finish would incur two punishments , one for that particularly מלאכה , and one for completing it ? If so, one would expect that to be discussed .

However, this definition of מכה בפטיש does not originate with Rashi, but actually goes back to the Talmud itself (Shabbos 75b) where Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira both tell us that anything that involves completing a מלאכה is מכה בפטיש.

Tosfos appropriately does not disagree with the rule cited by Rashi, but chooses rather an example that did take place in the work of the mishkan , namely the final hammer blow given to strenghen the vessels of the mishkan once they were ready .

Does this melacha perhaps apply to the final act in a creative process even if that process does not involve a forbidden melacha ?

If so , where do we see such an example – after all, if it is a creative act of work that wasn’t in the mishkan, it will usually be included in the toladot of that melacha .

The key might lie in a Yerushalmi often quoted by our teacher, haGaon haRav Osher Weiss שליט”א ( various teshuvos on electricity in מנחת אשר חלק 1 וחלק 3 for example )

The Yerushalmi (Shabbos perek 7/ halocha 2) accounts that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish spent 3 and a half years studying the matter of 39 melachos.

They found 39 Tolados ( derivatives) of each melacha.

Whatever melacha they were able to fit into one of those, they included in one of those .

Those that they could not include in one of those were included in מכה בפטיש .

It seems clear from this Yerushalmi that there exists NO melacha that is not forbidden on shabbos.

Every possible melacha, however it is defined, either falls under one of the 39 categories, their derivatives , or the מלאכה of מכה בפטיש.

Rav Weiss himself suggests the relatively radical idea that for this reason, any activation of an electric circuit fits under the prohibition of מכה בפטיש .

Although the Bavli gave a different definition, namely גמר מלאכה, and the rule is that one does not follow the Yerushalmi when it contradicts the Bavli, he contends that it is possible that the Bavli did not mean to exclude these “left out” melachot from מכה בפטיש but simply to also include the completion of any melacha .

However, as he himself is fully aware, many poskim before him rejected this possibility, and were most likely fully aware of this Yerushalmi.

Far from me with my barely existent understanding of the subject to argue, but those who do not follow this view regarding electricity have all these Poskim to rely on ( of course, electricity remains forbidden for numerous possible other reasons given, but there could be many נ”מ)

Perhaps what the Yerushalmi really means is that COMPLETING any melacha, even one that doesn’t fit into the forbidden categories, is still forbidden because of מכה בפטיש .

However it follows from this classification that unlike other melachot, some of which one could transgress just by doing some or most thereof ( even if one is sometimes exempt due to “בעשותה” ) , one would have to actually complete the goal of these “left out” melachot in order to transgress.

If one learns this way, there is no disagreement between the bavli and the Yerushalmi at all- מכה בפטיש indeed includes all “left all” melachos , but only the completion of them.

In fact, it is also stated in the same halacha on the Yerushalmi that גמר מלאכה is מכה בפטיש,

Admittedly, this might not be the simplest reading of the Yerushalmi, but it allows for a simpler reading of the Bavli and also avoids the need to say that the Bavli and Yerushalmi have such a basic difference in understanding the melacha, one that the Rishonim do not seem to mention at all ( though see the Rambam , for example in Pirush haMishnayos to perek 7 which Rav Osher suggests as a support for his words .)

Of course , we would now have to test all the examples given in the gemara of this melacha, as well as those on our daf that Rav and Shmuel argue about, before we can really see if this thesis can stand its ground .

We would also need to define exactly what מלאכה is , and what kind of גמר מלאכה is meant by the Gemara- is it the completion of any melacha, just the completion of a כלי, or just the completion of a מלאכה not already included in the 39.

Lots of work to do, but its late …

Shabbos 91 and Parshas Behaaloscha Racism, Self-Defense, and Prison Reform

Today’s daf contains an unusually high amount of different Talmudic principles, all of which can be the subject of post after post on their own.

Among them we see again the concept of אחשביה, the idea that something (or quantity) generally not appreciated as significant by a society in general and thus not subject to the penalty for transferring on shabbos, can become significant when someone sets it aside for a useful purpose.

Besides, for being a recurring theme in our masechta regarding shabbos, we have also seen this in a recent post regarding inedible chametz on Pesach, which can become forbidden when someone chooses to eat it.

We also see the principle of בטל דעתו אצל בני אדם, ( a person’s view is nullified by the view of others), which in our case, shows that the converse DOES NOT apply- even if someone does not regard something as significant, if the majority of people do regard it as such, it is also considered significant.

And towards the end of the daf, we encounter a famous legal rule of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה (a person who does one action subject to multiple punishments, is only subject to the greater of the two.)

It is very tempting with our high, often justified, but often exaggerated, regard for the modern, western justice system, to chas veshalom view the Torah approach to justice as archaic, and even cruel chalila.

While there are certainly many aspects of it, that at least on the face of it, do create philosophical and ethical challenges for us , there are So many concepts, that even on the simple face of it, should be so easy for modern society to learn from.

Punishment is supposed to be constructive, fit the crime, and not over burden society.

On the one hand, self-defense, and defense of one’s property, is a legitimate reaction, and one of the main sugyas of the idea of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה, is the sugya in Sanhedrin (72a), where one is permitted to kill a robber breaking into one’s house, when the assumption is that the thief is coming to kill.

This is so much so, that the thief is exempt from monetary claims caused by his damage during the crime, seeing as he was subject at the time to a possible death penalty!

Yet, the rule is also very clear that this (as well as the general rule of a pursuer) is an absolutely last resort- If there is any way to save oneself by wounding the attacker, one is required to do so, and if one fails to, one is guilty of murder )Sanhedrin 74a.)

In a world where so many people are treated as second class citizens, the rule of אחשביה could teach us on an ideological level, that we are able to elevate these people and restore their dignity simply by starting with ourselves and being the one’s to appreciate them.

At the same time, we can never be guilty of being the ones to treat people with less dignity than the norms of the society in which we live.

In our parsha, Miriam is guilty of gossip against her brother, Moshe Rabbeinu, the greatest prophet of all time.

The passuk tells us that this gossip, had something to do with the Cushite (Ethiopian black) wife that Moshe had taken.

There are many varied explanations in Chazal and the Rishonim as to the precise nature of the gossip (some of which might have more appeal than others to our personal views on racial matters) , and of course, there are multiple facets to everything in Torah.

However, we have one iron-clad rule that Chazal themselves taught us (earlier in our masechta) : אין המקרא יוצא פשוטו (a verse does not depart from its simple meaning.)

This golden rule is usually taken to mean that the various midrashim, even those that seem to contradict the simple reading of the passuk, come to supplement and add additional messages to the simple meaning of the text, NOT to replace it, and although there is much to discuss about this idea in its own right, I will take it as a given for the purposes of this post at least. (for further reading, see the various explanations in Rashi, Ibn Ezra, the Targumim, and in particular, the Sifsei Chachomim on the two explanations in Rashi, on this episode.)

Although it is always hard to understand how great people can do terrible things, whatever the precise nature of this gossip was, the terrible punishment makes it clear that it was indeed a terrible mistake.

I would like to suggest what to me, at least in the context of our time (and the timeless Torah speaks to ALL of us, in ALL times), is the most obvious simple meaning of the text.

In the biblical society, like in today’s so called liberal western world, the illness of racism was a scourge, that even otherwise great, and good people, were affected by.

Moshe Rabbeinu’s marriage to a black woman, was frowned on so much in that society, that even his own great and righteous sister couldn’t handle it.

And what happened- she become ill with an affliction which makes the skin go snow-white!

In Judaism, diversity in creation is actually celebrated, and even has its own bracha, משנה הבריות, (one who diversifies his creations), one that is actually made on rare animals like elephants (depending on time and place), as well as unbelievably, black people, who were very rarely seen in Talmudic Israel and Babylon (Brachos 58b.)

Perhaps the simple lesson from Miriam is that if one doesn’t appreciate that “black is beautiful”, one can land up as a leprous outcast, as white as white can be!

Shabbat Shalom ,and may we see the end of the terrible scourge of racism and the appreciation of every person created in the Image of Hashem.

Shabbos 68 “Tinok Shenishba” -Does a newly religious person need to repent for earlier transgressions?

On today’s daf, we are introduced to some basic concepts regarding the forbidden categories of work on shabbos.

One rule is that a person who unknowingly describes shabbos is liable to bring a special sacrifice to atone for this unwilling transgression. This type of transgression is called shogeig (שוגג), as opposed to a knowing and intentional transgression which is called meizid  ( מזיד) .

Since the destruction of the second temple where sacrifices are no longer offered, it follows that one is still required to  repent and pray for forgiveness for such aveirot , as prayer comes in place of sacrifices (ונשלמה פרים שפתינו)

However, not every type of unwilling transgression is defined as “shogeig” and requires a sacrifice.

To be defined as “shogeig” regarding the laws of shabbos, a person has to have intended to do the actual forbidden action but simply

  1. Have forgotten that work is forbidden on shabbos
  2. Have forgotten it was shabbos
  3. Have forgotten that the specific category of work is forbidden on shabbos .

If one did a  forbidden melacha ( work category)  completely unintentionally , not though an act of forgetfulness, like if he was forced to do so by someone else or did it by accident, it is called ones (אונס), a transgression performed under duress, and one is exempt from the Korban.

In such circumstances, we generally tend to view such actions as not tied to him at all and the action is not considered a sin at all- thus repentance might not be needed at all ( I say might as there are different categories of אונס and מתעסק and some opinions hold that some of them might still be considered a מעשה עבירה even if one is exempt from a sacrifice .)

One fascinating debate on this daf is the status of a “tinok  shenishba”- someone who was captured by non-Jewish captors as a child and was raised as a non-Jew, without being aware of his obligations as a Jew and without the belief required to carry them out. (Another fascinating case with the same law is the גר שנתגיר בין הנכרים which could make an interesting post in and of itself …)

Are his actions  considered to be “shogeig” ie intentional but unknowing , and liable to the relevant sacrifices when he becomes aware of his Jewishness and embraces it, or are they considered to be more like “ones”, done under duress, and thus exempt completely from a sacrifice, and probably the equivalent prayer and repentance in the absence of one?

The leading Amoraim (sages of the Gemara )  of Bavel ( Babylon) , Rav and Shmuel, are of the opinion that such a person has the status of a “shogeig” and needs to bring a korban when he becomes Jewish observant, and the leading Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, hold that he has the law of an “ones” and is  exempt ( there is a debate between Rashi and Tosfos as to the precise reason or source for this exemption, which might have some practical ramifications, but I will leave this for further discussion)

It can be argued that a person who was brought up Jewish but unobservant is similar to the “tinok shenishba” of our daf, in that he too grew up without awareness of his religious obligations or at least without the necessary belief system to appreciate their importance, and is thus subject to the same dispute.

As the law usually follows Rabbi Yochanan (and so rules the Rambam, Mamrim 3/3), it would follow that they would then likely be exempt from the sacrifice and from the equivalent prayer and repentance required in its place.

We find precedent for extending the rule of the captive child to such a person in the Rambam’s ruling regarding heretics (Mamrim 3/3.)

Whereas the original heretic who gives up on Jewish belief is treated in halacha appropriately, the Rambam says that their children and descendants, who know no better, are to be treated as the captive child, and thus not held responsible for their unknowing transgressions  prior to their religious arousal.

He applies this rule specifically to the karaim (karaites), a powerful sect in his time who accepted only the written Torah but denied the oral Torah .

The equivalent of the karaim’s descendants today would probably be the descendants of the original reform or secularist Jews , who due to their lack of religious upbringing, know no better , and thus according to Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and the Rambam and other poskim after them, might  not be liable to a korban nor the equivalent tefilla and repentance in our day and age, for their transgressions up until the time that they chose to become observant.

My father שליט”א always likes to point out, on this basis , that the term  “Baalei Teshuva” (penitents) , commonly applied to newly religious people, is actually inaccurate, and should be reserved for people who intentionally sinned or left the path of Torah, and then returned.

Rather, people who grew up irreligious and became religious later   are really in the category of “Tinok Shenishba.”

These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.


the Haftara for Parshas Pinchas is normally about Eliyahu, for well-known reasons.
Yet, when it falls after 17 Tammuz, we read from the first chapter of Yirmiyahu instead, to fit the sad theme of this time of year.
Yet there is also a very strong connection between the Parsha itself and the Haftara from Yirmiyahu.
The first chapter of Yirmiyahu deals with his sanctification as a Navi. In Parshas Pinchas, Yehoshua is sanctified as a Navi in place of Moshe Rabbenu.
It cannot be coincidental that Yehoshua is the one who took us into Eretz-Yisrael , and Yirmiyahu is the one who, in his prophecies of punishment, took us out into exile.
During this period of time, the message is stark: We cannot take Eretz-Yisrael for granted- our rights to it are completely determined on whether we keep our part of the deal.
At the same time as we meet Yehoshua, we also meet Yirmiyahu, and its is up to us to decide, whose message will be fulfilled in our day.

Parshas Shlach- Attitude is everything.

What was wrong with sending spies to check out the land?


Rashi explains, quoting Chazal, that Hashem told Moshe to “send for himself” spies to check out the land, because Hashem himself was not altogether happy with the idea.

And indeed, we know that this action ended in disaster.

Yet, we find that when finally entering the land 40 years later, Yehoshua also went to spy out the land, seemingly forgetting this important lesson.

Furthermore, Moshe gives the spies precise instructions regarding what to look out for, including the nature of the inhabitants and their cities, and they seem to come back with  a report that follows those questions.

What exactly did they do wrong?


It seems to me, that as with many things in life, sending spies was not in itself a bad thing, but completely dependent on the attitude and intentions of the spies.

It is completely acceptable and even advisable not to rely unnecessarily on miracles and to take whatever steps one can take to prepare for whatever situation one might encounter.


Entering the land was not supposed to be subject to debate, but it was still up to the people to plan their strategy as to the best way to conquer it, and that depended very much on the nature of the inhabitants and their cities.

Had the spies had the correct attitude, realized that Hashem’s promise to take us into the land was not subject to question, kept their ultimate faith in Hashem’s ability to so, and merely used the mission as a strategy planning session, hence doing their part and then “letting” Hashem do his, the idea would have been very positive, and Moshe indeed saw It this way.

Yet Hashem, of course, knew their most intimate thoughts and understood that their intentions were not so correct, and thus disassociated “himself” from it.

The Ramban indeed  follows this approach- from the words of Rashi, I think that one can take it a step further as well, focussing not only on strategy, but also on  the importance of positive thinking.


In explaining the instruction to check out the land, Rashi comments :

את הארץ מה היא – יש ארץח מגדלת גבורים ויש ארץ מגדלת חלשיםט יש מגדלת אוכלוסין ויש ממעטתי אוכלוסין:

“There are some lands that breed strong people and some lands that breed weak people. Some lands breed large populations and others limit them.”


It is clear that the spies were instructed to see a large and powerful population as a positive sign, as proof that the land was good to its inhabitants, and would be equally or even better to us.


The spies were expected to go in with positive thinking, and interpret whatever they saw in a positive light, and come back and use the information to encourage and motivate the people – even a large and powerful population was supposed to be seen as a  positive sign.


Yet the spies did exactly the opposite , and used their findings of a strong and powerful population to frighten the people out of entering the land- their words ” we won’t be able to go up  to the nation because they are too strong for us”, gives them away.

Not satisfied with interpreting the people’s strength as a negative, they then proceed to talk bad about the land itself.

Instead of using this holy mission to plan their strategy for the promised entry into the land, and to find information that would help inspire and motivate the people to do so, they use the information they saw to frighten and scare the people and convince them that going to the land was a suicide mission, despite Hashem’s promise.


Our mission is to follow the guidelines Hashem has given us to the best of our ability, and to take whatever practical steps are necessary to help us fulfil that mission.

In addition, whatever challenges we face along the way should be interpreted positively, and used to further motivate ourselves to follow this mission.

Using the challenges  we encounter as excuses to absolve ourselves of this mission is simply not an acceptable option- we need to see the cup as at the least “half full”, not “half empty” appreciate the good in whatever challenges we face, and use it to inspire us to do more good.


This is no small challenge, and indeed, most of the greatest men of the generation failed this test, but it is no excuse not to at least try.

Parshas Vayechi: The dangers of Zealotry

Yaakov Avinu’s final condemnation of unconstrained zealotry
In what seems to be a most unlikely and inappropriate setting- his final words to his children, Yaakov gives a brutally harsh rebuke to his second and third eldest sons, Shimon and Levi.

Referring to their genocidal elimination of the village of Shechem (כי באפם הרגו איש) , in retaliation for their complicity in the kidnapping and rape of their sister Dina, he refers to their tools as “weapons of Hamas (literally stolen weapons). “

Rashi comments that Yaakov is telling them that they had stolen the tools of Eisav, the man of war, the hunter, in carrying out this impulsive and unacceptable operation.

It could possibly be the equivalent of calling the Jewish Underground, that placed many a bomb in civilian Arab areas, Nazis and worse- the way of the Aryan “Master Race””, not of the Torah’s “Chosen Nation- a light unto the nations.”

His condemnation continues:
בְּסֹדָם֙ אַל־תָּבֹ֣א נַפְשִׁ֔י בִּקְהָלָ֖ם אַל־תֵּחַ֣ד כְּבֹדִ֑י כִּ֤י בְאַפָּם֙ הָ֣רְגוּ אִ֔ישׁ וּבִרְצֹנָ֖ם עִקְּרוּ־שֽׁוֹר:
(ז) אָר֤וּר אַפָּם֙ כִּ֣י עָ֔ז וְעֶבְרָתָ֖ם כִּ֣י קָשָׁ֑תָה אֲחַלְּקֵ֣ם בְּיַעֲקֹ֔ב וַאֲפִיצֵ֖ם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל: ס
“In their council, let my soul not enter, in their assembly, let my honor not participate, for in their anger, they killed a man ,and with their will, they uprooted an ox.”

Those who get offended when extremist Jews who advocate “death to Arabs” or forced transfer, are accused of being Jewish fascists or even Nazis, might take well to note that the first person to accuse fellow Jews of behaving in such a way, appears to be none other than Yaakov Avinu- a frightening thought indeed!

In contrast, the fourth son, Yehuda, is the epitomy of both strong leadership and calculated restraint- a master of strategy, but not afraid to confront the enemy when necessary.

It is he who stopped the brothers from killing Yoseif, he who convinced Yaakov to send Binyomin with him, he who confessed to his misadventure with Tamar and said “she is more righteous than me “, and he who confronted Yoseif with respect but absolute confidence.

He was NO whimp, and certainly had NO “exile mentality”, but he wasn’t a Jewish version of the Ku Klux Clan or the A.W.B.

It is he, who is compared to the lion, and he who is given the sceptre of Kingship.

and it is from him, that the final Mashiach will come.

As is so often the case, the weekly Haftorah is linked to the parsha, not only superficially, in this case with the final words of David haMelech [Melachim 1/2], but also at a deeper level.

Here also, David haMelech condemns his former strongman, Yoav, to death, for his over zealous and violent behaviour, particularly in his assassination of his rival generals: Shaul’s general Avner ben Ner, who David was in the process of making peace with, and Amasa ben Yeter, who David had appointed in his place as general, after that tragic episode.

Despite Yoav’s strong qualities and loyalty till near the end, and the fact that according to Chazal, he was actually a great and hospitable man, this “trigger-happy” style was not to be left unchecked, and was indeed, stolen weapons from a different ideology.

Those of us who have been following both the parsha, as well as last week’s events in Israel, cannot help but be shaken by the timing.
I do not think Moshe Feiglin is Eisav, and I am far from convinced that Netanyahu is a modern day “Yehuda”, but I also truly believe that the Kahanists of this world and their followers make one simple but fatal flaw: the use of stolen weapons- the weapons of Eisav, of the power of the hunt, of survival of the fittest, and forget the basic traits and qualities of the Jewish people, a merciful nation, a people chosen to be a “light unto the nations”, not to oppress the nations.

It is indeed comforting that Likud voters rejected the rash and zealous faction that has tried to turn the Likud into a racist party Menachem Begin would have been ashamed of, and of values that are totally the opposite of the Torah’s ways of דרכיה דרכי נעום וכל נתיבותיה שלום .

It will also be comforting if the victorious faction re-embraces both the “national dignity” and “human rights” values of Begin, who despite not being fully observant, had many values largely consistant with those of the Torah, and learnt the essential balance that Yaakov Avinu taught us this week, one that President Rivlin has done us so proud by publically upholding: One can be a dignified Jewish leader who stands up for our G-d given rights, without trodding on the rights of others, and without making us seem like Nazis in the eyes of the world.

ה עוז לעמו יתן ה יברך את עמו בשלום

the murdered teens-Reading Hashem’s mind and Unity

For just over two weeks, the Jewish people were united, looking, and praying for our missing boys.

Now, every saint and sage is offering their learned opinion on what caused the murder- I have heard superficial , outrageous, and insensitive suggestions ranging from anything from possul mezuzos, to people far away using bad language, to blaming the parents for living in dangerous places- so many people who think they have direct connections to Hashem’s minds.

I do not have the honour of such a connection, so I will not be offering my explanation, but I will ask one question:
Do we have really have to be hit on our heads in order to be united?


Why the D.A. lost Gauteng- lessons from Khayalitsha


Much hoped was placed in the opposition “Democratic Alliance’s” David vs Goliath campaign to take South Africa’s wealthiest province from the A.N.C.

In a province where the local A.N.C. branch opposed President Zuma’s re-election as A.N.C. president, and where frequent power outages, the e-tolling debacle, and crimehave had a serious impact on home and business alike, the charismatic and black Mmusi Maimane should have been swept to victory.

However, those of us who feel shocked and disappointed that despite some growth in Soweto and Alexandra, the masses in those great bastions of the anti-Apartheid struggle stuck with the comfort-zone of the party they know and trust, despite its failings and corruption, should look to the province we all jealous of for some guidance.

the DA has been in power for no short time in Cape Town and the Western Cape, and has had plenty of opportunity to garner support and loyalty by changing the lives of the impoverished masses in its own black townships like Khayalitsha and Gugulethu- it certainly promised much in this area.

It even promised a rapid transport system between Khaya and the city before the last local elections, which does not seem to have materalized.

Yet the results speak for themselves- the DA won the Western Cape again due to its non-black majority, in fact with an increased majority.

in this ward in Khaya, however ,and many others, it coudln’t even manage 2% of the vote:


ANC 17 191 88.77%
EFF 1 309 6.76%
DA 256 1.32%

If in a province where the black minority is a relatively small percentage of the population, the DA has been unable to change the lives and loyalties of the urban poor blacks of the townships, and certainly hasn’t got the votes to show for it, how could we honestly have expected their cousins up on the Highveld to swallow Helen and Mmusi’s promises of free rent and 6 million jobs?

It is only when the D.A. is able to win the black vote in its own “success story”, the Western Cape, that it will have a chance of convincing the masses in Soweto and Alex to give it a try too, and this should be its focus in the next 5 years, not just planning for the coming local elections.

The ANC might be corrupt, but at least it gave its people water,electricity,and hope, so their monopolistic tyranny and arrogance has been given yet another 5 years, not because of their greatness, but because of the lack of real alternatives that people can trust.

Maybe the people aren’t as stupid as some think?