Friday, July 29, 2022

Rav Kook's Igrot Hare’aya: Questions about Religious Services in Eretz Yisrael – #111 – part II

Date and Place: 2 Adar I 5668 (1908), Yafo

Recipient: Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevi, author of Dorot Harishonim. We have featured various letters to him in the past few months.

Body: I will do my best to answer your questions. First I will quote your question, and then I will answer.

Question #2: “The avreichim (older, full-time Torah students) are presumed [by the wider public] to be idle people, for they have never seen any place other than Yerushalayim. Therefore, we need to know whether it is crucial to bring in avreichim of a truly exceptional level of Torah scholarship and fear of Hashem from Russia, but those who know how to interact with people with active lives, for maybe they will be able to attract the hearts of the settlers of the Land. On the other hand, is it possible to find the resources in Yerushalayim, as perhaps the welfare of Torah study of the masses in Yerushalayim demands that we take the avreichim from there?”

My answer: The “idleness” of Yerushalayim’s avreichim is only external idleness. Truthfully, among them there are people of exceeding talents and those who are clever in the ways of the world, in addition to their esteemed stature in Torah and fear of Heaven. The problem is that the “Eastern” mode of dress, which is strange in the eyes of the Europeans, who make up the New Yishuv, is what makes them considered idle people. I am confident that our religious brethren in Germany can rectify the situation by creating a fund with which to establish a serious financial incentive that will enable people to support their family nicely, for the future position of rabbis of the moshavot (agricultural settlements). What they then need to do is to express their opinion that the attire of the rabbi should be a mixture [between traditional rabbinic garb and modern attire], in a manner that the rabbi would be acceptable to the populace, who are used to European culture. Then there would be nothing preventing [success], and as a result, the presumption of the avreichim of Yerushalayim being idle people will be removed, and we will find from among them rabbis who can act effectively to improve the religious situation in the moshavot.

A comment of Rav Halevy: How can we fix the way Torah is studied in Yerushalayim? I am astounded that not only has the community not produced one of the greatest scholars of the generation, but it has not even produced any exceptional scholars. Certainly, the avreichim who are in the tent of Torah focus on simple inferences and do not follow the approach to scholarship that such giants as the Shach, Mishneh Lamelech, Pri Chadash, … taught.

My answer: The approach to Torah study in Yerushalayim does not need to be fixed. The scholars have all of the analytical skills that the most exceptional minds in the Diaspora have. They know the thought process of the great recent minds, and they are involved deeply in new ideas and analysis, in the same manner that has been learned from the works of the last centuries.

The reason that Yerushalayim has not produced some of the generation’s leading scholars, from the perspective of reputation, has to do with the situation. Someone can become known as a leading scholar if he becomes the rabbi of an important city or by publishing scholarly books. Neither of these is feasible in Eretz Yisrael and all the more so in Yerushalayim. There is no room for multiple "crowns" in one city, and in all of Eretz Yisrael there are only four known cities. Regarding books, the poverty is so great that there is no thought of publishing. Where will one get the money for it, and who will buy it if it is published? Several of the giants of scholarship in Yerushalayim do not even write down their novel ideas, and this is the way it has always been.

Next time we will continue with the state of scholarship in Yerushalayim and move on to the next question.

Thursday, July 28, 2022

The Yishai Fleisher Israel Podcast: Heading to the Holy Land

SEASON 2022 EPISODE 30: Yishai and Malkah Fleisher chat about Ben Shapiro’s Aliyah question and Yishai's article in response - how do we get closer to a YES for Diaspora Jews? Then, Ronel Barak is a convert living in the South Hebron Hills, owner of a fabulous restaurant and campground in Biblical - but sometimes harsh - territory.


It takes a willingness to compromise individually in order to be part of a larger Tribe

by Rav Binny Freedman

Maxim Cohen was born in Morocco and made Aliyah to Israel as child in 1948. He enlisted in the IDF and became a driver. But following the Six Day War in1967, Cohen left Israel with his parents to live in France.

On Yom Kippur in 1973, Cohen – a traditional, observant Jew – was in Synagogue with the Jews of his community. At 2 p.m. during the afternoon prayers, his wife arrived in a car and Cohen immediately knew something was wrong. He rushed outside to discover that war had broken out in Israel. He rushed to the Israeli embassy in Paris where they were assisting soldiers wanting to return to Israel to join the war effort.

Arriving in Israel, he was attached to an armored force fighting the Egyptians in the Sinai. Cohen and his unit eventually crossed the Suez Canal, and after three weeks of intense fighting, on October 24 – the last day of the war, arrived at the outskirts of the city of Suez.

The IDF had decided to attempt to conquer the city, a key strategic point on the canal. Preparations were rushed and the breaching forces received little forward intelligence. Cohen found himself part of an armored column rolling into the city.

Suddenly, on one of the streets that appeared empty, an inferno of concentrated fire was unleashed on the vehicles from inside the buildings that lined the street. The Israelis were trapped in a wall of fire. Bazooka rockets, anti-tank missiles, and thousands of grenades and bullets from automatic weapons rained down on the Israeli force which dispersed in every direction to escape the inferno. The battle continued for many hours – the Israeli soldiers took cover in the houses.

The commander of Cohen’s APC (Armored personnel carrier) had been hit in the firefight, along with most of the vehicle’s soldiers. Cohen maintained composure under heavy fire and proceeded to evacuate the wounded Israeli soldiers while running over enemy troops with his vehicle. Without concern for his own safety, Cohen drove back into the city and the heart of the inferno again and again to save more wounded troops.

After the war, Cohen was awarded the Medal of Courage for his resourcefulness, composure under fire, and for putting his own life in danger to save the lives of his brothers in arms.

So what motivates a Jew, safely living in France, to drop everything, literally at a moment’s notice and risk all for a land he was not even born in?

This week, outside of Israel, we will read the double portion of Matot-Masei, concluding the entire book of Bamidbar (Numbers). Bamidbar is the book that sees the transformation of the family of Yaakov (Jacob) transformed into the nation of Israel.

Interestingly, it begins with a census suggesting the value of each individual, which seems to be somewhat of a theme throughout the book as some individuals (Eldad and Meidad, Yehoshua, Moshe, Aaron, and Miriam, Elazar and Pinchas ) get it right, while some ( Korach, Balak, Datan and Aviram, Zimri and Bilaam seem to get it very wrong…

There is a flow to this book both in terms of its events as well as the historical unfolding of the Jewish journey, which is what makes its conclusion so odd:

The final verses of the entire book of Bamidbar (36:1-13) return us to the story of the daughters of Tzlafchad and their quest to honor their fathers’ name by inheriting his portion in lieu of sons to inherit the land . After no less than G-d Himself ruling they should receive their father’s portion, the tribal leaders of the Tribe of Menashe approach Moshe with a seemingly legitimate complaint. If these daughters of Tzlafchad receive his portion and marry outside the tribe, the lands they inherit will end up in a different tribe, which seems to be upsetting. Again, after approaching G-d the ruling received is that this is a legitimate issue. The women can inherit their deceased father’s portion but must then marry within the tribe.

Why is this the conclusion of the entire book of Bamidbar? And why this concern with where the land ends up? Aren’t we all in the end one nation: one people? Seems like a less than inspiring idea with which to conclude one of the five books of the Torah no? It’s also surprising that this story is not placed in conjunction with the original story of the daughters’ query to Moshe back in last week’s portion of Pinchas; why are these two parts of this story separated in such a way?

Perhaps the Torah is making an important point:

In truth, the daughters’ initial request is a very individual issue: to uphold the name of their father and to acquire land for their individual family. (Thus, the story initially appears in the portion of Pinchaswhose theme is clearly the value and power of an individual, in the right place and at the right time, to effect change and make a difference.)

But it takes a lot more than healthy individuals to build a healthy society. It takes a willingness to compromise individually in order to be part of a larger Tribe. It is no accident that the Jewish people are consistently counted by Tribes; each Tribal group brought something special to the nation while maintaining a certain level of individual, alongside the context of a group, identity.

The Tribe is the paradigm of the compromise between the individual’s need for self-expression and fulfillment, alongside the need to sacrifice one’s individual wants and desires for the benefit of a greater good.

And so the book which begins with the counting of every individual, concludes with an expression of the inherent danger of individual expression left unchecked. As we conclude Bamidbar, the Torah affirms the value of compromise, and the willingness to subjugate one’s individual desires to a greater good, without completely losing the value of the individual, and the individual subset group to which one belongs.

Forty-five years ago, one Maxim Cohen, safe and sound in Paris, was willing to give it all up without even being called for something greater than himself. But he never lost his individual identity as a religious Moroccan Jew through all the battles he fought.

There is a powerful message here we would do well to consider.

We live in a society which seems to place the right to individual expression as the be-all end-all pinnacle of society. Whether in prayer debates at the Kotel, or the right of every individual to choose and live the lifestyle he or she feels most comfortable with, we try to be sensitive to the needs and different forms of expression of every person, any and everywhere.

But it is not accidental we always read these words during the three weeks in between the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem by the Roman Legions, and their ultimate destruction of the Temple on the ninth day of Av in the year 70 of the Common Era.

We need to be careful that in our desire to be sensitive to and respect every individual, we don’t lose the beauty and value of the larger group that has kept us together ever since we were able to all crowd into the Temple Mount all those thousands of years ago…

Shabbat Shalom from Jerusalem.

Rabbi Ari Kahn on Parashat Masai: Infinite Value (video)

"Drive out all the Land’s inhabitants"

by HaRav Dov Begon
Rosh HaYeshiva, Machon Meir

Before Israel entered the Land, G-d commanded Moshe to warn them: “When you cross the Jordan into the Land of Canaan, you must drive out the Land’s inhabitants ahead of you” (Bamidbar 33:51-52). Rashi elaborates: “Moshe added the following: ‘Have this in mind when you are crossing the Jordan on dry land. Otherwise, the water will come and drown you.”

The Israelites were supposed to remember the purpose for which they were crossing the Jordan -- to conquer the Land and drive out all of its inhabitants. The Torah adds, “If you do not drive out the Land’s inhabitants before you, those who remain shall be barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, causing you troubles in the land that you settle” (Bamidbar 33:55). Here Rashi comments, “Those that you spare shall be a misfortune for you. They shall be like pins that prick out your eyes. They will hedge you in, enclosing and imprisoning you so that none can enter or leave.” Ohr HaChaim adds, “They will not make do with the territory that they inhabit. They will also want the part that you inhabit.”

Today, we see clearly how the words of Rashi and Ohr HaChaim are coming true before our eyes. Our enemies do not suffice with what they have. Rather, they attack us and murder us, their purpose being to drive us out of the whole Land of Israel. They cause us to imprison ourselves in our settlements and our homes behind sandbags and concrete, despite our having the strongest army in the Middle East. How did our situation deteriorate so badly, and how can we emerge from it strengthened?

Since the State’s establishment, our leaders have all agreed that the Land must remain partitioned between ourselves and a foreign nation. This approach stemmed from a lack of knowledge and understanding of the meaning of the return and rebirth of the Jewish People throughout the length and breadth of our land, as was promised to us by G-d, by means of His prophets, from time immemorial. Only in this manner will we be able to fulfill our historic role of being a light unto the nations. Only out of Zion and Yerushalayim shall the Torah and its light go forth to the whole world. It is this lack of knowledge and understanding which has led us to withdraw silently from the Biblical boundaries of the Land of Israel. That is how we got to where we are.

G-d issued to us a promise and a command: “Clear out the land and live in it since it is to you that I am giving the Land to occupy” (Bamidbar 33:53). We must constantly learn and acknowledge and remember that these words remain in force throughout the generations, as wrote Ramban, father of Israel. This is especially so in our own generation, the generation of rebirth. We must proclaim in a loud voice, to ourselves and to the entire world, especially to our enemies who rise up to destroy us, that all of Eretz Yisrael is ours for the purpose of our benefiting all of mankind. And we must believe it. When a person and a nation believe in themselves, it gives them the strength and the ability to confront their enemies, such that those enemies ultimately make peace with them as well.

Only through G-d’s “giving His people ‘strength’” (Tehilim 29:11), which the Rabbis said connotes Torah, will they be “blessed with peace” (Ibid.). Only if we go back and drink from our deep roots will we be able to believe in ourselves. Then we will be able to face our attackers, and we will continue to flourish and produce our sweet fruits for the whole world, from the midst of our land, and Jerusalem our capital and holy city.

Looking forward to salvation,
With Love of Israel,
Shabbat Shalom,
Chodesh Tov.

Yeshivat Machon Meir: Parshat Masei - Significance of the number 42

State Department's Middle East policy assessed

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Conventional wisdom vs. evidenced-reality
According to the late Prof. John Kenneth Galbraith, "the notion of conventional wisdom… is commonly understood as knowledge that is accepted within a certain community or among the general public…. [They] tend to hold on to opinions and ideas that fit with their established worldviews. Accordingly, conventional wisdom provides an obstacle for the acceptance of new knowledge or novel and original thinking….

"To its adherents, conventional wisdom provides comfortable padding against inconvenient truths and the complexities of reality…. This is a prime manifestation of vested interest. For a vested interest in understanding is more preciously guarded than any other treasure…. Acceptable ideas are disinclined to change….

"In the struggle between what is correct and what is agreeable, conventional wisdom had a tactical advantage…. There are many reasons why people like to hear articulated that which they approve.... It serves the ego: the individual has the satisfaction of knowing that other and more famous people share his conclusions….

"The enemy of conventional wisdom is not ideas but the march of events [evidence].… The fatal blow to conventional wisdom comes when conventional ideas fail signally to deal with some contingency to which obsolescence has made them palpably inapplicable.… The concept of conventional wisdom accentuated the difference between established truths - fundamentally out-of-touch with contemporary challenges - and new knowledge…."

Yale University's Prof. Harlan Krumholz adds: “In science, what seems obvious may not be true, and what is accepted as conventional wisdom, may sometimes be based on flawed assumptions.”

State Department's conventional wisdom challenged
The US State Department's policy-making has been at odds with Middle East reality (evidence), elevating conventional wisdom (worldview) over the inconvenient truths and frustrating complexities of the jerkily-cyclical Middle Eastern reality.

For example:

*The State Department's conventional wisdom has been guided by the conviction that the Arab/Muslim Middle East is amenable to noble Western values such as peaceful-coexistence, enhanced standard of living, democracy, human rights, good-faith negotiation, adherence to international law and a multilateral policy (along with the UN, international organizations and Europe, rather than a unilateral US national security action).

However, the harsh, complex, inconvenient and frustrating Middle East reality has rejected these values, sticking to its intrinsic intra-Muslim/Arab 1,400-year-old traits: preeminence of tribal/ethnic – over national – loyalty, deeply-rooted fragmentation (domestically and regionally), violent unpredictability, brutal intolerance, ideology-driven terrorism, despotic/one-bullet regimes (open to sedition and coups), tenuous regimes-policies-accords and anti-Western ideology (culturally, religiously and strategically).

*Foggy Bottom's conventional wisdom has assumed that the Arab/Muslim Middle East (e.g., Iran's Ayatollahs) could be induced into peaceful- coexistence and the abandonment of a deeply-rooted religious-ideological vision by substantial economic benefits, despite the Middle East's 1,400-year-old track record.

Thus, the State Department has underestimated the cardinal role played by history, ethnicity, tribalism, religion, ideology and the 1,400-year-old intrinsic, rogue political culture in the shaping of intra-Arab/Muslim and Arab/Muslim-West relations.

*Contrary to the State Department's conventional wisdom, Middle East terrorism has not been driven by despair and frustration, but has been driven – since the 7th century – by historic, religious and fanatic vision.

*Contrary to the State Department's conventional wisdom, the Middle East considers posture of deterrence and the military option – not the diplomatic option - as the key factor of responsible national security policy. Moreover, the Middle East does not tolerate – and severely punishes – hesitancy, concessions, retreats and appeasement, which it perceives as weakness, whetting the appetite of rogue entities.

*The State Department's conventional wisdom highlights diplomacy (which has generated a robust tailwind for Iran's Ayatollahs and headwind for the US), international law, human rights and economic benefits in its attempts to restore the strategic reliability of the US in the eyes of its Arab allies. At the same time, it is eagerly pursuing another accord with Iran's Ayatollahs and embraces the "Muslim Brotherhood," which is the largest Sunni terror organization with political, religious and welfare branches.

However, the march-of-events in the Middle East has determined that the restoration of the US' strategic stature in the eyes of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan, on the one hand, and attempting to conclude another accord with Iran's Ayatollahs and embracing the "Muslim Brotherhood," on the other hand, constitute a thundering oxymoron.

Moreover, pro-US Arabs question the strategic reliability of the US in view of the US' adherence to the 43-year-old diplomatic option toward Iran's Ayatollahs (whom they consider – along with the "Muslim Brotherhood" – to be mortal threats). In addition, pro-US Arabs are deeply concerned about President Biden's delisting of the pro-Iranian Yemenite Houthis from the list of terror entities, which intensified the Houthi shelling of Saudi and Emirati civilian targets; the US' reluctance to punish the Ayatollahs for bombing Saudi, Emirati and US targets in the Persian Gulf region; tolerating the release of frozen Iranian assets in Iraq; the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which is perceived by pro-US Arabs as a retreat; and, the reduction of the US military deployment in the Middle East.

The erosion in the US posture of deterrence has been reflected by the gradual and substantial drift, by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt toward China (which has become the largest trading partner of Persian Gulf states) and Russia, including military contracts and construction of nuclear power plants.

*The State Department's flawed conventional wisdom was underscored when it welcomed (in 2010/2011) the Arab Tsunami – which is still traumatizing the Arab Street – as an Arab Spring, Facebook and Youth Revolution and a March toward Peace.

*The dramatic gap between Foggy Bottom's conventional wisdom and Middle Eastern reality was revealed by the State Department's courting of the pro-Soviet Nasser of Egypt in the 1950s; embracing Iran's Ayatollahs and facilitating their rise to power in February 1979; considering Saddam Hussein an ally of the US until his 1990 invasion of Kuwait; the 1994-2003 heralding of Arafat as a messenger of peace, deserving the Nobel Prize for peace; the 2011 US-led military offensive against Qaddafi, which transformed Libya into an uncontrollable country, one of the largest platforms of anti-US Islamic terrorism, afflicted by civil wars with the involvement of Russia, Turkey, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, France, Italy, Sudan and Chad; the 2009-2012 courting of Egypt's anti-US "Muslim Brotherhood," while stabbing the back of the pro-US Mubarak, which was similar to the embrace of the anti-US Ayatollah Khomeini, while stabbing the back of the pro-US Shah of Iran; and the list goes on.

*All of the US State Department's Israel-Arab peace proposals have been driven by the Palestinian-centered conventional wisdom. Therefore, these proposals have been systematically frustrated by Middle Eastern reality, which has never perceived the Palestinian issue to be the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, neither a core cause of Middle East turbulence, nor a crown-jewel of Arab policy-making. While the State Department's conventional wisdom has been infatuated with Palestinians, the Middle East's march-of-evidence has made the Palestinians a role-model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and ingratitude, as well as a 100-year-old terror campaign against the idea of a Jewish State.

Will the US policy-makers for the Middle East learn from past critical mistakes by elevating the Middle East reality – as complex and frustrating as it is - over State Department's convenient and comfortable conventional wisdom?

Three Stages of Redemption

BS”D
Parashat Mas’ai 5782
By HaRav Nachman Kahana


This week’s parasha finds the Jewish nation standing on the shore of the Jordan River about to begin the next great phase of our history – the return to the holy land, not as individuals, but as a holy, great, and proud nation.

For our generation, when we returned from the bitter galut to re-enter our holy land to begin the last and greatest phase of our history, it’s a repetition of that event. This is the message of this essay! All the rest is an expansion of the message.

The Gemara (Pesachim 56a) describes the last hours of Ya’akov’s physical existence in this world, when he gathered his 12 sons to reveal to them what lays in store for the Jewish nation at the “end of days”.

However, at the precise moment when their hearts and minds were at their peak attentiveness, HaShem withdrew His Shechina (Divine spirit) from Yaakov and the revelations became obscured. And the revelation was transferred to Ya’akov’s sons in the form of six words creating three phrases: without explaining its meaning:

שמע ישראל // ה’ א-לקינו // ה’ אחד

“Hearken Yisrael // the Lord is our God // the Lord is One”

I understand the prophecy as follows:

The “Shema” consists of three phrases:

1) Shema Yisrael — Hearken Yisrael

2) HaShem Elokeinu — HaShem (the appellation describing His quality of mercy towards the Jewish nation) Elokeinu (the appellation describing His quality of absolute, even harsh, justice).

3) HaShem Echad — the Lord is One (when dealing with his creations with mercy).

So too will the future redemption of the Jewish people evolve in three stages:

1) The opening phrase of “Shema Yisrael” appears without mention of HaShem. It refers to the initial stage of redemption with the ingathering of Bnei Yisrael from the far corners of the globe to Eretz Yisrael. They will return for a variety of reasons, but not necessarily religious ones. Most will come to escape antisemitism, totalitarian regimes, or to build a state based on secular socialist Zionism.

2) Phase two “HaShem Elokeinu” includes two names of HaShem: the ineffable (unutterable) YH… representing HaShem’s quality of mercy and compassion, and the name “Elokeinu” representing HaShem’s quality of absolute justice.

This second stage of redemption would be characterized by a bitter conflict between Torah leaders as to how to view the new-old Jewish political state (Medina). Religious-Zionist rabbis will see the Medina as the expression of HaShem’s quality of mercy and compassion for His people Yisrael.

The Medina is HaShem’s declaration that the Shoah was the last major test in the 2000-year period of anger and galut (exile), and the beginning of a new period of our renaissance leading to the fulfillment of all our prophets’ visions. Millions of Jews have returned, our sovereignty over Yerushalayim and the Temple Mount and the extraordinary military victories are undeniable signs that the geula has begun.

In contrast, most of the Chareidi branch of Torah scholars will claim that the period of “Elokeinu” – absolute judgment – is still in effect, with the Medina just a stage in the natural development of political societies.

3) Phase three “HaShem Echad”, is when HaShem’s quality of mercy and compassion to His chosen people will be undeniable, indisputable, unambiguous, unequivocally absolute and conclusive; not less than when the nation “saw with their physical eyes HaShem’s articulation” of the first two commandments.

A time when all rabbinic leaders will unite in the reality that the Medina is HaShem’s avenue for the advent of Mashiach and our final redemption.

We shall witness the miraculous demise of our enemies, as stated at the end of the first chapter of Tractate Berachot. We shall witness miracles far surpassing those of the exodus from Egypt.

HaShem will “shine His countenance” upon all those who are here to receive it.

May HaShem grant our gallant soldiers victory over the forces of evil: for the final redemption of our people will come about in the merit of the mesirut nefesh (self-sacrifice) of His loyal children residing in Eretz Yisrael.

LOVE HASHEM WITH ALL YOUR HEART
How do we explain the next three phrases in Kriat Shema which deal with loving HaShem:

בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך

“With all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might“?


I suggest:

A reasonable individual plans his steps cautiously, considering all the possibilities before him. Yet, certain situations give rise to immediate, involuntary physical and emotional responses.

For example, a young person can go on a hundred dates and not be impressed by even one of them, and then on the 101st date finds the love of his life. This phenomenon occurs also with regard to lofty ideals; for while it is true that some people operate dispassionately, others feel an inner drive to achieve longed-for ideological goals.

Once people are smitten in either realm, the second stage is to deepen and develop that attachment – whether regarding matchmaking or ideals.

If matters advance, well and good. However, if there is no feeling of progress towards the goal and no positive response from the other side, then attachment can either be abandoned or continued in hopes of improvement. If they continue and it turns out that this new love is turning into a nightmare or that the ideal to which they are devoting their life is causing unbearable suffering, they can either back out or resume striving for success.

The Midrash relates that before the Sinai Revelation, HaShem offered the Torah to the seventy nations. When Esau’s descendants asked what the Torah contained and HaShem answered, “Don’t kill,” they rejected it. When HaShem explained to Yishmael’s descendants that the crux of the Torah is “Do not steal,” they too, rejected it. And so it was with all the other nations. In the end, HaShem offered the Torah to Israel, and our ancestors unhesitatingly responded, “We shall hear and we shall obey” (Shemot 24:7).

The first expression, “with all your heart”, describes the spiritual passion Israel felt when HaShem had drawn near, and they were about to receive the Torah. It was a visceral reaction deriving from the depths of their soul.

For the past 2500 years, we have been serving HaShem with our bodies, hearts, and souls, seeking to develop the connection between us and to hear the voice of our Father in Heaven calling us – but to no avail. From the time of the last prophet, Malachi, 2400 years ago, HaShem has not made direct contact, and the feeling has been that our relationship is one-sided.

At every point we had the option of abandoning that connection and becoming like all the other nations. Yet, the Jewish People stubbornly clung to their Creator, despite the absence of a clear and explicit communication from HaShem to us.

We continued, unreservedly, to worship HaShem in love and faith. That is the meaning of the second phrase, “with all your soul”. It is to carry on, despite everything, towards the fulfillment of all of HaShem’s promises to the Jewish People.

Clinging to HaShem brought us enormous suffering over two thousand years of exile, at the end of which the Jewish People underwent the worst experience imaginable – the Holocaust. All the same, we are carrying on without hesitation or weakness in our loyalty to HaShem. That is the intent of the third phrase, “with all your might”.

Certainly we lost many Jews along the way; many were murdered, probably most chose assimilation among the goyim. We today are the remnant of the long and sad exile from our land caused by our unfaithful conduct to the Torah.

But we are here! We made it! We are the Yehoshua bin Nun and Calev ben Yefunah, the two men between the ages of 20-60 who survived to enter the holy land from out of the 600,000 who departed from Egypt.

We and our children, and their children, living in Eretz Yisrael are the foundation stones of Am Yisrael’s guaranteed illustrious future.

May we all live to see the prophecy of Zecharya that the present-day fast days will turn into days of feast and joy.

Remember and do not forget JLMM – Jewish Lives Matter Most
Shabbat Shalom
Nachman Kahana
Copyright © 5782/2022 Nachman Kahana

Arabs: 'US President Decided to Tamper with [Middle East] Security for No Reason...'

by Khaled Abu Toameh
  • Arabs point out that one of Biden's biggest mistakes was that he took America's Arab allies for granted while embarking on a policy of appeasement towards Iran's mullahs.
  • "The behavior of the Obama and Biden administrations regarding Iran and Afghanistan served as a wake-up call for the countries of the region." — Ali Hamadeh, Lebanese Journalist, Annahar, July 20, 2022.
  • "Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya were stable countries until the US president decided to tamper with their security for no reason other than his fascination with the discourse of the left and the extremist [Muslim] Brotherhood...." — Saudi political analyst Mohammed Al-Saed, Okaz, July 18, 2022.
  • "I remember a little over a year ago how Biden described his relations with Riyadh when he said that they were partners and not allies, then removed the [Iranian-backed] Houthis from their designation as terrorists and then returned to the Iranian nuclear agreement." — Mohammed Al-Saed, Okaz, July 18, 2022.
  • The Arabs are telling Biden that they do not appreciate or respect weak leaders and remain concerned about his appeasement policy toward the mullahs and their proxies in the Middle East.

Many Arabs believe that US President Joe Biden's recent visit to the Middle East was a failure, and point out that one of his biggest mistakes was that he took America's Arab allies for granted while embarking on a policy of appeasement towards Iran's mullahs. Pictured from left to right: Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa bin Salman al-Khalifa, US President Joe Biden and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Jeddah Security and Development Summit in Saudi Arabia on July 16, 2022. (Photo by Mandel Ngan/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Many Arabs believe that US President Joe Biden's recent visit to the Middle East was a failure, mainly because the Arab countries still do not have confidence in his administration's policies. The Arabs point out that one of Biden's biggest mistakes was that he took America's Arab allies for granted while embarking on a policy of appeasement towards Iran's mullahs.

The Arabs are saying that Biden failed to promote normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, convince the Saudis to increase oil production, and establish a security alliance to confront the threats from Iran and its proxies. He also failed to achieve a breakthrough in the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, they note.

Continue Reading Article

Monday, July 25, 2022

Rav Kook on Mattot: No Excuses for Remaining Outside the Land!

(Editor's note: I usually rerun this drasha each year because it shows that without Rav Kook, there would have been no B'nei Brak)

Moshe's rage was palpable. “You have risen in your fathers’ places as a band of sinners!” (Bamidbar 32:14).

When the tribes of Gad and Reuven petitioned not to cross the Jordan River and enter Israel proper, Moshe denounced the proposition and lashed out at them. “Why are you trying to discourage the Israelites from crossing over to the Land that God has given them?”

We can certainly understand Moshe's anger and frustration. But this incident took place not long after he was punished for berating the people at Mei Merivah. When he snapped at the people, “Listen now, you rebels!” (Bamidbar 19:10), God informed Moshe that he would not be leading the Jewish people into the Land of Israel.

We similarly find that the prophet Yishayahu was punished for his harsh criticism when he lamented, “I live among a people of unclean lips” (6:5).

Yet there is no indication that Moshe was wrong in his scathing response to the tribes of Gad and Reuven. What was different?

Imitating the Mistake of the Spies
Rav Kook explained that, in this situation, Moshe was justified in his outrage. Moshe realized that their request could discourage the entire people from entering the Land, like the debacle of the Spies. His response needed to be stern.

We learn from here that anyone discouraging the Jewish people from ascending to the Land is following in the footsteps of the infamous Spies and repeating their disastrous folly.

The tribes of Gad and Reuven presented reasonable arguments — “we have much livestock.” But their request could erode the people’s commitment to settle the Land. There was no place for polite discussion; Moshe needed to be forceful and resolute. And if that was true for the righteous tribes in the time of Moshe, what can we say in our generation, even when people offer what appear to be reasonable objections to making Aliyah?

Rav Kook concluded: we are unable to fathom God’s ways, but nothing exempts one from Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. We must bolster our faith that, by ascending to the Land and settling it, we are fulfilling the Torah’s goals.1

Rav Kook’s forceful words found a practical application in an unusual court case that he adjudicated in 5682 (1922).

Warsaw, 1920.
Yitzchak Gershtenkorn had a plan. A brilliant, magnificent plan. The 29-year-old Hassidic Jew from Warsaw approached two friends with his proposal: every week, they would deposit money into a joint bank account. The funds would be dedicated to a single goal — to purchase land to settle in Eretz Yisrael.

His friends enthusiastically agreed. Over the coming months, they deposited money each week, excited in the knowledge that each payment brought them a little closer to their goal.

R. Yitzchak noted that his endeavor was already a remarkable success. His two friends, who had never dreamed of settling the Land, had changed. They acquired new aspirations; their views on Galut (exile) and the Land of Israel had shifted. They had become “Jews of Eretz Yisrael”!

He decided the time was right to take the next step. He began recruiting other religious Jews in Warsaw. Gershtenkorn spoke in synagogues about settling and working the Land, raising great interest. Within a short time, the group numbered 150 members. They formed a society called Bayit VeNachalah (“Home and Heritage”), dedicated to establishing an agricultural community for religious settlers in the Holy Land.

After the initial enthusiasm, however, the project began to waver. Some members were nervous because Polish law prohibited taking money out of the country. Others worried that the funds raised were so meager that, even after years of saving, they would not suffice to purchase suitable land in Eretz Yisrael. Several members threatened to resign.

That winter, the Gerrer Rebbe returned from a visit to Eretz Yisrael.2 
The Rebbe granted an audience to R. Yitzchak and told him,

“I will recommend anyone who asks me that they should join your group. I cannot provide you with any financial help because I am already committed to a similar undertaking in the Jaffa area. But never get discouraged! God will crown your venture with success.”

Encouraged, R. Yitzchak called a general meeting of Bayit VeNachalah. When the members heard the Gerrer Rebbe’s words and blessing, their doubts and hesitations were dispelled.

Purchasing Bnei Brak
Two years later, R. Yitzchak and two other delegates traveled to EretzYisrael to locate a suitable plot of land for their envisioned community. In his memoirs, R. Yitzchak described his high emotions during the long train ride from Egypt to the Holy Land:

“On that night, as we traveled from Alexandria to Tel Aviv, I could not sleep. We passed through the desert, and the sand penetrated our railway carriage through the closed blinds. To me it was symbolic: a person does not enter the Land of Israel unless he is first covered in desert sand, like our ancestors long ago who sojourned through the Sinai desert.

Absorbed in my thoughts, the sights and visions of Biblical times passed before my eyes. In my mind, I saw the journeys of the ancient Israelites, traveling with their flags and tribal camps. I, too, was not traveling alone, but stood at the head of an entire camp of Warsaw Jews, who were waiting to hear the results of our expedition.

My heart began to beat fast. We are crossing the border! We are already traveling in our Land. I opened the window wide and breathed in the soul-reviving air of Eretz Yisrael.”

While the purpose of the journey was to locate a suitable plot of land, R. Yitzchak took advantage of times between trips to meet the prominent scholars and rabbis of the holy city of Jerusalem. On the Shabbat before Passover, he visited Rav Kook in his home, where he was greeted with great warmth.3

For three weeks, the delegates searched for suitable land, examining plots near Rehovot and Rishon LeTzion. But Gershtenkorn was most drawn to a hilly stretch of ground along the road from Tel Aviv to Petach Tikva. The land belonged to a few Arab families who lived in a nearby village.

The residents of the nearby settlements urged them to buy this particular piece of land so that all Arab holdings from northern Tel Aviv to Petach Tikva would be under Jewish ownership. It was a matter of security; the hills of Bnei Brak were used by Arabs to ambush Jewish travelers. A new Jewish settlement would dislodge the Arab raiders and secure the road from Tel Aviv to the Sharon region.

The main street of Bnei Brak, 1928
Rav Kook’s Ruling
There was, however, a serious issue which led to a vehement dispute among the delegates. Geulah, the organization responsible for redeeming land from Arab hands, requested 10,000 pounds sterling for the property they sought. But their society had only collected 900 pounds.

The other delegates were wary. How could they obligate themselves to an additional sum of 9,000 pounds — ten times more than they had succeeded in saving at that point! — without prior consensus of the entire group?

Gershtenkorn was confident that the money could be raised. After many arguments, the delegates agreed to bring the matter as a Din Torah for the Chief Rabbi, Rav Kook. According to his decision, they would proceed.

The evening after Passover, the delegates presented their dispute to Rav Kook. The society’s treasurer argued that he saw no basis at the current time for a reasonable livelihood for the members, who are not wealthy; it is the delegates’ obligation to be faithful agents and not conclude any transaction until returning to Warsaw and giving an accurate report to the society.

Yitzchak Gershtenkorn argued that he was the sole official representative; the other delegates had no right to obstruct the purchase.
Making blocks to build houses. Bnei Brak, 1928
After much deliberation, Rav Kook ruled in favor of Gershtenkorn. He noted three points:

1. We must distinguish between an individual and a community. If an individual asks whether he should make Aliyah or not, one is permitted to give advice for a specific case. But a community is a different story. One who influences the views of an entire community and deters them from moving to the Land — he is “giving an evil report of the Land” and repeating the villainous act of the Spies.

2. Regarding the concerns that the group will be unable to complete the purchase of the land, we have a rule in Halachah that “The community is not poor.” Who said that only the current members will foot the bill? If they are unable to pay, other Jews of means will come and purchase a share, thus enabling the society to conclude the land acquisition.

3. Yitzchak Gershtenkorn was appointed as the sole representative with powers to purchase. The other delegates did not have the right to prevent him from executing the transaction.

Two weeks later, R. Yitzchak handed over the society’s money as down-payment for the land. Thus the agricultural settlement of Bnei Brak was founded — on the 5th of Iyyar.4

(Adapted from Mo'adei HaRe’iyah, pp. 405-407. Chaluztim LeTzion: the Founding of Bnei Brak with Rav Kook’s Support, by Moshe Nachman, pp. 32-33. Background details from The Jewish Observer, Sept. 1974)
__________________________________________________________________________________

1 According to Shivchei HaRe’iyah, p. 268, Rav Kook related this idea to Ravbbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (1880-1950), the sixth Rebbe of Lubavitch, when the Rebbe visited Rav Kook in 1929. The Rebbe is reported to have responded, “These are holy words from a holy mouth.”

2 Rav Avraham Mordechai Alter (1866-1948), known as the Imrei Emet of Gur, had a special love for Eretz Yisrael. He visited four times, purchased parcels of land, and urged his chassidim to do likewise. The fifth time he came to Israel, it wasn’t as a visitor. He was fleeing from occupied Poland and the Nazis, who placed the “Wunder Rebbe Alter” at the top of their most-wanted list. Elderly and in ill health, the Rebbe escaped from Poland in 1940 to the house that awaited him in Jerusalem. (Mishpacha Magazine, Sep. 2018)

3 In his memoirs, Yitzchak Gershtenkorn described his surprise upon meeting Rav Kook:

“In Poland at that time, one had the impression that there were two chief rabbis in Jerusalem. The first was Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, appointed by the Haredi community; and the second was the leader of the enlightened community — Rav Avraham Isaac Kook. I pictured Rav Kook as a modern rabbi. A year before my visit, I had become friendly with his son, Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook [who visited Warsaw to promote his father’s movement, Degel Yerushalayim]. Already in Warsaw, R. Tzvi Yehuda made a deep impression on me as a serious Torah scholar, distinguished in Torah and piety. But the Haredi newspapers in Poland would always stress the prominence and authority of those who opposed Rav Kook.

How great was my astonishment during my first visit to Rav Kook’s house. I saw before me a holy tzaddik, one of the select few of the generation. How saintly and noble was his holy visage! ... His words of Torah and piety flowed like a spring, brimming with love for the Land of Israel and the Jewish people... After that visit, I become attached to Rav Kook in heart and soul.”

4 The following week, Gershtenkorn met with Rav Kook before returning to Poland. Rav Kook provided him with a public letter of recommendation to help enlist more members and financial support. R. Yitzchak wrote in his memoirs:

“At all times, the Gaon [Rav Kook] was my faithful light and guide in our dealings regarding Bnei Brak. During the most trying and difficult days, when I would travel to Jerusalem to pour out my heart and soul before the Kotel, I never missed the opportunity to visit his holy abode. The encouragement and strength that I received from him were a balm for my soul.”
Rav Kook posing with the founders of Bnei Brak. Standing to the right is Yitzchak Gershtenkorn

This is the Land that shall Fall to you as an Inheritance

by HaRav Mordechai Greenberg
Nasi HaYeshiva, Kerem B'Yavneh


The book of Bamidbar concludes the period of exile in the desert. At the end of the forty years, Am Yisrael stands at the entrance to Eretz Yisrael, conquers the east-bank of the Jordan River, delineates the borders of Israel and prepares for war.

This is a commandment for generations. According to the Ramban: “'You shall possess the land and settle in it' – that we shall not leave it in the hands of a nation other than us or allow it to become barren.” (Bamidbar 33:53) Despising the precious land brought about the long exile. However, many people still ask: Why did Hashem “lock us” us in this particular tract of land?

The Ramban writes at length on this subject in Parshat Acharei Mot. Rav Kook encapsulates the idea succinctly in his opening to Orot: “Eretz Yisrael is not something external, an external possession of the nation, merely as a means to the goal of collective joining and of maintaining its material or even spiritual existence. Eretz Yisrael is connected by a bond of life to the nation.”

Every means has a substitute. When Eretz Yisrael is seen as a means towards the security of Am Yisrael, as a national or even cultural center, it is possible in times of distress to find a substitute. However, Eretz Yisrael is a land of life: “I shall walk before Hashem in the lands of the living” (Tehillim 116:9) Chazal teach that this is Eretz Yisrael. The Torah writes several times: "That you may live, and you will come and possess the land." (Devarim 4:1) Since Am Yisrael is characterized by: “You who cling to Hashem, your G-d – you are all alive today,” (Devarim 4:4) it is impossible to maintain this kind of life and attachment anywhere but in the land of life. Just like a person does not look for explanations on the existence of life, so there should be no need to look for reasons to live in Eretz Yisrael, because that is where life really is. Am Yisrael can only find a full life in this place. Chazal teach that the pasuk: “The dove could not find a resting place for the sole of its foot” (Bereishit 8:9), alludes to Knesset Yisrael, which is compared to a dove. For this it says: “Among those nations you will not be tranquil, there will be no rest for the sole of your foot." (Devarim 28:65)

On the other hand, gentiles cannot find peace in Eretz Yisrael. The Ramban writes about Eretz Yisrael: “They are unworthy of you, and you are not deserving of them.”

Eretz Yisrael is not just a place that people live in. It is the "Sanctuary of Hashem," as the Ramban writes. The Torah writes about it: “Cain left the presence of Hashem", (Bereisheet 4:16) "Yonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of Hashem." (Yonah 1:3) Therefore, the Ramban writes: “It is impossible to comment any more on the subject of the land, but if you are worthy of understanding the first [mention in the Torah of] "land," you will understand a great and hidden secret, and you will understand what our rabbis meant that the Temple above corresponds to the temple below.” His intention is that the pasuk: “In the beginning of G-d's creating the Heavens and the land” (Bereisheet 1:1) should be interpreted that Hashem first created the land above and only then did he create the parallel land below.

This is what the Torah means when it states in the Parsha: “This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance.” (Bamidbar 34:2) Chazal ask: “Can the land fall?”

The Sefat Emet explains Chazal’s answer, that so long as the Canaanites were in Eretz Yisrael, the necessary vessels to contain the land above were not yet formed. However, when Am Yisrael enter the land, the land above drops and connects with the land below, thus creating compatibility between Heaven and earth.

The war over Eretz Yisrael is not about territories and other national rights. This is a global war over Hashem’s Throne in the world. “For the Hand is on the Throne (kes) of G-d” (Shemot 17:16) –Hashem’s name is incomplete and His Throne is incomplete. Therefore, the war in the end will focus on Yerushalayim because: “At that time people will call Yerushalayim 'the Throne (kisei) of Hashem'” (Yirmiyahu 3:17) and the nations wish to prevent this. Otherwise, it is impossible to understand this great interest of all the nations in such a small place.

However, we are sure of: “Not one of Your words is turned back to its origin unfulfilled” (Haftarah blessings), and, “May our eyes behold your return to Zion in compassion” (Shemoneh Esrei prayer)

Their Origins and their Journeys, by Hashem’s Word

by HaRav Shaul Yisraeli, zt"l
Rosh HaYeshiva, Mercaz HaRav
Rosh Kollel, Eretz Hemdat
Chaver, Beit Din HaGadol Yerushalayim

We read about the journeys from one encampment to another on the way to Eretz Yisrael, and it mainly consists of names of places. These names contain history, and the basic premise behind them is "based on the word of Hashem" (Bamidbar 33:2). As Bnei Yisrael were about to enter the Land, it was worthwhile to review the whole past, to teach that even when we enter the Land, we need to hold on to lessons from the past in order to know how to live our lives in the future.

The parasha also includes a warning: "Do not contaminate the Land … that I dwell in, for I am Hashem Who dwells in the midst of Bnei Yisrael" (ibid. 35:34). Rashi learns: "Even when they are impure, the Divine Presence is among them." The Ktav Sofer explains that the heart of a Jew is always complete. The impurity is just the doing of the evil inclination, and therefore one should avoid defiling the Mishkan in which Hashem’s presence will always be dwelling. Every link in the chain of Jewish history is full of sacrifice, with every Jewish child being inculcated with sanctity and purity, and this passes throughout the national journey.

Let us look back at the journeys of the generations that preceded us, at the prominent rabbis who led the communities of our family origins. The spiritual power of these great men was not about their abilities but in the fact that what they did was "based on the word of Hashem." There were shadows and not only light, but it was based on Hashem’s word. When we came to Israel, it was with the strength we received from these leaders and from the holy communities. Whether we want it to be so or not, this heritage is part of us. We must not give up our honor and replace it with something that is of no value.

We finished the parasha and sefer with "Chazak chazak." We need double strengthening. We certainly need physical strength, to return the valor of Israel. But this is conditional on spiritual strength. If one has just physical strength, it can cause pitfalls. Bar Kochva felt that he did not need Hashem’s help because of his strength (Yerushalmi Ta’anit 4:5), and he was vanquished. The power of Moshe and Aharon was rooted in Hashem’s word; they were not proud of their natural strength, including in the intellectual/leadership realm. They relied totally on the strength of Hashem.

Nowadays we have the impression that what we gain on the battlefields, we lose as a result of an internal struggle. We find Chovot Halevavot (5:5) relating to a pious man telling a military unit returning from a successful battle: "You have come from a small war, and you did not yet go out to the big war (against the evil inclination)."

Let us indeed be strong. But we will all be strengthened when we see the young generation knowing how to sometimes not follow the waves of the time because it does not keep us on our traditional path. We want to see our children sanctifying Hashem’s Name and glorifying the honor of His kingdom.

The Consolation Before Our Eyes

by HaRav Zalman Baruch Melamed
Rosh HaYeshiva, Beit El

"Nachamu Nachamu Ami" - (Yeshayahu 40,1) with no basis to concretely sense even a glint of hope or consolation – and yet despite all, they believed that these special Divine words would come true.

Today, we can truly say that we see the beginning of the consolation. Consider, for instance, the blessing of the Ingathering of the Exiles in our Shmoneh Esrei prayer: "Sounds a great shofar for our freedom… and gather us together from the four corners of the earth to our own land. You, G-d, source of blessing, ingather the dispersed His nation Israel." It is phrased in the present tense, yet for generations upon generations, there was no Ingathering and no Aliyah. Today, however, when we recite this blessing, we truly feel it happening; it is much more concrete.

Similarly, we have prayed for centuries: "To Jerusalem, Your city, return with mercy, and dwell in its midst as You have spoken, and build it very soon in our days, an everlasting structure… You, G-d, source of blessing, build Jerusalem." For most generations, Jerusalem was far from rebuilt; it was desolate and ruined. And today? Jerusalem and its suburbs are being built up at a great pace, and the blessing of "building Jerusalem" is happening before our eyes.

The Shulchan Arukh states that we should recite the thankful blessing that "G-d restores the widow's border"

Spiritually, as well, the Jewish Nation shows great signs of progress. The acute spiritual crisis that distanced many from true faith has been stopped, and a positive spiritual revolution is unfolding both in Israel and around the entire Jewish world. A "gate for those who knock in repentance," as we say in the High Holiday prayers, has been opened. The Torah is returning to the Land of Israel, to its natural home, and the sparkling lights of consolation that we see are encouraging and promising.

Yet we still require the words of the Prophet:

Who can truly console us? Who can truly provide words and deeds of comfort? No mortal can truly comfort us, not even the greatest or wisest of men. Only Hashem our G-d can do so, as the verse states,

It is that G-d, by His words, can effect the deeds and acts that bring us genuine comfort and consolation, because "the word of our G-d will last forever".

Coincidence or Intentional

by Rabbi Dov Berel Wein

The combination of these two sections of the Torah constitutes the question, raised by all commentators over the ages, as to whether there is a connection between these two Parshiot, or is it just a matter of calendar convenience that unites them is one Torah reading on this coming Sabbath.

I have always believed that there are no random occurrences or events as they appear in the text in the Torah and in other holy writings. The Torah is not a random work, and these sections of the book are also not randomly put together. There must be a connecting bond, a common denominator that unites these two apparently disparate and different sections of the Torah.

I feel that it is in the relationship between the Jewish people and the land of Israel that is the connection that links Matot and Maasei. In this reading of Matot, we are told of the request of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to settle themselves and their families, their flocks, their wealth, and talents outside the strict borders of the land of Israel. They point out to Moshe all the advantages that they would enjoy if he allowed them to take their share in the land of Israel east of the Jordan River.

Moshe resists their plan, and sharply criticizes them for advancing it publicly. However, he is powerless to change their minds and alter their demands. He reaches an accommodation with them, i.e. that they will participate in the conquest of the land of Israel itself and not forsake their brothers in the struggle to obtain the land of Israel for the tribes of Israel. However, it is obvious that even this result, to settle east of the Jordan River. is a disappointment.
Advancing in history, we see that centuries later the tribes of Reuven and Gad were the earliest ones who were forced into exile, losing their land and independence.

In the second section of this week's Torah reading, we have the entire list of all the way stations that the Jewish people experienced during their sojourn in the desert of Sinai. Rashi is quick to point out that every one of these places had memories for the Jewish people, and were not just simply names of places, but, rather, descriptions of past events. Each place was a challenge and a test. We find in Judaism and Jewish thought that maintaining Jewish values is not always convenient. It demands sacrifice and memory of historical importance. In our time, many Jews, if not most of them, have again chosen to live outside the confines of the land of Israel. I do not mean to criticize any of them for this choice, but I merely make the observation that for almost all these Jews, it is a matter of convenience. It is the same type of convenience that led the tribes of Reuven and Gad to prefer the pasture lands of Transjordan over the land of Israel itself. It certainly was more convenient for them to do so, but the hard truth about Judaism is that it is never convenient – it is demanding, insistent and unwavering.

Remembering fondly all the way stations that we have experienced over our long exile in this world may create within us a feeling of nostalgia, but that is only because we do not directly face the lessons of exile, and what was endured throughout the centuries. It is certainly not for me to criticize Jews who choose to live outside of the land of Israel. It is their choice, and many, if not most, have good reasons to do so. But none of this changes the historical fact that only in the land of Israel do the Jewish people have a future, and only there will they be able to truly fulfill the mission set forth for them at Mount Sinai.

Fadicha. Fashla. Disaster.

by Rabbi Pinchas Winston

Friday Night
The word fadicha is an Arabic word that has made its way into the Hebrew lexicon. It is used to refer to a slip-up that verges on the pathetic. Then there is the word fashla, also from Arabic. It means that something was a disaster, and while fadicha may have a humorous connotation, there is usually nothing funny about a fashla.

Bringing back the Midianite women as spoils of war may have seemed like a fadicha, but Moshe’s reaction to it quickly made it into a fashla, a HUGE fashla:

Moshe said to them, “Did you allow all the females to live? They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Bilaam’s advice to betray God over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of God. (Bamidbar 31:15-16)

Oh well. What were they thinking? More importantly, what was Pinchas thinking? He was the one who led them into battle, to finish off the job he started at the end of Parashas Balak. How did he not protest against such action, or at least tell Moshe Rabbeinu after returning, “I tried to stop them but they wouldn’t listen to me!”? It seems as if he was in on the plan, which is very hard to understand given everything we know about him.

It is reminiscent of another episode in Jewish history much later on. The Jewish people were already living in Eretz Yisroel and even had their first king, Shaul HaMelech. The time had come to finally eradicate Amalek.

Shaul HaMelech led a successful campaign against the Amalekis and had killed all of them except for the king, Agag. Instead of killing him too, Shaul decided to leave him alive so that they could first take booty and offer it to God in thanks. That would not be possible once every last Amaleki was dead. The mitzvah is to burn all their property as well once the entire nation of Amalek is gone.

There had been nothing arrogant about what Shaul had decided, or selfish. He had made his decision thinking it was the right one by God and His prophet, Shmuel. He had not hoped to gain anything personal by it other than the satisfaction of having given the proper thanks to God for making the Jewish army successful in battle.

And yet, this is how the prophet responded once he saw what Shaul had done:

Shmuel said, “Has God (as much) desire in burnt offerings and peace offerings, as in obeying the voice of God? To obey is better than a peace offering…to listen (is better) than the fat of rams.” (I Shmuel 15:22)

Fadicha. Fashla. Disaster. It cost Shaul the kingship.

Shabbos Day
IT’S REALLY QUITE remarkable and scary at the same time. We can understand and appreciate that if a person sins with intention they are punishable. Just how punishable, is something only God can decide. Only He knows exactly what a person could have avoided, and what they could not have done better.

Their culpability will also depend on how much damage they caused. Causing a mamzer to be born is a terrible consequence of a sin that cannot be fixed. Causing a Chillul Hashem can impact many subsequent generations. God takes all of that into account when determining the guilt of a person.

In the end, Shmuel himself killed Agag, but it was already too late. The moment to eradicate Amalek had come and gone no matter how well intentioned Shaul HaMelech had been when keeping Agag alive. In the short time that was Shaul’s fashla, Agag was able to make sure that his seed continued. We are still battling Amalek this to this very day in one form or another.

The bottom line? Make your cheshbonos, but only up until they conflict with God’s. Obvious, right? Apparently not for Shaul HaMelech, and not for Pinchas HaKohen and the returning soldiers. We already know Shaul’s calculation, and its damage. What about the soldiers’ calculation, and its damage?

Also simple. Teshuvah. The women of Midian had been the source of the sin. Let them pay for their sin and be used instead for a mitzvah. Let them be used in one capacity or another to help the Jewish people accomplish their holy task, while rejecting them in any sexual way. Would that not be the greatest statement of teshuvah they could make, much more than simply taking revenge against them and killing them all?

Well, yes and no. Yes in principle, but no in practice. It was too risky. Too many things could go wrong, as they often have with males and females. Remember Yehudah and Tamar? Dovid and Bas Sheva? Amnon and Tamar? Those are just the most famous examples. There are countless others we don’t know about. Even holy people can stumble in such situations, so how much more so less holy people?

At the very least, it should have been a shaylah. Because of the obvious risk involved, they should not have decided what to do on their own. The army should have clarified before leaving for war, or sent word back while at war. They needed God’s input before they came back, not after. The returning army caused Moshe to become angry and temporarily lose his prophecy, and THAT was a major fashla. Elazar HaKohen had to teach the halachos of kashrus to the people instead (and I’ve explained what that meant long term in a previous Perceptions).

Seudas Shlishis
PRIOR TO THIS came the halachos of nedarim—vows. We Jews are supposed to be very careful about what we promise in the name of God. Not keeping our word means taking the name of God in vain, and that is one of the worst sins there are. Nedarim are really iffy, because of the potential to not follow through and commit such a terrible sin.

In fact, nedarim are such serious business that we begin the holiest day of the year, our main day of atonement, Yom Kippur, with Kol Nidrei. After all these centuries it is easy to overlook the idea behind it, which is basically to cancel out any nedarim we may have made and not yet kept the previous year. We even try and take care of any upcoming vows as well.

And that is after having already done Hataras Nedarim on Erev Rosh Hashanah. That’s when everyone recites before a bais din of three men that they wish to be freed of any outstanding nedarim they may have made in error. We don’t want to go into Rosh Hashanah with that on our heads.

The main reason a person made a neder was basically to compensate for their yetzer hara. We all have strengths and we all have weaknesses. We may take pride in our strengths, though they are really just gifts from God, but we get frustrated by our weaknesses which we’re here to fix up. How many times have we resolved to do the right thing, or at least the better thing, only to fall short once again at the moment of test?

One of the reasons we do is because the downside of failure is not all that serious. So you have another piece of chocolate cake after deciding not to have even one. You can always eat less later, or walk if off. You probably won’t, but at least you believe you might at the time you reach for that piece of cake. It’s one of the oldest and most successful tricks the yetzer hara uses against us.

But sometimes enough is enough, and we need to correct the situation finally. A neder can help with that. Before the neder, eating the extra cake meant gaining more weight and losing more face. With the neder, it means taking the name of God in vain, a really serious sin and therefore, great incentive to resist the yetzer hara. The neder makes the illicit eating a much more dangerous and more intimidating thing to do.

The truth is, we’re supposed to be able to do that without making a neder. The fact that something is right should be reason enough to do it. The fact that something is wrong should be reason enough not to do it. And it would be if not for the yetzer hara, and the pain of resisting temptation. It takes a lot of spiritual character to stand up to one’s yetzer hara, to call the yetzer hara on its rationalizations, and to find doing the right thing more pleasurable and fulfilling than always giving the body its heart’s desire.

Perhaps this is why this section precedes the war against Midian, and the fashla that resulted. It takes a strong person to admit their weakness. As Dovid HaMelech wrote:

For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. (Tehillim 51:5)

It’s the only way to be a tzaddik, to never lose sight of your weaknesses, and to build up your strength to overcome them. At the very least, a person has to account for them, to plan for them by avoiding situations that could lead to sin…because they usually do.

This kind of attitude affects the way you look at every situation, especially the spiritually challenging ones. And maybe it was missing from the soldiers’ point-of-view when deciding how to deal with the Midianite women they were left with. This point-of-view towards spiritual weakness might have made them a little more cautious, and pushed them to get Moshe Rabbeinu’s feedback on the situation.

Ain Od Milvado, Part 10
PART OF THE confusion is how great people have dealt with difficult situations. If they can’t get Ain Od Milvado right, then how can we be expected to get it right? If they get fooled by reality, then how can we not be fooled too?

For example, when you read Tehillim, you get to hear first hand how Dovid HaMelech looked at his detractors and enemies, how he dealt with them. He shared his emotions with us, and quite frankly, they sound very similar to how we ourselves might feel in similar situations, which is not impressive. You don’t really hear Dovid say anywhere in Tehillim or Nach, “These guys really annoy me. But I know God that it is just really You making then act that way. At the end of the day I know that they don’t have any power. All of it is just big ongoing test from You to me, to see how much I believe this.”

Obviously that is what Dovid HaMelech believed. The question is, why did he paint a different picture for the ages?

Perhaps Dovid wanted us to know that even for someone as great as he was, as close to God as he was, it is easy to get fooled by the world around us. He didn’t live up in the clouds like some might try to do. He lived on earth with friends and enemies, plans and conspiracies, and they constantly hounded him.

Just being chased around by Shaul, his predecessor, was extremely challenging. On one hand, Shaul was the king of the Jewish people. On the other hand, he was Dovid’s mortal enemy, and defending his life might mean killing Shaul in the process. And to think, it was all from God! Try keeping that straight in your head and emotions!

The fact that everything worked out for Dovid in the end, and that God had such love for him indicates that Dovid got it all right. Despite the fact that there were so many places for Dovid to be deluded into ascribing power to people that wasn’t theirs, at the end of the day, he didn’t.

How do we know that? It’s also in Tehillim. For everything good and bad, Dovid turned to God for help, and rest assured that he would get it. He understood that his trials and tribulation were meant to do that, to keep his heart pointed in the direction of God. And Tehillim is the greatest testimony that they succeeded in doing that. Tehillim itself is a 150 chapter declaration of Ain Od Milvado. When we say it with conviction, we declare it as well.

The Zealots’ Methods of Action, and The Compromise Rabbi Feinstein Accepted

by HaRav Elizer Melamd
Rosh HaYeshiva, Har Bracha


Those who disagreed with Rabbi Feinstein avoided discussing the body of halakha with him, hoping that they would succeed in getting him to retract through threats and boycotts * Although there were also many who supported Rabbi Feinstein, we did not find letters of support or public articles that strengthened his hands in those years * Even after a compromise was reached, which was interpreted by many as a surrender to pressure, he continued to hold his halakhic position in the circle of his students

Many of the actions against Rabbi Feinstein during the days of the controversy in the years 1963-1964 were organized by Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, the Rebbe of Satmar, who was known for his wars against Rabbis and Admorim. Together with other zealous rabbis, such as Rabbi Amsel (from Hungary), editor of the “HaMaor” journal, they wanted to achieve a dual goal: 1) to make Rabbi Feinstein regret and admit that he was wrong in his heters. 2) To cause the Haredi public to stop relying on him, both in his rulings and in his public guidance, in which he sought to minimize the quarrels in the Jewish communities.
Recruitment of Rabbis

The disputants knew their craft. They had been seeking to harm Rabbi Feinstein for years, but the ruling on artificial insemination, which was new and provoked criticism from many rabbis, gave them an opportunity to form a large coalition against him. They published half-truths, sent letters to rabbis from various places, and enlisted them for their war against him.

For example, Rabbi Sharia Deblitzky wrote to Rabbi Amsel “to strengthen, support, and assist him [ed., Rabbi Amsel] and to tell him to continue on in his war on Rabbi Feinstein’s rulings, and not to be deterred by ‘words of protest against him.’ On the contrary, a committee of rabbis should be set up ‘to inform and publicize which of his rulings can be relied on, and which cannot.” Although he admitted that he did not see the books Igrot Moshe, he was nevertheless appalled by the additional examples of heters presented in “HaMaor”, such as the holding of a Bat Mitzvah celebration – “heters, by which the shape of our nation’s general faith will change, God forbid.”

Rabbi Amsel went on to explain in his journal why he was forced to fight against Rabbi Feinstein, who, in addition to the fact that in our generation “a Chief Rabbinate has stood over us in the Holy Land, under pressure from unbelievers, to destroy the holiness of Israel to the foundation…” and “Rabbi Feinstein joined in with his impure heter.”

They almost managed to mobilize alongside them even the Rishon LeZion, Chief Rabbi Rabbi Yitzchak Nissim ztz”l, but God saved him.

The Delegation of Zealous Rabbis
In the in the interim, the Rebbe of Satmar asked to arrange a meeting of rabbis with Rabbi Feinstein to discuss his ruling with him, when in practice, the intention was to intensify the web of pressure and threats against him. When the time came for the meeting, Rabbi Feinstein, who was then in his seventies, was apparently worried that he would be treated improperly, and asked three rabbis from his students to sit with him when he received the delegation.

On behalf of the dissenting zealots, there were six rabbis, who were about twenty years younger than Rabbi Feinstein. Among them were Rabbi Azriel Leibowitz from Vienna and Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (the following Rebbe from Satmar).

Rabbi Feinstein with his three students sat on one side of the table, and the six on the other. Rabbi Feinstein honored them with food and blessing.

At the beginning of the meeting, a long silence transpired. After Rabbi Feinstein said “nu, nu,” the senior one of them opened and said that the Chatam Sofer once wrote a halachic response, and then retracted it. He finished by saying: “You need to regret.”

Apparently, they thought that after all the attacks and abuses he went through, Rabbi Feinstein would succumb to the pressures and accept their offer to publicly repent, and in return, they would see to it that the attacks against him were stopped.

Rabbi Feinstein responded: “You are not familiar with me. If you convince me that I was wrong, I will openly inform the public. But without that, I will not regret it.” They repeatedly demanded that he repent. In other words, he expected a matter-of-fact halakhic discussion, and they expected him to succumb to violence.

Finally, by way his students, the disputants were forced to talk about the issue, and Rabbi Feinstein in his genius, overcame them with his claims. Later, it was told that the Rebbe of Satmar scolded them, and said: “I warned you not to talk to Reb Moshe in halakha!” (Ish Halakha, pp. 137–143).

In my opinion, the Rebbe of Satmar wanted Rabbi Feinstein to be shocked by the firmness of the definite position of those who disagreed with him, who were unwilling to discuss with him the halakha because his words were completely pasul (invalid); out of grief and anxiety he would not sleep a few nights, and afterwards, he would retract. However, after hearing that Rabbi Feinstein sat with his students, who strengthened him, and proved the justification of his position in halakha – he feared that the delegation of threat and intimidation had not achieved its goal, and they would be forced to continue fighting him until he surrendered.

The Story of the Meeting from the Other Side
It is interesting to see how the disputants reported this meeting. It was not agreed that it should be made public, but Rabbi Amsel used it for propaganda purposes. He wrote (‘HaMaor’ Adar I 1964) that the ‘Association of Rabbis’ (the zealots, the competitors of ‘Agudat Yisrael’) decided to “issue a proclamation forbidding this abomination”, but “finally the opinion prevailed that a delegation of five eminent rabbis would first be sent to come to terms with the gaon Shlita who permitted, perhaps they could get him to retract… The rabbis came to his house to influence him to retract from his heter regarding insemination, which in their opinion is a Torah prohibition … To the astonishment of the rabbis, some of the students were ready there, who not only forced their rabbi not to retract, but also wanted to make the whole thing a matter of gossip and victory debates, and finally – the rabbis left without anything, and in despair.”

In other words, the delegation of rabbis treated Rabbi Feinstein with respect and were prepared to come to his house to “influence” him, that is, to threaten and intimidate him, and to present him with the possibility of a “respectable surrender,” since even the Chatam Sofer had retracted; his students, however, forced him to quarrel with them.

Weak Support
The support for Rabbi Feinstein was rather weak. Rabbi Elberg, editor of “HaPardes”, the veteran and official journal of the Agudat HaRabanim (‘the Rabbinical Association’), wrote an article in Shevat 1964 praising Rabbi Feinstein’s teachings, without condemning the disputants. In response, it was published in “HaMaor” (Tevet-Shevat 1964) that Rabbi Feinstein and Rabbi Elberg had agreed on mutual support – Rabbi Feinstein would support the strengthening of Rabbi Elberg’s position in the ‘Agudat HaRabanim’, and in return, Rabbi Elberg would not allow attacks against him in the ‘HaPardes’ journal.

According to the assessment of Rabbi Tzuriel Halamish, despite the sharpness and bluntness of attacks against Rabbi Feinstein, during the years of controversy, no public article was published in support of his rulings. Apparently, the rabbis who supported his rulings did so quietly. Two rabbinical leaflets in Yiddish or English were reported to have supported him, but they were apparently posted in insignificant platforms that are not currently accessible in today’s databases. Only in Israel did Rabbi Aharon Pachenik, a member of the Mizrachi, publish a reasoned article in his favor in the ‘HaTzofeh’ newspaper.

The Pressures Increased
The pressures on Rabbi Feinstein increased. There were zealots who burned his books in public, while others left them in filthy places. He and his rebbetzin were harassed with insults and arguments day and night, to the point where Rabbi Feinstein’s family was forced cut off the phone, and consequently, rabbis and private individuals were unable to call the rabbi to ask him urgent questions in halakha.

The zealots once announced in the media that the rabbi had passed away, and his funeral would leave his home at a certain time, and even sent black limousines to transport the attendants, and people had already begun to gather for his funeral.

It should be noted, that the Rebbe of Satmar told Rabbi Tuvia Goldstein, that those who did this, do not obey him. Then again, these actions stopped, after the compromise.
A Compromise Perceived by Many as Surrender

In the midst of the controversy, Rabbi Feinstein agreed to a compromise, which was perceived by many as surrender. At the initiative of his trustee, Rabbi Tuvia Goldstein, representatives from both sides were convened, and it was agreed that Rabbi Feinstein would publish that his ruling was meant only for a time of urgency that is almost non-existent, and that rabbis should not rely upon it, to rule leniently according to what was written in Igrot Moshe.

On the 22nd of Kislev 1964, Rabbi Feinstein published: “Regarding the injection of semen written in my name that I permitted, I have found it appropriate to announce that I did not permit, except during a time of great distress, when a woman is in extreme distress, as explained in the my books Igrot Moshe, Even Ha’Ezer, section 71. For indeed it is clear to all that it is not appropriate to discuss this matter, except for a rav muvhak (primary rabbi) who is great in the Torah and famous for teaching, who will discuss it from all sides. And because of that in the one-time question I came across, I forbade. And God forbid that any rabbi rule a permit in this matter from my book. Read what I wrote in my introduction to Igrot Moshe on Orach Chaim. And since it could be that some may be lenient in instructing in this issue, who do not deserve to discuss such a serious matter, and lest there be a stumbling block to permit it even in a situation where it is forbidden, a fence must be fixed, so that they will not permit it in any way, even an unambiguous rav muvhak.”

Although for many months, they continued to publish harsh articles against Rabbi Feinstein and his heters, the despicable acts against him ceased. Rabbi Feinstein was grateful to Rabbi Goldstein for this, and Rebbetzin Feinstein gave him a silver platter as a token of gratitude (Ish Halakha 137–143).

Testimony of Rabbi Yonah Gewirtz
Rabbi Yonah Gewirtz recounted: “I had courage at the time, and I asked him if he was dodging a little because of the storm, and if it was possible to be sure of the truth of his words. He answered me: This is the halakha, and this is the instruction (as he permitted in the first place), but at the moment, the world is not ready for my Torah, but a day will come that will be difficult for people, and they will find in my books the Torah-ruling of permission, un Gad vat ir be’enshtein (and God will bless those who will help with my heter).” (Darchei Moshe Vol. 2, p. 104-105).

Over time, the vast majority of rabbis agreed that there is no fear of mamzarut (bastards) through artificial insemination, and consequently, in times of distress, many rely on his heter.
Conclusion

In the long-run, the zealots “succeeded” in harming Rabbi Feinstein’s status among the Hasidic public, and among the zealous Lithuanian public, who treat his words reluctantly, and do not often quote him. In the eyes of the rest of the Haredi and religious public, however, his status may have strengthened.

It also turns out, that the general public tended to support Rabbi Feinstein, however the zealous rabbis dominated the opinion of the other rabbis who were afraid to express their position. Unfortunately, it has become clear that as with several other issues in recent generations, the public at large – who, if not prophets themselves, are the sons of prophets – have chosen more correctly than most of the rabbinical leadership.

The question is: from the time of that same difficult controversy, was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ztz”l afraid to order heters on big questions? And another question: Have other rabbis refrained from ordering heters as a result of what they did to him?