Wednesday, July 31, 2024

Revenge against Midian

by Rabbi Pinchas Winston

THE LAWS OF kashering are many and confusing, and learned from this week’s parsha. Thanks to Midian, we’re still in exile. Bilaam sent them in, and their impact went far beyond Shittim, causing the tribes of Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe to choose the land east of the Jordan river. And unfortunately and clearly unbeknownst to them at the time, it cost them and every Jew since then, the final stage of redemption.

Because, by choosing not to settle in Eretz Yisroel, they reduced the magical number of 600,000 necessary to annihilate the Sitra Achra and begin the Messianic Era. Had that many men between the ages of twenty and sixty settled on the west side of the Jordan, evil would have been destroyed forever, and Yemos HaMoshiach would have begun at that time.

Revenge against Midian in this week’s parsha therefore was more historic than it might seem. And unlike with respect to the annihilation of Amalek, we were allowed to take spoils of war, which we did. Among the many things taken were cooking implements, and that created the need to talk kashrus, specifically the kashering of treif pots, pans, dishes, etc.

Obviously, everything had to be thoroughly washed and cleaned. That took care of all the mamashos, the traces of food that stuck to the vessels. For the average person, that would have seemed like enough. What else could there be to worry about?

Bliyos. Absorptions. Molecules of food that can, under the right conditions, become absorbed into the walls of a pot, a roasting spit, or a knife, etc. And even though such vessels may seem impervious to everything, especially today given the materials and methods used to make them, halachically, nothing is. With enough heat, bliyos of what is being cooked will split away from the main food and become absorbed in the walls of the cooking instrument.

That’s how a pot, etc., can become milchig (dairy) or fleishig (meat) and remain that way even after the food has been removed and the pot has been cleaned. It’s the bliyos that were absorbed that do that, and they will remain in the walls of the pot until one of two things happen. Either the pot remains unused for 24 hours, or something is done, like kashering, to draw out the bliyos and make the pot pareve again.

Iran’s Ayatollahs and Hezbollah assault on the US homeland

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

*The Washington DC-based Wilson Center think tank contends that “the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas against Israel, which killed 1,200 people [equal to 41,000 Americans], including 32 U.S. citizens, ...could inspire [Islamic] terrorist attacks in the United States and other regions, including Latin America....

*Iran’s Defense Minister Mohammad Reza Ashtiani stated that “Latin American countries are of special significance in Iran’s foreign and defense policy, based on the importance of the very sensitive South American region.”

*According to Arturo McFields, a Nicaragua diplomat in-exile (The Hill, May 2, 2024), the Ayatollahs’ threat to the US homeland cannot be underestimated. In fact, Iran has redoubled its political, technological and military alliance with Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

*A University of Texas at El Paso study concludes that “[the Hezbollah-Mexican drug cartels nexus] is a time bomb waiting to explode in our homeland.... The threat of an attack by Hezbollah against the US has always been present. It has become much more realistic due to the Hezbollah spread of activity and influence in Latin America [including underground tunnel construction along the US-Mexico border].... Hezbollah has many pieces in place to conduct an act of terror on U.S. interests.... Venezuela and Chile are hosting Hezbollah, and several more Latin American countries have also been supportive. The proximity of Mexico makes it more deadly. [The Hezbollah-Mexican drug cartels collaboration includes training in the areas of car-bombs, suicide bombing and Improvised Explosive Devices]....”

*Iran’s Ayatollahs and their Hezbollah proxy have considered Latin America as the soft underbelly of "The Great American Satan.” They have established themselves in Latin America since the early 1980s, as a stepping stone toward the US mainland, leveraging large and financially successful Shiite Lebanese migrant communities. They have set up rogue initiatives – especially in the lawless tri border areas of Argentina-Paraguay-Brazil and Chile-Peru-Bolivia – to bankroll global terrorism, money laundering (powered by Crypto Currency), counterfeiting, weapon proliferation/trafficking, drug and human trafficking.

*The State Department has adhered to its diplomatic option toward the Ayatollahs, notwithstanding the Ayatollahs’ attempts – as testified by FBI Director, Chris Wray - to replicate the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorism on US soil. Furthermore, the diplomatic option toward the Ayatollahs’ regime is still in effect, irrespective of the Ayatollahs’ 45-year-old track record as a leading epicenter of global anti US initiatives; despite the Ayatollahs’ anti-US constitution, school curriculum and mosque incitement, which aim to bring the “oppressive US” to submission. This is, also, regardless of the Ayatollahs’ oppression of women and all religious and ethnic minorities; and in spite of the Ayatollahs’ expanded collaboration with the drug cartels of Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil, and all anti-US governments, especially Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba.

*The State Department’s latest annual report on global terrorism indicates that “Iran continued to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism, facilitating a wide range of terrorist and other illicit activities around the world.”

*The Hill (ibid.) adds that in July 2023, Bolivia - the third largest producer of cocaine in the world, in addition to its lithium reserves, which are critical to nuclear fission and fusion technologies - signed a military cooperation accord with Iran. Bolivia has also requested drones from Iran. Argentina’s security minister, Patricia Bullrich, disclosed that more than 700 members of Iran’s Quds Force are stationed in Bolivia. Iran’s Quds Force is a branch of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, specializing in external unconventional warfare and military intelligence.

*Moreover, in 2023, Venezuela and Iran announced a larger cooperation accord (mostly petrochemicals), increasing trade from $3 billion annually to $20 billion per year in the coming years. Iran supplied Venezuela fast attack boats and anti-ship missiles. Cuba and Iran signed six cooperation agreements, including $200-$500 million annual Iranian aid. Also, Brazil maintains robust commercial ties with Iran, which has a strong presence in the Caribbean, South and Central America. This poses a clear and present danger to the US national and homeland security.

*The intensifying Ayatollahs threat to all US’ Arab allies is gleaned through a recent report by Homeland Security Today, which underscores the intense subversive and terroristic offensive by Iran and its Syrian and Iraqi proxies on Jordan’s pro-US Hashemite regime. The Virginia-based media outlet reports that Jordan has launched a military offensive against Iran-supported terrorists and drug traffickers across its border with Syria.

According to HST, Iran’s illicit (drug production and trafficking) economy is estimated to be 35%-44% of GDP with a value of $160BN-$200BN. “Iranian opiates and methamphetamines have been seized as far away as the United States, Australia and South America, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Quds Force central to Iran’s global trafficking network.”

*The State Department assumes that “money talks,” and therefore, the hundreds of billions of dollars, which have been showered upon the Ayatollahs since their rise to power in February 1979 were supposed to induce the Ayatollahs to adopt peaceful-coexistence with their Sunni Arab neighbors, become good-faith negotiators and to abandon their fanatic, religious ideology. However, since the Ayatollahs’ rise to power – which was assisted by the US State Department - the Ayatollahs have demonstrated that their commitment to their ideology, which stipulates bringing “The Great American Satan” to submission, transcends financial and diplomatic considerations, and eclipses their determination to bring down the “infidel” Jewish State and the pro-US “apostate” Sunni Arab regimes.

*The dramatic transformation of Iran’s Ayatollahs into a clear and present danger to the US homeland security has been largely a derivative of the State Department’s policy toward Iran – top heavy on carrots but very low on sticks, yielding a tailwind to rogue regimes, posing a potential death sentence to all pro-US oil-producing Arab regimes, a dramatic setback to the US and other Western democracies and a bonanza to China, Russia, Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood.

Why Has the Biden Administration Donated Close to One Billion Dollars in "Aid" to Hamas since the October 7 Massacre?

by Robert Williams
  • Since October 7.... the total of US taxpayer funds donated to Gaza as a reward since the massacre on October 7 to $896 million, or close to a billion dollars.
  • A lawsuit, brought in December 2022 and updated in March 2024, by Rep. Ronny Jackson and victims of terror attacks in Israel, alleges that President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken "knowingly and unlawfully" provided more than $1.5 billion in aid to Gaza and the West Bank since taking office. Biden and Blinken have "known for years" that the US aid is providing "material support" for Hamas' "tunnels, rockets, weapon procurement, and command and control infrastructure," among other terror structures, the lawsuit stated.
  • The Biden administration has sought to have the case dismissed twice but failed. On June 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the lawsuit can proceed, and that there is evidence the Biden administration continued awarding taxpayer cash to UNRWA even after Congress blocked funding to that group due to its support for Hamas's military infrastructure.
  • In short, the Biden administration has donated less to Sudan and DRC Congo combined, where a total of nearly 50 million people face starvation, than to Gaza, where 2 million people face no such thing. What is going on? And where is Congress?
  • According to FBI director Christopher Wray, "the actions of Hamas and its allies will serve as an inspiration the likes of which we haven't seen since ISIS launched its so-called caliphate years ago." Iran, officially labeled the world's leading sponsor of state terrorism by the 2023 US annual Terrorism Report, calls the US "the Great Satan" and continues to vow "Death to America."
  • Blinken casually announced in a July 19 interview that Iran had reduced the time it would need to create sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon "to one to two weeks." He then went on to gaslight the audience by claiming that the Biden administration has been "maximizing pressure on Iran across the board."
  • Why is the Biden administration, under the pretense of "humanitarian aid," drowning these terrorist enemies of America in US taxpayer money? And what, if anything, is Congress going to do about it?

A lawsuit, brought in December 2022 and updated in March 2024, by Rep. Ronny Jackson and victims of terror attacks in Israel, alleges that President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken "knowingly and unlawfully" provided more than $1.5 billion in aid to Gaza and the West Bank since taking office. Biden and Blinken have "known for years" that the US aid is providing "material support" for Hamas' "tunnels, rockets, weapon procurement, and command and control infrastructure." Pictured: Blinken meets with the Emir of Qatar, Hamas' state sponsor, in Lusail on October 13, 2023. (Photo by Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

The US has donated close to a billion dollars of taxpayer money to Gaza, ruled by the officially designated terrorist group, Hamas, in the eight months following October 7, 2023. On that day, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Iranian proxies that invaded southern Israel, carrying out this act of war on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran. There, they brutally murdered 1,200 people, raped and mutilated women and children, burned children to death in front of their parents, and abducted more than 250 people into Gaza.

Also, starting on October 7, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – in close cooperation with their allies in Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon – have launched more than 19,000 rockets, missiles and attack-drones at Israel, a country smaller than New Jersey.

Continue Reading Article

Rabbi Ari Kahn on Parshiot Matot Masai: Rejecting the Holy (video)

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Rav Kook's Ein Ayah: The Way to Relate to One’s Followers and The Moral Importance of Human Pride

The Way to Relate to One’s Followers

(condensed from Ein Ayah, Berachot 5:23)

Gemara: [After being suspected by Eili of being drunk], Chana responded: “No, my master.” Ulla or Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Chanina said [explained her implied message]: She said to him, “You are not a master in this matter, and the Divine Spirit is not upon you, for you have wrongly suspected me in this matter.” Some say that she said the following: “You are not a master in this matter; do you not have the Divine Spirit upon you, that you have judged me in the direction of guilt and not of innocence?”

Ein Ayah: A true “master” deserves that title due to the shleimut (completeness) in which he relates to those who depend upon his leadership. He should be so concerned about the welfare of those that are called his subjects that he should sense through his love each one’s level and situation. Even if he does not enjoy outright Divine Spirit, he should be able to arrive at the truth by seeking the truth. That is why Chana said that Eili, in regard to this matter, was neither a master nor did he possess Divine Spirit, for either should have sufficed in this matter.

The second version of the gemara posits that Divine Spirit would not suffice to allow Eili to know that which is going on. He would still need to care enough to know that which is going on with his follower. That is why she said that since Eili did have Divine Spirit, the fact that he suspected her is a sign that he was lacking in his relationship with one who acted as a servant of his.

The Moral Importance of Human Pride

(condensed from Ein Ayah, Berachot 5:24)

Gemara: [Chana said to Eili]: “Do not mistake your servant for an immoral woman” (Shmuel I, 1:16) – from here we see that if people are suspecting someone of a matter that is not true (literally, is not within him), he should inform the one who suspected [of the mistake].

Ein Ayah: The feeling of dignity is a pillar of the world of morality, as many people refrain from doing improper things in order to avoid being shamed in people’s eyes. Therefore, it is proper even for a great person, who does not need such reinforcement, to use this technique for the betterment of society. That is why one should let others know that he is free of the guilt he was suspected of. In this way, he protects his personal dignity, which is important even if it does not bother him what others think so that people get used to caring about their dignity.

This is the Land that will Fall to You

by HaRav Mordechai Greenberg
Nasi HaYeshiva, Kerem B'Yavneh

Sefer Bamidbar concludes the period of the exile in the desert. At the end of the fortieth year, we are at the entrance to Eretz Yisrael; we conquer the eastern bank of the Jordan River, map the boundaries of the Land, and prepare for battle.

This mitzvah of possessing the land is a permanent one for all generations, as the Ramban writes (addendum to Rambam's Seder Hamitzvot #4):

We are commanded to possess the Land that G-d has given us, and that we should not leave it in the hands of any other nation or desolate without inhabitants, as it says in Parshat Masei, "You shall possess the Land and you shall settle in it."

The rejection of "the coveted land" (cf. Tehillim 106:24) is what caused the long exile. Yet, in many people's mind, the question persists, why did G-d "imprison" us specifically in this tract of land?

The Ramban deals with this at length in Parshat Acharei Mot. In a succinct manner, Rav Kook zt"l writes in his introduction to Orot:

Eretz Yisrael is not something external, an external acquisition of the nation, merely as a means for the goal of the general assemblage and maintaining [the nation's] material, or even spiritual, existence -- Eretz Yisrael is bound to the nation with a bond of life.

Every means has a substitute. When we see Eretz Yisrael as a means for the security of Am Yisrael, as a national, or even cultural, center, it is possible in times of need to find a substitute. However, Eretz Yisrael is the Land of Life. On the pasuk, "I shall walk before Hashem in the Land of life" (Tehillim 116:9), Chazal comment: "This is Eretz Yisrael." Similarly, the Torah says numerous times, "So that you may live, and come and possess the Land." (Devarim 4:1; 8:1; 11:8) Since the nature of Israel is, "You who cling to Hashem, your G-d -- you are all alive today" (Devarim 4:4), this life and this clinging are possible only in the land of life. Just as a person does not seek explanations for the essence of life, so, too, there is no need to provide reasons for living in Eretz Yisrael, since life is primarily in it.

Therefore, Israel does not find a complete life other than in this place. Chazal interpret the pasuk, "The dove could not find a resting place for the sole of its foot" (Bereishit 8:9), as alluding to Knesset Yisrael, which is compared to a dove. This is what 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, the other nations do not find tranquility in Eretz Yisrael, as the Ramban writes, "They are not fit for you, and you, as well, are not fit for them."

Eretz Yisrael is not only a place to live in, but rather it is the Sanctuary of Hashem (Yirmiya 7:4), as the Ramban writes. The phrases, "Cain left the presence of Hashem" (Bereishit 4:16), "Yonah arose to flee to Tarshish from before Hashem" (Yonah 1:3), allude to Eretz Yisrael. The Ramban (Vayikra 18:25) writes about this:

We may not explain more about the [Kabalistic] notion of the Land, but if you are able to understand the first "earth" mentioned in the pasuk, "In the beginning" ... you will understand a great and hidden secret, and you will understand what our Sages said, "The Temple up above corresponds to the Temple below."

His intention is that when it says, "In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth," (Bereishit 1:1), this means that He first created the "upper" earth, and afterwards the corresponding "lower" one.

This is what it says in our parsha, "This is the land that will fall to you as an inheritance." (Bamidbar 34:1) Chazal ask, "Does the land fall?" The Sfat Emet explains their answer to mean that so long as the Canaanites were in it, the necessary vessels to contain the "upper" earth were not yet formed. Only when Israel enters it, the upper earth "falls" and connects with the lower one, and thereby a parallel is formed between the upper realms and the lower one.

The battle over Eretz Yisrael is not over territory or the rights of other nations. This is a universal war over G-d's Throne in the world: "For the Hand is on the Throne of G-d etc.-- His Name is not complete and His Throne is not complete until Amalek's name is eradicated." (Shemot 17:16 and Rashi there) Therefore, the concluding phases of the war will focus on Yerushalayim, since, "At that time people will call Yerushalayim, 'The Throne of Hashem.'" (Yirmiya 3:17) and the nations of the world are seeking to prevent this. Otherwise it is impossible to understand the great interest of all the nations in this small place.

However, we are sure, as we say in our prayers, that "not one word of Your words will return empty," "and our eyes will see Your return to Zion with mercy."

Rav Kook on Parshiot Mattot-Massei: 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 might not have been a 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 Eretz Yisrael 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 Pesach, 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 Yitzchak 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

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.

How to End the New War of Attrition

by Victor Rosenthal

Welcome to that familiar location, the one between a rock and a hard place.

Since the day after the invasion and massacre on 7 October, Hezbollah has been waging a successful war of attrition against Israel. More than 80,000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes on the northern border, and more than 50 have been killed by rockets and antitank weapons. Border towns and kibbutzim have become wastelands. Homes and other structures have been destroyed, and fields burned.

Israel has responded in a carefully measured, tit-for-tat fashion which, as anyone familiar with the Middle East knows, sends a message of weakness and an invitation for further depredation. There are three apparent reasons for this:

1. The IDF does not want to fight a two-front war.

2. Hezbollah has between 130,000 to 200,000 rockets, missiles, and drones that it can launch at Israel, some of them with precision guidance systems that can strike within a few meters of a target. The home front is expected to suffer thousands of deaths and massive destruction of property and infrastructure.

3. The American administration has told Israel that if it attacks Hezbollah preemptively, it will not support us (presumably with weapons deliveries or at the UN).

On 28 July, a Hezbollah rocket with a 50 kg warhead struck a soccer field and playground in Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights. 12 children and teenagers were killed and numerous others injured, some critically. There was an alert, but it came only a few seconds before the explosion, and the children did not have time to reach a nearby concrete shelter. One child was missing for a day, before it was determined that his body had been blown to bits.

Majdal Shams is the “capital” of the Golan Druze. The Druze mostly live in Lebanon, Syria, the Golan, and the Galilee region of Israel. They have a unique religion, and a tradition of loyalty to the states in which they live. They also have a military tradition, and Israeli Druze serve in the IDF and Border Patrol. They are considered among the best fighters and officers and have paid a high price in blood in Israel’s wars.

The entire region is watching to see how Israel will react to the murder of 12 children. Such an atrocity demands a disproportionate response. If the reaction is typical of the recent past, our enemies will know that the understanding that murdering Israeli civilians is normal behavior is still in effect. The Druze will know that Israel does not care about them or value their contributions to the state. After all, we hit the Houthis’ oil industry and port after they killed one Jew in Tel Aviv.

The Americans have already informed us that yes, we are allowed to retaliate, but no, it cannot be disproportionate. And we may not touch Beirut, where Hezbollah boss Hassan Nasrallah is holed up.

When we were invaded on 7 October, the Biden Administration expressed its horror at the massacre of 1200 Israelis and expressed its support. But in the following days it tried to delay or prevent a ground invasion of Gaza. Once the ground war started, it supported Egypt’s demand that not one Gazan would be allowed to cross the border; but at the same time it complained about civilian casualties in the Strip. Then it tried to prevent us from entering Rafiah and taking control of the border between Gaza and Egypt to cut off Hamas’ weapons supply. Even after we demonstrated that it was possible to move civilians out of the way, it continued to throttle our supply of ammunition, to “protect” them. The administration also delayed the delivery of “smart” munitions which enable precise strikes at military targets! All during the war it has pressed for a hostage deal on terms that would leave Hamas in control of Gaza. And it has encouraged the “bring them home at any price” movement in Israel, as well as the forces opposing PM Netanyahu, who wants to keep fighting. Following the philosophy of never allowing a crisis to go to waste, the Biden administration wishes to turn the “day after” the war into a “two-state solution” that would put most of Israel into jeopardy from 7 October-style invasions.

Many seem to have forgotten that on 13 April of this year, Iran launched a direct attack on Israel, launching more than 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones against us. Israel – with some help from the US and others – succeeded in shooting most of them down (at an estimated cost of $1 billion). But had a large number of them reached their targets, the destruction and death would have been beyond estimation. It was an attempt to destroy the fabric of our nation and demanded a suitable response. Instead, we bombed an Iranian air defense radar installation. We were told this would “send a message” to Iran. It did, but not the intended one. It informed them that it’s acceptable to shoot at Jews, and they should keep trying. After all, what do they have to lose?

The Majdal Shams attack cannot be allowed to go unavenged. We cannot afford to allow our deterrence to erode further. The wolves are circling. Yesterday, the little pisher of Turkey, Tayip Recip ErdoÄŸan, threatened that he too could invade Israel. Why not? Everyone is doing it. But still more important: we cannot betray our Druze citizens (and those in the Golan who still hold Syrian citizenship but more and more are becoming Israelis). We owe them, and we need them.

There is little chance that we can make the Americans agree. I would like to think it is because they don’t understand the Middle East, and it’s partly that, but it’s also because the Democratic administration is still following the pro-Iranian policy established by Barack Obama. Nevertheless, we have no alternative but to do it anyway.

But what about the danger from Hezbollah’s arsenal? Many analysts think that Israel could not survive the full force of the blow it could inflict. Of course the state of Lebanon would also be bombed into the stone age, but the Iranian puppeteers are perfectly happy in sacrificing the hosts of their proxies if it will achieve their goal.

We are in a bad spot, but there is one strategy that might succeed: that is to strike a massive blow at the Iranian regime and Iran’s infrastructure, to cut off the head of the snake, so to speak. If this could be done quickly and effectively, Hezbollah would be left high and dry, and could be persuaded to avoid the mutual devastation that would result from all-out war with Israel.

Would it work? How would we do it? I am not a military expert. But I do know that we cannot continue along the road we are following today, because it leads only to destruction.

Kamala Harris's 'Only Path' To Destroy Israel

by Bassam Tawil
  • What is insupportable is that Harris completely ignored that the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip are suffering because of a war initiated by Hamas. She could have done many Palestinians a favor had she called on Hamas to relinquish control over the Gaza Strip and stop using its people as human shields in its Jihad (holy war) against Israel.
  • Harris seems not to know or to have forgotten -- either is not excessively impressive -- that on October 6, 2023, there was a ceasefire in place between Israel and Hamas. Hamas broke it.
  • "Sometimes, on happier days, I like to comment on the remarkable similarities between Singapore and the Gaza Strip. Both are self-governing city-states located at key crossroads of world trade on the opposite ends of the Continent of Asia. Both combine density of population with a significant urban buildup and dramatic natural advantages, including a high-quality harbor. And yet, due to differences in civil culture and governance, Singapore has been built into the trade hub of East Asia. Gaza, as Saturday's (October 7, 2023) events have demonstrated to the world, has chosen another path: becoming a terrorist dystopia like the benighted lands formerly under ISIS (Islamic State)." — Bassam Eid, Palestinian human rights activist, Newsweek, October 9, 2023.
  • The October 7 massacres, if anything, demonstrate why the creation of a Palestinian state is actually a surefire way to perpetuate the Palestinian jihad against Israel, as well as instability and insecurity throughout the Middle East. China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are watching and taking note that unacceptable behavior goes blissfully unpunished.
  • Hamas.... did not spend millions of dollars to boost the Palestinian economy or give young Palestinians in the Gaza Strip employment prospects. Rather than constructing a medical facilities or educational institutions, Hamas opted to build hundreds of tunnels to smuggle weapons, attack Israel, and shelter its terrorists and leaders.
  • [I]f and when a Palestinian state is established, as Harris and the Biden administration insist, it will be controlled by the same murderers, rapists and terrorist jihadists.
  • This is the time to remind Harris that Hamas's charter views the Jihad as the way to take all of "Palestine" from the Jews and to destroy Israel. Harris sees a Palestinian state as the "only path" to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians, on the other hand, view the establishment of such a state as the first step towards eliminating Israel. The Hamas charter begins with a quotation attributed to Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Bana: "Israel will arise and continue to exist until Islam wipes it out, as it wiped out what went before."
  • Harris's remarks regarding a Palestinian state are seriously problematic: they send a message to the Palestinians and others that the US is happy to reward them for terrorism and the October 7 atrocities. Instead of talking about a Palestinian state, she should have told the Palestinians that they will never achieve a state as long as they back Hamas or vow to destroy a UN member state. Harris should also have warned the Palestinians that they will never be granted their own state unless they recognize Israel's right to exist as the ancestral home of the Jewish people, stop radicalizing their youth, and renounce violence and terrorism.
  • By advocating an end to the war in the Gaza Strip, Harris is asking that Israel, by allowing Hamas to remain in power, submit itself to unending jihadist attacks. What country would do that?
  • Demanding a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip is comparable to calling for an end to the US war on Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Unfortunately, destroying Hamas's military capabilities and removing it from power is the only realistic option. Failure to achieve those two goals will only embolden Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Russia, Iran and other global aggressors waiting in the wings.

In her recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris completely ignored that the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip are suffering because of a war initiated by Hamas. She could have done many Palestinians a favor had she called on Hamas to relinquish control over the Gaza Strip and stop using its people as human shields in its Jihad (holy war) against Israel. Pictured: Harris and Netanyahu meet on July 25, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)

On July 26, US Vice President Kamala Harris stated that the "two-state solution is the only path" for Israel and the Palestinians. Harris, who was speaking after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, DC, also said she made clear her "serious concerns" about casualties in the Gaza Strip.

"It's time for this war to end," Harris added, referring to the hostilities that erupted on October 7, 2023, when thousands of Iran-backed Hamas terrorists and "ordinary" Palestinians invaded Israel. They murdered, tortured and raped thousands of Israelis. In addition, more than 250 Israelis, including toddlers, children, women and the elderly, were kidnapped to the Gaza Strip.

Continue Reading Article

Kamala’s Anti-Israel Advisers Helped Bring On Oct 7

by Daniel Greenfield

“The idea that terrorists attack because they hate freedom, however, is misguided,” Philip Gordon wrote in ‘Winning the Right War’. “Even most of the Muslims who support terrorism and trust Osama bin Laden favor elected government” and “personal liberty.”

Gordon, Obama’s future Middle East coordinator, explained in his book that Muslim terrorists weren’t “born evil” or “hate our freedoms”, but rather they feel “shame” over the state of “a once great Islamic civilization” surpassed by other cultures including “the local upstart, Israel.”

America was “creating conditions” that “generate” Islamic terrorism by detaining Al Qaeda terrorists, failing to punish American soldiers and “justifying any Israeli military action”. Gordon urged the White House to assure Iran that we have “no intention of using military force against Iran or fomenting internal dissent” because “Iran’s concerns about such issues are legitimate”

Published in 2007 by an imprint of the New York Times, Gordon’s book was a blueprint of the policies that the Obama administration would adopt, including blaming America and Israel, appeasing Iran and Islamists, and making Muslims feel better about themselves. These are the building blocks of the policies that led us to Oct 7 and an Iranian war across the region.

Today, Gordon is Kamala’s National Security Advisor, and possible future Secretary of State.

Gordon’s hostility toward Israel and sympathy for Islamic terrorists is a longstanding matter. Even before joining the Biden administration, he had co-written an article with Iran lobby figure Robert Malley, under FBI investigation for mishandling classified documents, urging Biden to reverse Trump’s possible recognition of Israel territory, and to cut political and economic support for Israel to punish it for its diplomatic successes under the Trump administration.



Phillip Gordon

Recently, Gordon urged Israel to stop seeking victory against Hamas and accept a hostage deal that would allow the Islamic terrorist group to hang on in Gaza and free thousands of terrorists.

In his book, Gordon had claimed that “though Hamas refuses to recognize Israel today, it is not hard to imagine an eventual change in that position”. And in 2014, he had argued that a reconciliation deal between the PLO and Hamas “isn’t necessarily a bad thing”.

In 2016, Gordon, speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign, appeared at a conference by National Iranian American Council (NIAC) widely regarded as the Iran Lobby, and promised that Hillary Clinton would veto new sanctions on Iran. He was described as assuring the Iran Lobby of the “potential for collaboration with Iran”. The New York Times even appeared to list him as a “tour guide” on its Iran trips.

And Gordon is not the only terror booster on Kamala’s team.

Ilan Goldenberg, a key member of the Kerry team who played vital roles in the Obama administration’s campaigns against Israel and for Iran, serves as her Middle East adviser, and would have a more prominent role in any administration.

Goldenberg complained that the Trump administration had taken Israel’s side during the Hamas border riots that served as a prep for Oct 7, objected that moving the embassy to Jerusalem had not been packaged with similar concessions to the terrorists and co-authored a paper with Hady Amr, who acts as Biden’s point man to the terrorists and had threatened Israel with violence after the assassination of a Hamas leader, urging a deal with Hamas.

The paper proposed that “the United States, UNSCO, and Egypt should work quietly in concert, engaging with Israel, the PA, Hamas and a “long-term ceasefire” between Israel and Hamas, with Israel accepting that “Hamas would retain some of its military capabilities”.

At one session Goldenberg urged, “you used to have 25,000, 100,000 Gazans working inside Israel. That needs to happen again. The Israelis know who these guys are. They can start with a few thousand work permits. And there’s a lot of support for that in all of the Israeli communities around Gaza.”



Ilan Goldenberg

That became policy. Gazans flooded Israel, scouted those “Israeli communities around Gaza” and when Oct 7 began, they came back with maps of the communities so that they knew where the security teams were, which houses had dogs and where the children could be found.

Gordon and Goldenberg, who are set to play major roles in any Kamala Harris administration, have expressed no regrets or retractions of their past policies and positions. Even as the Middle East burns due to Iranian terrorism, all they have done is double down on them.

In a co-written op-ed headlined, “Relax, Israel – if your ally is working with your enemy, it doesn’t make them friends:, Goldenberg envisioned that “iIn the aftermath of a successful nuclear deal, U.S. relations with Iran should shift from that of an adversary to that of a competitor.” His position on Israel was rather different with op-eds like “Why Israel’s Settlement Construction Must Be Stopped” and “How Israel Brought U.N. Resolution on Itself With Irrational Settlement Push”.

Under a Secretary of State Phil Gordon, the Abraham Accords and normalization with countries like Saudi Arabia, which one of his op-eds described asn “Arabian fantasy” would be swept aside in a return of Obama’s non-stop pressure campaign on Israel to create a terrorist state.

“How will it have peace if it is unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupation, and allow for Palestinian sovereignty, security, and dignity?” Philip Gordon had warned at a conference in Israel right after terror rockets began to fall. “It cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. Doing so is not only wrong but a recipe for resentment and recurring instability.”

After the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens by Hamas, Gordon equated Israel and the terrorists, claimed that both sides suffered from “racism”, told “both sides to demonstrate reason and calm” and warned that “calls for retribution and revenge have no place on either side”. Finally he falsely contended that “neither side” was “ready to make the difficult decisions required for an agreement”.

Ilan Goldenberg had similarly argued that, “half the root causes are Israeli actions, in terms of — especially just focusing on Gaza, on the blockade. And the other half is Hamas’ choice to use violence and arm itself in response.”

That false paradigm has been markedly present in Kamala’s attacks on Israel after Oct 7.

Kamala’s relentless criticism of Israel’s self-defense is a preview of things to come. Behind her escalating rhetoric are a group of anti-Israel figures from the Obama administration. Goldenberg was one of the radicals brought in the Warren campaign and then injected into the Biden administration. Philip Gordon is a longtime State Department anti-Israel figure from a faction whose fingerprints are all over the policies that empowered Iran and set the region on fire.

What would Kamala’s foreign policy look like? The presence of Gordon and Goldenberg as her close advisors on the region shows that it would be the Obama administration on steroids.

Monday, July 29, 2024

Don’t Be Manipulated

by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

Are good and decent people so easily manipulated?

Even as President Joe Biden’s advancing senescence was so obvious to impartial observers that his aides and handlers kept him under wraps for years, allowing him only rare and heavily scripted encounters with the media and public, Americans were being reassured by those closest to him as well as the media types who masquerade as objective journalists that Biden was sharp as a tack and nimble as a gymnast. Almost all Democrat politicians and foreign diplomats played along even as they privately voiced concerns about his mental acuity.

This is no laughing matter. Global crises abound, America’s leadership is vital, and whoever has been running the country for the last 3 ½ years has made a mess of it – domestically and internationally. And the American people are still being played for fools. The same people who for years said that Biden is perfectly well abruptly decided that he is perfectly unwell and have now decided that Kamala Harris is a perfect successor. It is even within reason that whoever talked Biden into engaging in an unprecedented pre-convention debate with Donald Trump knew that Biden would crash and burn and, as such, easier to disgorge from the campaign.

To add to the contempt the administration must have for American citizens, Biden’s decision to drop out has been attributed to no specific cause except a desire to “pass the torch to a new generation.” But what changed from July 12, 2024, when Biden was committed to his candidacy, and July 14, 2024, when he announced his withdrawal from the race? The glaring problem, necessitating the lies and obfuscation, is that if Biden admits to a physical and mental condition that makes his candidacy untenable, it should be his remaining president for the next six months untenable as well.

It is worth noting that as Joe Biden began his presidential aspirations with a flagrant act of plagiarism, he ends it with another act of plagiarism. His 1987 campaign foundered when it was revealed that he, oddly, had filched then British Labor Party leader’s Neil Kinnock’s personal biography almost verbatim. Similarly, his campaign ends with Biden’s desire, repeated endlessly by every Democrat who received the memo, to “pass the torch to a new generation.” Anyone with even slight historical memory recalls that line from President John F. Kennedy’s eloquent inaugural speech, where he intoned “Let the word go forth from this time and place to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans…” Really?

Perhaps if Biden had cited Kennedy, he might have brought redemption to the world, in line with Masechet Megilah 15a. Another missed opportunity.

It is indeed strange that there is little outcry from Americans about being duped for so long, maybe because so many who were duped for so long were duped wittingly, with a vested interest in being duped for as long as possible.

Nevertheless, the Biden deceptions have not spared Israelis either.

In Biden’s withdrawal address, he stated that in the last six months of his presidency, he would like, among other things, to “end cancer as we know it” and “bring peace and security to the Middle East.” At least he is thinking big, if not a bit fancifully.

But he also stated that he is “going to call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy.” Biden wants to reform the US Supreme Court, in some unspecified ways, because he disagrees with their rulings. Perhaps he would like to pack the Court with additional justices more to his liking. Perhaps he would like to change their method of selection, the extent of their jurisdiction, or place the current justices under greater Congressional scrutiny, notwithstanding that these three proposals would require a constitutional amendment that will never happen.

Are we, too, so easily manipulated? Isn’t this the same Joe Biden (or his mouthpieces) who lectured and hectored Israel last year that our proposed judicial reforms were a threat to democracy in Israel? Didn’t Biden declare his opposition to judicial reform in Israel – including the selection of judges and limiting their jurisdiction – and state “the need for the broadest possible consensus” or the reforms should not take place?

Didn’t Biden proclaim “that shared democratic values have always been and must remain a hallmark of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” implying – as tendentious leftist Israeli “journalists” opined – that judicial reform in Israel will imperil the US-Israel alliance, as the US will invariably conclude that Israel is no longer a democracy (if Supreme Court justices do not have unlimited jurisdiction on every issue in Israeli society and insist on choosing their successors as well)?

Didn’t Biden term “unfortunate” the Knesset passage of the repeal of the “reasonableness clause” that allowed Israel’s High Court to base its decisions on personal whims and predilections and not at all on laws or legislation passed by majority vote in Israel’s Parliament?

That minor modification, since annulled by Israel’s undemocratic Supreme Court, was nonetheless called by one Congressman, Jerry Nadler, a “dark day for Israeli democracy.” Has Nadler deplored Biden’s attempt at judicial reform in the US? Of course not, and don’t hold your breath that he ever will.

Didn’t Israelis, even some good and decent people who supported judicial reform, allow themselves to be bamboozled into thinking that our ties with America would fray forever if true reforms were passed, that the country would veer into chaos and dictatorship, so now was not the time for reform? We must not lose sight of the fact that the Supreme Court’s heavy-handedness (dictating IDF tactics and responses along the Gaza border) was also partly responsible for the calamity of October 7 – and that such will never be properly investigated because the Court also controls any commission of inquiry?

In essence, Biden has reserved a right for himself that he denies Israel’s public. He will champion judicial reform in the United States, even though as currently constituted the US Supreme Court is subject to democratic controls that Israel’s Supreme Court is not. And he will denounce Israel’s valid efforts at making Israel’s Court more democratic, more responsive to the people, and more subject to checks and balances like the other branches of government.

We should not expect Biden to remember what he said last year nor demand consistency of expression from any politician. But there should be limits even to hypocrisy (but, of course, there are none). We should, though, expose the palpable manipulations from last year, and this year, and not let up.

When Israel passed our minor reform (that was soon after nullified by the Supreme Court it attempted to constrain), Biden said: “The genius of American democracy and Israeli democracy is that they are both built on strong institutions, on checks and balances, on an independent judiciary.” Hmmm. What changed? Why does the genius of American democracy need reform now but not the genius of Israeli democracy, which actually needs it more?

One takeaway is that we should stop taking seriously every pronouncement from the United States government, which should have been denounced at the time for its gross interference in Israel’s domestic affairs. We might consider issuing a statement urging Biden to retain America’s “independent judiciary,” whose weakening will reflect poorly on our “shared democratic values.” Another takeaway is that we should pay even less attention to Israel’s leftist journalists, activists, protesters, and rioters, whose goal is not to protect the judiciary or democracy but – as it has been for almost a decade – to topple the Netanyahu government and then restructure Israel as a less Jewish state.

And we should scrutinize every pronouncement through one lens: who is trying to manipulate us, and why?

Friday, July 26, 2024

Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: An Eiruv for Nascent Tel Aviv and Approbation Rather than Hashgacha

An Eiruv for Nascent Tel Aviv -#242 

Date and Place: 9 Kislev 5670 (1909), Yafo

Recipient: The homeowners of “Achuzat Bayit,” the brand new suburb of Yafo, which became the beginning of Tel Aviv.

Body: It will be for me a pleasant obligation to awaken your dear spirits to take part in the mitzva of erecting an eiruv in your dear moshav, which we are joyously looking forward to see built, adorned and equipped with all good things.

The erection of an eiruv is positive for two reasons: A. It will prevent the outbreak of a wave of desecration of Shabbat from spreading in your respected, beloved moshav. Besides the inherent holy cause that is included in this, it also impacts the general honor of the moshav. B. It is a great improvement regarding all the needs of life on the holy day in a community that is made up of our Jewish brethren. This reduces dependency on non-Jews.

The expense of building a high-quality, strong eiruv in part of the moshav is, by a good estimation, 32 Napoleonic gold coins. Of this, the general assembly of the city (Yafo) will provide 16 coins, through the efforts of Betzalel Lopian. Concerning the second half, 16 Napoleonic gold coins, I beseech of you, respected people, that you will take part, to provide you both spiritual and material benefit, as shall be an honor for such beloved people.

Approbation Rather than Hashgacha #244 

Date and Place
: 11 Kislev 5670 (1909), Yafo

Recipient: Mr. Lupo, the head administrator of Mikveh Yisrael (one of the first agricultural settlements, located on the outskirts of present-day Holon).

Body: I received your very respected letter, and I am responding with my thanks to your honor, for completing the steps needed to take off tithes [from the produce] as the Torah requires.

Regarding the kashrut accreditation for the wine, I ask your forgiveness that I cannot write a certificate, which I can do only when something is done under my supervision. Last year, I only attested to the signatures of the rabbis who give the certification. I will not hold this back now, as well. However, how can I give my certificate of kashrut, which indicates my specific knowledge in the matter? The following is always the practice. The rabbi who actually supervises the product gives his certificate, and those who need to affirm matters externally assert to the veracity of his signature.

I hope that, in the future as well, you will not cease to fulfill your religious obligations regarding the fruit of Mikveh Yisrael and all its produce. I await your respected response.

Those Who Love The Land Will Win

by HaRav Dov Begon
Rosh HaYeshiva, Machon Meir

Our sages called the Book of Bamidbar, “Chumash Pekudim” [The Book of Tallies], because of the two censuses mentioned in it. The first took place at the start of Israel’s trek through the desert “on the first day of the second month [Iyar] in the second year of their exodus from Egypt” (Bamidbar 1:1). The second took place prior to their entering the Land “in the Plains of Moav on the Jordan River facing Jericho” (26:63). Between these two censuses were forty years of walking through a desert amidst difficult trials and crises.

Only those worthy to enter Eretz Yisrael reached the “finish line” in the Plains of Moav, as it says, “Of these [counted in the plains of Moav], there were none who had been counted by Moshe and Aharon in the Sinai Wilderness. G-d had said of them, ‘They will surely die in the Wilderness,’ and not a man was left of them, except for Calev ben Yefuneh and Yehoshua bin Nun” (66:64-65). Rashi comments: “none were left who were counted previously, for the men had all died because of the sin of the spies. As for the women, the decree of the spies had not been applied to them, for they loved the Land. The men had said, ‘Let us choose a leader and return to Egypt’ (14:4), but the women had said, ‘Give us a holding in the Land’ (27:4). This is why the episode of Tzelafchad’s daughters was juxtaposed to the section regarding the census. Those daughters loved the Land and they were as righteous as Yosef, who likewise loved the Land and asked to be buried there. Whoever loves the Land is righteous and worthy of praise.” (Rashi on 27:1).

In every generation, there are people who love the Land and are worthy of praise. During our 2,000 year exile, there were Jews who loved the Land and moved there with great self-sacrifice. Amongst them were great Torah giants like Rambam, Ramban, Rabbi Yosef Karo, the Ari, the Ohr HaChaim, the disciples of the Vilna Gaon, the disciples of the Ba’al Shem Tov, and many more who moved to the Land despite all difficulties and dangers.

About 150 years ago, a great change transpired. At that time, not just rabbis and great saints moved to the Land of Israel, but the Jewish masses as well, religious and irreligious, from all the communities of the Diaspora. All expressed their great love for the Land by moving there and settling it. They were the pioneers going before the camp. They established the first farming settlements and communities, both private and communal. They reaped great merit, and likewise brought great merit to all of Israel through their love and affection for Eretz Yisrael. It was through their merit that we have been privileged to establish the State of Israel in our times.

Currently, those who continue to bear the banner of love for Eretz Yisrael are the settlers of Yehuda and Shomron, who love the Land and risk their lives for it. There are those who have an unrelenting ambition to establish an Arab state in the very heart of our Land and to banish the Jews from there. Despite their efforts, the love and affection of the settlers of Yehuda and Shomron continue and shall continue further. Great waters will not be able to extinguish that love.

In the desert, those who loved the Land survived - the women, as well as Calev and Yehoshua - and they were privileged to go up into Eretz Yisrael and to settle it. So too in our day, those who love Eretz Yisrael and risk their lives for their people and their land are the ones who will emerge victorious in the struggle over our exclusive right to Eretz Yisrael. They shall continue to lead the nation once the present leadership passes. Then, “those redeemed by G-d shall come back to Zion in joy, enveloped in everlasting happiness” (Yeshayahu 35:10).

Besorot Tovot and Shabbat Shalom,
Looking forward to complete salvation,
With the Love of Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael.

Yeshivat Machon Meir: The Musaf Offerings (video)

The Yishai Fleisher Israel Podcast: ISRAEL GONE GLOBAL

SEASON 2024 EPISODE 29: Yishai is on a grassy hill in Buffalo and goes over the amazing Netanyahu speech in Congress, and plays another great talk by Shabbos Kestenbaum at the RNC about campus antisemitism. Then, MK Dan Ilouz is fired up against a Pali state. And finally, Byron Stinson on how bringing the Red Heifers to Israel may have inadvertently started the October 7th war. Plus, Ben Bresky on the story of saintly Ohr Hachayim!

Pinchas: When to make peace, when to make war

by Rav Binny Freedman

The image of his smiling, victorious face, aglow with the sense of vindication that seemed to be one step away from ‘I told you so’ has become the paradigm of the image of impending disaster. And the signed agreement he waved victoriously as he stepped from the plane, fresh from his seemingly successful whirlwind negotiations, has become synonymous with the adage of any agreement literally ‘not worth the paper it is written on’.

The year was 1938, the man was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, and the agreement was the peace agreement he had signed with no less than Adolph Hitler, relinquishing allied promises of protection to the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. This flawed decision, which essentially set the stage for World War II, was briefly celebrated as heralding the wisdom to ‘make peace not war’, thus avoiding the arrogant thinking which had led to World War I a scant twenty five years earlier. It was not long, however, before it became clear that this weak-willed abrogation of an established alliance and treaty, would pave the way for Hitler’s invasion of Poland, and the eventual loss of tens of millions of lives.

Chamberlain’s famous meeting with Germany’s Chancellor Adolph Hitler in 1938, was one of those ‘what if’ moments, which might have changed the course of history. Beginning with Germany’s Anschluss invasion of Austria, and culminating with Germany’s march into Czechoslovakia, the Allies had ample opportunity to declare war on Germany and stop Nazism in its tracks before its military machine became unstoppable. But Chamberlain, along with the rest of the Western world, missed opportunity after opportunity, until it was too late. And one wonders why; why was it so difficult to see what Hitler really wanted? Why did so many world leaders lack the will to say ‘enough’?

Obviously, the echoes of this very question chillingly resonate today, as some in the West believe we should still be negotiating with Iran in attempting to prevent it becoming a nuclear power. And for that matter, one might suggest this same question is at play in Europe and across the world, as governments struggle to find a solution to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism and attempt to find the line between negotiating peace and threatening with military, aggressive or confrontational options.

Interestingly, this week’s portion, Pinchas offers a fascinating insight on this topic.

The beginning of Pinchas is actually a post-script to the end of last week’s portion, Balak.

Balak, the King of Moab, having just witnessed Israel’s victory over the mighty Amorite army, realizes the Jews cannot be conquered on the battlefield (sound familiar?). So, he entices Balaam, the great sorcerer of the ancient pagan world, to come and curse the Jews instead. Balaam clearly wants to go, but G-d denies his request. Yet, when the Moabite emissaries return a second time to entice Balaam to acquiesce, Balaam asks G-d a second time, and this time G-d agrees though clearly angered with Balaam for asking again. Ultimately, G-d foils the plan and causes Balaam to utter blessings instead of curses.

But Balaam is not done; he foments a plan to entice the Jewish men with Midianite women who seduce them to idolatry culminating with no less than Zimri, a Prince of Israel, cohabitating with a Midianite princess at the entrance the Holy Tent of Meeting!

So what does one do in the face of such wickedness? Incredibly, Moshe and Aharon fall to the ground, seemingly at a loss for what to do!

Enter Pinchas, Aharon’s grandson; grabbing a spear, he ends this obvious affront to both the word of G-d, as well as Moshe’s leadership, by literally spearing the offenders on the spot, thus halting the plague which decimated the Jewish people as a direct result of the licentious and pagan behavior. And that was the conclusion of last week’s portion, Balak.

This week’s portion, Pinchas, then begins with G-d’s reaction to Pinchas’ action:

“Pinchas the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron the (high) priest turned back my anger (says G-d) from the children of Israel… thus do I give him my covenant of peace. “

The Rabbis question why the Torah finds it necessary to share Pinchas’ lineage here, a fact we of which we are already aware, and suggest (Rashi) that the Jewish people are rather shocked by such an obviously violent and zealous act, so G-d reminds us that he is the descendant of Aharon, known as the Ohev shalom and the Rodef shalom, the lover and pursuer of peace.

The phrase Ohev shalom, a lover of peace, makes a lot of sense here. First of all, that seems indeed to have been Aharon’s great merit, as he seems to have gone out of his way to make peace between conflicted parties. And the commentaries suggest the Torah is telling us that Pinchas, despite his zealous action, was actually a lover of peace as well, and was willing to take such a violent action to stem the plague decimating the Jewish people, not because he hated Zimri but because of his love for peace.

The term Rodef however, a pursuer of peace, is a curious choice of terminology. The rodef, or ‘pursuer’ in Jewish tradition is actually anything but peaceful. It refers to a person who is actually pursuing the (most famously, but not limited to, accidental) killer of a blood relative, determined to kill him as an act of vengeance or justice.

The Torah actually permits and even obligates us to stop this rodef at all costs, even, if necessary, by taking his life. And the rabbis have even expanded this term to include anyone whose actions are threatening a life, as for example an unborn baby whose birth is endangering the life of the mother; until the birth, the baby is considered a ‘rodef’ (in that it is threatening the life of the mother) and the mother’s life (in the event of a necessary choice) takes precedence.

So why is this same term of rodef, or ‘pursuer’ used here to refer to a pursuer of peace? Is there some connection?

The Chatam Sofer (Rav Moshe Sofer of Pressburg, the mid nineteenth century German sage) suggests that in this instance Pinchas was actually doing the opposite of ‘making peace’; he was chasing it away! Sometimes, he suggests, making peace with something will actually lead to anything but peace, and the real lover of peace in such an instance has to be willing to chase it away by doing the opposite, even if it goes against the grain of his personality.

Pinchas understood, that to stand by and ‘make peace’ with Zimri’s actions, and do nothing (in order not to ‘make waves‘) while a Jewish leader was causing such an affront to everything Judaism held dear, would actually allow G-d’s wrath and the resulting plague to continue to decimate thousands of Jewish lives.

Just as in 1938, Chamberlain’s desire to ‘make peace’ with Adolph Hitler and overlook his horrendous and terrifying human rights abuses and anti-Semitism, actually encouraged a tyrant and led to the greatest loss of human life in world history.

Indeed, it may well be that this is why Aharon himself does not step up in this instance; in the sin of the Golden calf, it was Aaron who let the Jews throw gold in the fire resulting in the Golden calf; perhaps the Torah is suggesting here that the previous generation of leadership did indeed ‘make peace’ with evil, with disastrous results; perhaps this was Pinchas’ greatness: knowing when to make peace, and when one cannot make peace with a reality antithetical to one’s ideals.

Sometimes we have to know when to simply say ‘no’. Indeed, Balaam’s great flaw in last week’s portion was not hearing that G-d was saying ‘no’; you cannot go. Sometimes we have a hard time just saying ‘no’, and sometimes we have an even harder time hearing the word ‘no’. But sometimes that is exactly what we have to say. Sometimes we tell our children ‘no’ and they discover that we really care about what they do. Parents who never say no are not doing their children any favors.

We live in a world which is so desperate to make peace: with terrorism, with Islamic fundamentalism, with an Iranian desire for nuclear power as a steppingstone to regional and perhaps even world domination. But there are some things with which we cannot make peace. As long as Iran refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State, and declares its desire to annihilate us, we cannot make peace with it. And make no mistake about it: it is irrelevant whether they actually agree to dismantle their nuclear capability; it is much deeper than that. As long as they are supporting terror around the world, and funding attacks on Jewish and Western institutions, we cannot make peace with them.

As long as the Palestinian Authority continues to emulate suicide bombers and teach their children to hate, we cannot make peace with them, and in fact such ‘peace’ agreements will inevitably lead to war.

And as long as Hamas declares as its aim the destruction of the State of Israel and every Jew, everywhere in the world, we cannot make peace, nor should we be seeking truces, with them either; as painful as this may sound, and as zealous as it may seem. The refusal to ‘make peace’ with evil, is actually the pursuit of real peace.

And lastly, there are so many things we should not ‘make peace’ with on a personal level. We should not ‘make peace’ with leaders whose behavior is less than exemplary (though we must be careful about pillorying them publicly without being sure of the facts), and we should not ‘make peace’ with unethical behavior, even if it may be unpopular to publicly take that stand.

Perhaps, this week of Pinchas, it would be a worthwhile discussion at the Shabbat table to consider what things we should not ‘make peace’ with, and what we might do to ensure that we pursue such a reality.

Wishing you all a Shabbat Shalom from Yerushalayim.