Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Refuting Criticism by the Ridbaz – #311 – part IV

#311 – part IV

Date and Place: 19 Sivan 5670 (1910), Yafo

Recipient and Background: Rav Yaakov David Wilovsky (Ridbaz), a leading rabbi who moved to Eretz Yisrael and was known for being, among other things, a strong opponent of leniencies on Shemitta. We have already seen three installments of why Rav Kook not only thought that the leniency of selling the land to obviate many of the laws of Shemitta was the correct approach under the circumstances but “fought” to make this seen as a fully legitimate ruling.

Body: After all I have written, I am hereby repeating, a second and a third time, that my entire desire and goal is only to cause people to look favorably on those Jews [who are being lenient]. This is especially true regarding the holy nation who are living in the courtyards of Hashem, on the holy mountain, which His right hand has acquired, that no one should cast aspersions on them, with the claim that they are overall evil and sinners.

On the other hand, I do not intend, Heaven forbid, to weaken the resolve of those who are upholding this great, holy mitzva (Shemitta), which after all the leniencies and creative ideas to justify them, has imbued in the mitzva the great light of liberation, salvation, and redemption for Hashem’s nation. My eyes always look forward to the joy and salvation Hashem will bring, when he founds the Jewish community of the Holy Land on a stable and strong basis and sends blessing and a flow of goodness. In this way, it will be possible to keep Shemitta properly with love without destroying or severely harming the community, but rather with blessing and quiet serenity.

I believe and hope that just as we view favorably [those who are being lenient] on earth, so too will the angels who serve as “defense attorneys,” who explain the good elements of a person’s actions, show how the Heavenly court should view them favorably. It is a great obligation of the Torah scholars and the righteous people of the generation to pray on behalf of the holy offspring who are compelled to follow this leniency, so that no damage or disease afflict them. This is in line with the prayer (Berachot 29a), “Whenever there is a difficult episode, may their needs be before you.” It is especially appropriate [to pray for them] considering that they are doing a practice based on a rabbinical ruling, and there is no phenomenon of separating oneself [from the community of observant Jews] to sin. Even if, Heaven forbid, our ruling is incorrect, “Hashem is great, and He will not be disgusted” (ibid. 8a).

I have relied on divine mercy that the more work is done to justify the actions of the lenient, along the lines of the Torah, (and we attach the prayers of the multitude on behalf of Hashem’s flock, which has returned to the fields where it grazed), so too the blessing will increase. This will turn the affliction to indulgence (a play on words in Hebrew), and the iniquity to great abundance of good (also a play on words) on Hashem’s nation and estate. This is because one cannot even estimate the great power of the righteous and the Torah scholars when they come to find virtue for Israel. About them, the pasuk says, “You did decree with your speech, and it will be established, and on your paths there will be an aura of light” (Iyov 22:28).

Yeshivat Machon Meir: Parshat Shemini - Nadav and Avihu (video)

“The Nations in Uproar, Muttering in Vain”

by HaRav Dov Begon
Rosh HaYeshiva, Machon Meir

Regarding the camel, it says: “Among the cud-chewing, hoofed animals, these are the ones that you may not eat: The camel shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a true hoof” (Vayikra 11:4). Regarding the pig it says, “The pig shall be unclean to you although it has a true split hoof, since it does not chew its cud” (v. 7). These two animals have marks of both the kosher animals and the nonkosher animals, but the Torah declares unequivocally, “They are unclean to you” (v. 8).

The pig and the camel allude to Christianity and Islam, respectively. Each of these religions boasts that its sources are within Judaism, and each uses the Bible and other Jewish sources to justify its existence. While Christianity spreads out its hooves like the pig, to show how kosher it is, it remains nonkosher on the inside, because it envisions G-d as being a man and claims that G-d abandoned Israel and forged a new covenant, Heaven forbid. Likewise, with Islam, it is true that in their worldview they oppose envisioning G-d as a man, and they claim that they believe in one G-d. Seemingly, they are kosher on the inside, yet when they raise-up the sword against Israel and against other nations, their true face is revealed, that of “his hand being against everyone and everyone’s hand being against him” (Beresheet 16:12).

Right now, Christianity and Islam share a common concern - how to deal with the rebirth of the Jewish People in Eretz Yisrael and its eternal capital Jerusalem, something which undermines the foundations of their worldview and faith. They are trying by various means, some ostensibly good and peace-like, and others openly wicked and bellicose, to nullify the counsel of G-d. Yet G-d, who loves His people and thinks only good of them, is raising them up to rebirth.

Indeed, it was in response to such plotting that Dovid HaMelech, sweet singer of Israel, said, “Why are the nations in uproar? Why do the peoples mutter in vain? The kings of the earth join ranks and the rulers take counsel together, against the L-rd and against His anointed” (Tehilim 2:1-2). Yet, “He who sits in the heavens laughs; the L-rd holds them in derision. He shall speak to them in His wrath and terrify them in His burning anger” (Ibid., v. 4-5). The Jewish People are G-d’s firstborn son, and they are forever as dear to Him as an infant is to its parents on the day of its birth (see Metzudot David, Ibid.).

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

Caught up in the passion of the moment

by Rav Binny Freedman

There is a little-known test that officer cadets undergo in one form or another during Infantry Officer’s training that they almost always fail; which is precisely the point. It takes many forms so that one class will never be forewarned by the previous one. Mine was administered near the midpoint of a horrible experience known as bochan Aricha.

We were dropped in the middle of the desert and after a ten-kilometer run (more like a jog), within sight of a tent we presumed to be our objective, we were suddenly told we were under chemical attack and made to don our gas masks. Our commanders would often change the rules of the game and throw unexpected surprises at us, to test our resilience and ability to cope with unexpected situations.

It is hard to describe what it is like to run and fight in a gas mask; you are already exhausted, running on little sleep and in the heat of the desert the gas mask makes it difficult to breathe. The plexiglass visor very quickly steams up making it difficult to see which made the sudden order to turn and climb the steep mountain that seemed to rise endlessly in front of us all the more difficult. But you are in Officer’s course, so that’s what you do. Halfway up they yelled that two of our number were injured (we were a squad of eight) so that in addition to our exhaustion, our inability to breathe properly, and the steep climb, we now had to divide up all our gear to allow for two ‘bodies’ to be carried.

As we neared the top, I found myself in the lead and heard one of the commanders yelling: “Come on! You’re almost there!” Mustering up my last reserves and feeling the passion of leading the squad up the hill, I grabbed and pulled the guy behind me and with a yell started moving as fast as I could up the last ten yards to the top.

Suddenly, three red smoke grenades popped, and two commanders acting as ‘the enemy’ took us out from close range. Five yards from the top, we had let our passion get ahold of us and forgotten the cardinal rule of always making sure we took pause to gain perspective. So, they sent us back down to the bottom, to do the whole thing again…

We had forgotten a cardinal rule and learned a second: The first is to always consider the best place for an ambush, because that is usually where the enemy will be waiting. (They waited till we were almost at the top, when we least expected it…)

And the second, is that you have to be careful never to let passion get in the way of the pause that allows for a healthy perspective.

This week’s portion Shemini, contains one of the most tragic and challenging episodes in the Torah: the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron. In the midst of the dedication of the Mishkan as the Jewish people are celebrating the consecration of the Mishkan, and the initiation of the Kohanim (the priestly caste) along with the installation of the Jewish people’s beloved Aharon as the Kohein Gadol, the High priest, Nadav and Avihu, his two oldest sons, offer up a strange fire, of which they had not been commanded. (Vayikra 10:1)

Suddenly (ibid. v. 2) a fire comes from before G-d (possibly from the Kodesh Kedoshim) and consumes them in front of the entire Jewish people. In a moment, joy has been transformed into tragedy, and Aharon, on what should have been the greatest day of his life, is left speechless in the face of such an overwhelming tragedy.

The commentaries offer many different opinions as to what exactly happened here. Did they ignore their teacher Moshe? Were they drunk? Perhaps their transgression was one of arrogance? Interestingly, the language of the verse (“And fire came from before G-d and consumed them…”), mirroring exactly the words two verses earlier describing the acceptance by G-d of the people’s offering over which the Jewish people rejoiced en masse (ibid. 9:24), suggests that there was something positive in what they were doing despite their tragic end; they were somehow accepted by G-d as opposed to a standard transgression that would more likely result in a distancing from G-d.

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch suggests that they were too caught up in the passion of the moment. Think about it: according to some commentaries (most notably Rashi) the building of the Mishkan was a direct consequence of the debacle of the Golden calf. Indeed, it appears in the Torah that the Jewish people were distant, even estranged from Hashem after the Golden Calf. In fact, it seems that in the half a year it takes the Jewish people to build the Mishkan, Hashem stops speaking with them, which must have been extremely painful for a people that had become so close to G-d they actually heard Him speak the Ten Commandments.

So when a fire comes from before G-d and consumes their offering, the Torah tells us (ibid.) “the entire nation rejoiced and fell on their faces…” It was a moment of extreme joy; of pure rejoicing, even love. And in the midst of all this, Nadav and Avihu, who actually represent the future leadership of the Jewish people, and who themselves have just been consecrated as Kohanim, are totally caught up in the moment. They are so full of joy, suggests Rav Hirsch, that their passion gets away from them; the offering of the people is not enough; they want to offer even more. So they take incense and attempt to offer up an additional offering which has not been commanded.

But true leaders should not need to be more passionate and rejoice more than the people, they should rather, exult in the joy of the people, with the people. And this is their undoing. They let their passion get away from them, when they should perhaps have used the opportunity for a pause, allowing a healthier perspective.

One wonders, in the moment before it all came apart, what the people felt, seeing these two young Priests grabbing their own fire and leaping forward in front of and seemingly above, everyone else.

I recall once at a wedding seeing something that really bothered me. The bride and groom had just re-entered the wedding hall after the ceremony and the entire hall erupted in song and dance in an expression of pure joy. The groom grabbed his father and then a couple of his brothers and they were dancing with the most wonderful expressions of happiness on their faces when a well-known rabbi who had missed the ceremony arrived, pushed his way through the outer circles of dancing into the middle, grabbed the father and the groom and started madly dancing with them.

It took me a while to realize what had bothered me about the moment (though of course only Hashem knows what is in the hearts of men; so this about my perception more than whether it is really true). His excitement had been so great he missed the fact that he was interrupting what might have been a really beautiful moment. His passion had carried him away when perhaps a pause might better have been in order.

And this is true not only in positive experiences but in the midst of negative moments as well. As an example, it is no accident that Rambam, immediately after describing in his laws of character traits (Hilchot Deot 2:3) how anger is an extremely negative quality that must be avoided at all costs, begins to describe the value of silence.

“A person should always practice a healthy and abundant modicum of silence…” (ibid. 2:4). Implying that the first way to deal with anger is silence. Words spoken and actions taken in anger are almost always regretted. We usually are sure, later upon reflection, that we could have done a better job if we had waited until we were no longer angry, before responding.

Words spoken in anger never come out right. They are always better served after a healthy pause. Imagine how much better life would be if we simply made it a habit never to speak (or text) in anger; always to wait until we are no longer angry, or at least no longer in the heat of the moment. How many foolish and hurtful words would be avoided, and how much better we would be at expressing our thoughts…

Perhaps this is one of the messages we can take away from the painful episode of Nadav and Avihu: to temper our passions with healthy pauses, which will most always result in better perspectives.

Wishing you all a Shabbat Shalom from Jerusalem.

Holy Fire, Unholy Lies

by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

There is literally no respite from the lies of our enemies.

This holiday season, as always, brought thousands of pilgrims, tourists, and worshippers to all parts of Jerusalem to share in the festivities of the holidays of Passover and Easter. And, as always, it elicited from Israel’s enemies a torrent of lies, provocations, and baseless accusations, all of which deserve to be refuted.

The three-day Easter celebration was marked by thousands of Christian pilgrims enjoying Good Friday services, Holy Fire observances, and Easter Sunday in Jerusalem’s Old City, with special concentration on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. But a host of Arab provocateurs rushed to the media to complain about hundreds of people turned away by Israeli police, including the Papal Nuncio, from entry into the Church. Some of the protesters turned violent and claimed that Israel was defiantly interfering with Christian freedom of worship.

There is a kernel of truth to the accusation that entry to the Church was restricted by Israeli authorities – but not for the reasons ascribed to Israel by the provocateurs. By prior agreement, admission to the ancient church for the Holy Fire ceremony was limited to 2,200 people who had received prior authorization, with another 1300 allowed to access the outer courtyard and the roof. Such limitations are common throughout the world – museums, today, are a typical example – and prior authorization for entry is common at synagogues in Europe and the Americas. These restrictions are imposed for security reasons, and not only to defuse the threat of Arab terror, but rather to protect the worshippers from the potentially deadly effects of overcrowding.

Indeed, entry to the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca is barred to all non-Muslims, but even the number of Muslim visitors to Mecca and the Grand Mosque are severely restricted during the holiday seasons out of concern for the safety and security of pilgrims. This year, entry to the city of Mecca is forbidden beginning on April 25 and through the month-long Hajj season, to any Muslim who does not possess a valid work permit, a Mecca residency ID, or a valid Hajj permit. But enemies of Israel only perceive tourist restrictions in Israel of any sort as problematic and offensive.

As is known, the interior of the Church is a very confined space, and subdivided – to the inch – between some half-dozen Christian sects. The Holy Fire ceremony involves the kindling of a candle, with the fire then shared with the various groups until hundreds of candles are lit in this small area. In 1834 - unfortunately for our enemies, long before the State of Israel could be blamed – hundreds of Christian pilgrims died in a stampede caused after fire spread throughout the Church at a Holy Fire observance. The restrictions are designed to avoid the recurrence of such a tragedy.

Israel is especially mindful of the dangers inherent in mass crowds assembling in ancient structures. In 2021, forty-five Jewish men and boys were crushed to death, and more than one hundred injured, when celebrants fell on slippery steps at Rabbi Shimon’s tomb in Meron causing a stampede. That is why limitations are imposed at such locations. Imagine if there were no regulation of entry at the Church, and tragedy ensued, how these same critics would be lambasting Israel for its indifference to Christian life.

The enemies of Israel have it backwards. Rather than these restrictions indicating Israel’s interference with Christian worship, they instead testify to the concern for the life and well being of all tourists, pilgrims, and visitors to the Holy Land.

Israel should be lauded for its conduct here, not castigated.

Rubio torpedoes the left’s anti-Israel stronghold inside the State Department

by Jonathan Tobin

The administration isn’t abandoning the cause of human rights. A reorganization will stop bureaucratic ideologues from using the government to attack the Jewish state.

For decades, a group of so-called “human rights” organizations—in particular, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—have been waging war on the State of Israel. As NGO Monitor, the authoritative source on the subject, has documented, these groups have conducted a multifaceted campaign involving support for boycotts across the board, smearing it as an “apartheid” state, and promoting its isolation and prosecution on the international stage.

In doing so, these non-governmental organizations and the liberal publications that continue to treat them as credible sources have succeeded in transforming human rights from a righteous cause into a movement that is a politically powerful, thinly veiled engine of 21st-century antisemitism.

Those who follow U.S. foreign policy have become all too aware of this development, especially since the Hamas-led Palestinian terrorist attacks and atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Since then, this bogus “human rights” lobby has stepped up its efforts to delegitimize Israel’s efforts to defend itself and acted as tacit advocates for Hamas in falsely depicting the war in Gaza and against other Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen as acts of “genocide.”

Most Americans have been largely unaware that a band of activists with similar goals and beliefs to those at Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have been operating from a base inside the U.S. government. Thanks to a reorganization of the U.S. State Department, announced this week by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, that may now be coming to an end.

This is much to the dismay of liberal outlets like The New York Times, in addition to former Obama and Biden administration staffers who are horrified about what they consider to be a “blow to U.S. values.” According to the Times, the Trump administration is signaling that it “cares less about fundamental freedoms than it does about cutting deals with autocrats and tyrants.” In an article that largely consisted of quotes from foes of President Donald Trump and Rubio, the offices, such as the human-rights bureau, that are being pared down and stripped of their autonomy were described as “a sort of voice of conscience for policymakers as they balance America’s interests with its values.”

Opponents of Israel
Phrased in that manner, this sounds like something terrible—a scheme that would truly undermine American advocacy for freedom abroad. But the giveaway as to what’s really at stake in this controversy came in the next sentence of the article. As the newspaper put it: “During the Biden administration, it offered internal criticism of Israel, arguing that it was not doing enough to protect civilians in Gaza.”

In other words, these bureaus have acted as a powerful check on the ability of any president to advance the U.S.-Israel relationship as well as to promote a malicious and false narrative that, like those spewing from Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, seeks to demonize Israel and any other targets of the political left. Though they are being portrayed in the liberal press as courageous truth-tellers working to spread freedom and democracy abroad, such officials have been acting in the grand tradition of State Department antisemites and Arabists who have sought to work against the interests of Israel and the Jewish people since the 1930s.

As Rubio explained in a government Substack post, for the past few decades, the State Department has operated several bureaus that, “provided a fertile environment for activists to redefine ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy,” to conform to the ideology of the same so-called “progressives” who have captured control of academia.

Often pursuing goals completely at odds with the foreign-policy objectives of the president and secretary of state, this growing band of biased bureaucratic ideologues has wielded considerable power and influence. To the frustration of those who understand the way that their agenda damages U.S. interests and allies, they’ve made a significant sector of the federal establishment into bastions of hostility to Israel and the governments of other nations that have been targets of the left, such as Hungary, Poland and Brazil. It also promoted policies that, as Rubio pointed out, “funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to international organizations and NGOs that facilitated mass migration around the world, including the invasion on our southern border.”

How could that be? And why has it taken so long for someone in authority to order changes like those that the current administration has put forward?

How rogue elements ruled
The answer to that question is fairly simple. Until now, no one in the White House or at the head of the State Department has tried to rein in what Rubio rightly termed “rogue” elements within the government.

They have operated with the impunity that comes with civil-service protections and the fact that past administrations either lacked the will or ability to restrain a powerful bureaucracy. As is true in almost all governmental departments and agencies, the permanent employees lean hard to the left. They also have managed to fend off any efforts to control them by manipulating the political appointees, who are supposed to be their bosses, treating them as incompetent amateurs who know little about how the government works in much the same manner as the characters in the classic British political comedy “Yes, Minister.”

It’s also true that, at least in principle, both the Obama and Biden administrations had no problem with this “human rights” lobby inside the State Department because they largely agreed with them.

Yet the inherent problem of having a portion of the government conducting an ideological foreign policy largely independent of the people at the top of the organizational flow chart became exposed in the last 16 months of Biden’s term in office. That’s because the anti-Israel bureaucrats, like the pro-Hamas mobs on college campuses, believed that the administration of President Joe Biden was insufficiently hostile to Israel after Oct. 7.

Biden’s civil war
As soon became apparent, the barbaric attack on Israeli civilians and the war to eradicate Hamas that followed had fomented nothing less than a civil war within the administration. Large portions of the permanent foreign-policy bureaucracy, as well as many of Biden’s political appointees ensconced in positions below the rank of cabinet and undersecretary rank, simply opposed the ambivalent Biden stand on the war, in which he publicly opposed Hamas but at the same time didn’t want Israel to succeed in defeating it. They wanted a complete cutoff of U.S. aid and an American-imposed ceasefire that would enable Hamas to both survive the war they started and even to win it.

While some officials, including members of the State Department’s human-rights bureau, resigned in protest over Biden’s half-hearted support of Israel, most remained in place. They continued working to undermine that stand and help fund projects that would hurt Israel and aid Palestinians fighting it, including, as one Middle East Forum study noted, indirectly financing anti-Israel terrorism. Indeed, as the City Journal reported in February, USAID was directing American taxpayer dollars to Hamas.

That is the context with which Rubio’s reorganization should be understood.

One aspect of the scheme is that it will eliminate redundancies and reduce costs in keeping with the mandate of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initially guided by billionaire Elon Musk.

Backing human rights
Rubio, who, as the Times noted, was an ardent supporter of human rights and encouraged using American power to advocate for freedom abroad during his 14 years in the U.S. Senate. Contrary to the assertions of his critics, he has not changed his mind about the importance of the issue. Rather, he is attempting to rescue the cause of human rights and democracy from activists who have turned it into a crusade against Israel and other governments, such as that of Hungary, which is falsely labeled as authoritarian because of its resistance to left-wing attempts to undermine its national identity.

Rubio’s plan involves a massive shift that he hopes will end the radical power base inside the State Department by stripping it of its autonomy and putting it inside existing regional bureaus, where it won’t be free to undermine Trump’s pro-Israel policy or fund groups working to promote policies and ideas antithetical to U.S. interests.

Under Rubio’s plan, there will still be plenty of people at the State Department who will be tasked with monitoring human rights around the world and seeking to promote American values of liberty, including political and economic freedom. The administration will also preserve the office of the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism. Reportedly, it will shift to a global Jewish affairs coordinator rather than the old division under the office of the undersecretary of civilian security, human rights and democracy—a section of Foggy Bottom that was a major part of the problem Rubio is trying to solve. The Office of International Religious Freedom will also still be there.

Will Rubio succeed in taming and redirecting the energy of the diplomatic bureaucracy away from toxic left-wing activism and toward efforts that will promote American interests and strengthen U.S. ties with Israel and other allies? Only time will tell, but as Trump has demonstrated on other issues, such as his efforts to reform or defund academic institutions that tolerate and encourage antisemitism, enacting such fundamental changes requires bold strokes and decisive leadership.

For far too long, the administrative state, of which the left-wing elements in the State Department were a key part, ruled as an unelected and unaccountable fourth branch of the U.S. government that was dedicated to pursuing left-wing policies that no one had voted for. Trump and Rubio have rightly decided this has to end.

Their actions will provoke much consternation and pearl-clutching from the foreign-policy establishment and its liberal media cheerleaders. But their taking an axe to a portion of the State Department bureaucracy run by radicals is a victory for friends of Israel and American interests, and a clear defeat for their opponents who operate under the false flag of “human rights” advocacy.

How many times can someone be chaiv missa—culpable of death?

by Rabbi Pinchas Winston

TALK ABOUT ENTANGLEMENT. The simple narrative has Nadav and Avihu dying because they brought an “unauthorized fire” during the inauguration ceremony in this week’s parsha. In Devarim, it mentions that they died because Aharon participated in the incident of the golden calf, even though he had all the right intentions. In Parashas Mishpatim, it says that Nadav and Avihu were already destined to be killed because, while on Har Sinai, they glanced at the Shechinah. How many times can someone be chaiv missa—culpable of death?

Even more confusing is how such great people could be worthy of death even once? True, the Gemora portrays them as being someone pompous, not at all like their great and humble father. But Moshe Rabbeinu called them great and holy people, and Kabbalah concurs. According to the Arizal, anyone who received their souls after their deaths gained the power of prophecy. Those are great souls.

You find this a lot in Torah Judaism. Things taken by themselves are often simple and logical. But when the same things are taken with others, all of a sudden difficulties arise, even what appear like contradictions. It’s why some prefer to live with the smaller picture, in order to avoid having to work out issues that arise with the bigger picture.

Even the Gemara addresses the issue of conflicting mitzvos. Sometimes, a situation makes possible two mitzvos, but doing one makes it impossible to do the other. Which takes precedence? There are rules.

Even Aharon HaKohen was faced with such a situation. On one hand, he wasn’t allowed to be involved in the building of the golden calf, even his intentions were pure. On the other hand, had he refused the demands of the people and they killed him, the generation would not have been able to atone for itself and would have been destroyed, which he believed was unacceptable to God. Which issue mattered more to God?

This year, the fourteenth of Nisan was also Shabbos. When it is not, disposing of chametz is easy and can even be done before the fourteenth. But we needed to have three bread meals for the honor of Shabbos on the fourteenth this year, after the house was already cleaned for Pesach. And we couldn’t use Kosher L’Pesach matzah because we cannot eat matzah the day before the Seder.

This halachic quandary has solutions, each of which is a compromise of sorts. Some bakeries made crumbless little challos. Some people ate pitos out of plastic bags. Some had matzah ashirah (egg matzos). Each solution had its advantages and disadvantages.

Whatever the solution, people had to think about it. The Rav of my shul printed pages that summarized many of the relevant halachos of that particular Shabbos HaGadol; many haven’t forgotten what they did the previous time that fourteenth of Nisan fell on Shabbos. I bet you there were people who usually didn’t do much about Seudas Shlishis the rest of the year who had one this year, because of the situation.

The Gemara itself is full of machlokes—disagreements. This is one of the reasons why you cannot decide a halacha based upon the Gemara, but from the Poskim who learned the Gemara and all the relevant commentaries since then. So many halachos today are simply the rabbis playing it safe, deciding like the more stringent opinion as to cover all bases. Thus is the reality of Torah as the exile deepens.

Then of course there is eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chaim—these and these are the words of the living God. It’s when two opinions seem to contradict one another and yet are both true—to God. It’s like saying that, as much as they seem like a contradiction down here to us, higher up they work together beautifully.

As a Torah Jew, you just go with it. As a student of Kabbalah, you get used to it. Everything becomes easier to deal with once you not only acknowledge you don’t know enough to answer all the questions, you even understand how much more there is to know to answer even just most of the questions.

Once, between Mincha and Ma’ariv, I picked up the Pachad Yitzchak on Chanukah. The holiday was coming and I just felt like getting some deep insight I had never considered before. Among the few things I saw at that time, there was a ma’amer on the disagreements in Shas (all of Gemora), and what Rav Hutner, zt”l, pointed out blew me away.

Yes, we don’t like machlokes, he was basically saying. But think of all the Torah that has been brought to light because of it!

So true. All of a sudden, what I had simply attributed to something bad, the loss of Torah clarity, I saw as indirect, seemingly deliberate means for increasing Torah in the world. I don’t get them often, but that was one of those moments when you feel the beauty of an idea throughout your entire body. It didn’t just alter my perspective on machlokes, but on adversity in general.

The Torah promotes shalom bayis on all levels. It encourages the resolution of conflict, or the avoidance of it altogether. It paints a picture of a picture-perfect life, and promises one in the next world, even beginning with the Messianic Era. But God’s route to all of that is often very different than the one we imagined, even harshly different.

Even the episode with Nadav and Avihu at one of the holiest moments in human history makes this point. Human mistakes were made, but one has to wonder what God’s role was in all of this. We didn’t plan what happened and we certainly didn’t like the outcome? But did God, given the longer term plan of history?

We’ll have to wait to answer those questions, but in the meantime, each of the pieces of the puzzle, even if they don’t seem to fit together, teaches us something we need to know about life, God, and Torah. Because when it is all said and done, isn’t that the one thing we can do something about?

Rav Kook's Ein Ayah: Linking Liberation to Prayer; Influence of a Great Man

Linking Liberation to Prayer
(based on Ein Ayah, Berachot 1:143- part II)

Gemara: What [did Chizkiya] mean by saying: “I did that which was good in Your eyes”? Rav Yehuda said in Rav’s name: he put liberation next to prayer. Rebbi Levi said: he buried the book of medical remedies. [Last time, we discussed Rebbi Levi’s statement. When the nation is on a high level, it is better for it to exert its own efforts and see Hashem through nature. When on a low level or as the nation emerges, the nation needs to recognize Hashem through miracles. At Chizkiya’s time, it was good to bury the remedies. Now we focus on Rav Yehuda’s statement].

Ein Ayah: The idea of putting liberation right before prayer teaches us that our liberation will come only from the Hand of Hashem. It is important for us to know this because the knowledge of the great Hashem is the goal of liberation. Therefore, we should know that liberation is close to prayer and the good will from Hashem that accompanies it. When we are on a high level in service of Hashem and shleimut (completeness), liberation is close to prayer, as it truly is, even when the liberation comes through natural events and our own efforts. However, when, due to our sins, our standing is diminished and we are distanced from the shleimut of knowing Hashem, then, in our view, liberation is not near our prayers unless there are clear miracles.

Chizkiya tried to do that which is good in Hashem’s eyes. Specifically, this refers to that which brings us closer to the ethical goal, even if people do not see it as good, and that is putting liberation next to prayer. In his time, this was accomplished by making lesser efforts to succeed in a totally natural manner until he succeeded in reaching the highest level of trust in Hashem. [As we saw last time, he did not actively fight the forces of Sancheriv, who surrounded Jerusalem, but davened to Hashem to accomplish victory Himself through a miracle.] Rabbi Levi related the concept of lessening human efforts to the private realm, regarding medical needs and remedies.


Influence of a Great Man
(based on Ein Ayah, Berachot 1:145)

Gemara: “Let us make for him [the prophet, Elisha] a small attic” (Melachim II, 4:10). Rav and Shmuel disputed the matter. One said that there was an open attic and they closed it in. The other said that there was a great hall, and they broke it into two parts.

Ein Ayah: The ways of shleimut can be divided into the shleimut of the individual and helping complete the standing of another person. Regarding the complete tzaddik, it is unclear which to focus on. Is it better for him to focus on perfecting himself, and his influence on perfecting others will come by itself by means of people who are close to him? Or is it perhaps better to give up on some of his personal greatness in order to influence others for the good?

One who wants to spend a lot of time by himself will be happy to go up into an attic so that comers and goers in the house will not disturb him with too easy access to him. However, one who is interested in directly impacting others, by being close to them at the price of his own lower intensity, will chose to be in a great hall. Admittedly, within the hall there may need to be a partition so that he will have a place to which to retreat when he needs to concentrate on his own growth, but it will still be easier to mingle with him. Since so many need his guidance, he should be in a place that is nice enough to honor those who come to visit and so that they will be reminded of the grandeur of the man of G-d. All of this would be unnecessary if the point was a place for the prophet to work on himself, for which a small attic without luxuries and extras would be right.

Rabbi Doniel Glatstein on Parashat Shemini: Confirming the Brachos of Pesach (video)

Rabbi Ari Kahn on Parashat Shmini:Is Suffering Correlated with Sin (video)?

Arrogance in the Service of Hashem

by HaRav Mordechai Greenberg
Nasi HaYeshiva, KeremB'Yavneh

The sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire pan, they put fire in them and placed incense upon it; and they brought before Hashem an alien fire that He had not commanded them. A fire came forth from before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before Hashem. (Vayikra 10:1-2)

Many interpretations are offered as to the sin of Aharon's sons. It seems, though, that the common denominator of them all is excessive self-pride, which is prohibited, especially for a priest who stands in service before G-d. Thus, it says in the Talmud Yerushalmi, "There is no [self-]greatness in the palace of the King." The Chovot Halevavot similarly writes (Sha'ar Hakenia ch. 6):

He should throw aside any self-glorification, haughtiness, and self-concern at the time of his service of G-d ... as the Torah writes about Aharon – despite his greatness, "He shall separate the ash." (Vayikra 6:3) G-d commanded him to take out the ash each and every day, to inculcate humility and to remove haughtiness from him. Similar to this, Scripture says about David, "leaping and dancing before Hashem." (Shmuel II 6:16)

Due to this arrogance they ruled before their teacher, sated their eyes of the Shechina, offered an alien fire, and thought that they were worthy of leading the people. [The Gemara Sanhedrin 52a and the Midrash teach that they said, "When will these two elderly people (i.e., Moshe and Aharon) die, and you and I will lead the generation." G-d said to them: "Do not boast about tomorrow."]

Ramchal (R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato) similarly writes in his work, Adir Bamarom:

He should not seek to achieve wisdom in order to reach greatness, but rather his service should be completely pure ... If not, he should be very careful, lest he ruin and not improve, and will be cast off like Acher (Elisha b. Avuya), or will be harmed like Ben Zoma. His heart should not sway him to say that G-d is yielding ... A person should not dare draw close to this great service without being called ... Rather, he should sit lowly as all other people, and should not become haughty over his brethren to raise himself to [a place] inappropriate for him, and he will receive reward for refraining just as for doing.

On a different point in the parsha, the Gerer Rebbe interpreted homiletically the Gemara in Kiddushin (30a), "The vav of gachon (belly) is the middle of the letters of the Torah." He said: A Jewish person who already learned half the Torah is liable to take credit, to pat his belly contentedly and say, "Rejoice, my insides, for I have learned much Torah." However, Chazal say, "If you learned much Torah – do not take credit, since you were created for this." (Avot 2:8) We are telling him that he should be humble, and not pat his belly, but rather he should crawl on his belly.

This same idea is said in the name of his grandfather, the Chiddushei Harim. The Gemara (Bava Batra 146a) asks on the pasuk "All the days of a poor man are bad" (Mishlei 15:15) – But there is Shabbat and Yom Tov?! The Gemara answers: "As Shmuel, who said that a change in [eating] habit is the beginning of a stomach ache." I.e., although the poor person enjoys special food on Shabbat and Yom Tov, the very change for good causes him bad later on, since his stomach is not used to it. However, the Rebbe explained as follows: The "poor" person refers to one poor in wisdom; all of his days are bad and lacking satisfaction. The Gemara asks, but on Shabbat and Yom Tov every person acquires additional da'at and rises a little from his level, and therefore he should be satisfied then! The Gemara answers that a change in habit is the beginning of a stomachache. Precisely because he feels himself elevated and more intelligent than usual, he gets a stomachache, i.e., he begins to pat his belly and to say, "Rejoice, my insides," which is, once again, something bad.

It says this it is proper to shed tears during the Torah reading about the death of Aharon's sons, and then his sins are forgiven. One who takes to heart the loss of Aharon's children, and this arouses him to repentance, is forgiven for all of his sins, "For thus said the exalted and uplifted One, Who abides forever and Whose Name is holy: I abide in exaltedness and holiness, but I am with the despondent and lowly of spirit." (Yeshaya 57:15)

Rav Kook on Parashat Shemini: The Error of Nadav and Avihu

In the midst of the great public joy during the Mishkan dedication, tragedy struck the family of the Kohen Gadol:

“Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire pan, placed fire on it and then incense. They offered before God a strange fire that God had not instructed them. Fire came forth from before God and consumed them, and they died before God.” Vayikra 10:1-2)

Why did Nadav and Avihu die? What was their sin?

Chochmah and Binah
The Mekubalim explained that Nadav and Avihu erred by separating the spiritual realm of binah (insight) from the higher realm of chochmah(wisdom). To understand this statement, we must first clarify the concepts of chochmah and binah.

Chochmah is the very essence of holiness. It is pure awareness, a flash of intuitive understanding. This lofty perception contains the splendor of sublime ideals at their highest level, before they are applied to the detailed characteristics of reality. Compared to the infinite expanse of chochmah, all else is small and inconsequential.

Below chochmah lies the spiritual realm of binah. Binah is an elaboration and extension of chochmah. This realm is created when the light of chochmah is ready to realize the ideals that govern finite content, enabling the formation of worlds and souls. Binah reflects reality in its most idealized form. It corresponds to the sublime purpose of creation and the culmination of life.

Exquisite beauty and delight are revealed in the realm of binah. Enlightenment through prophecy emanates from this realm. The absolute holiness of chochmah, on the other hand, transcends all forms of spiritual pleasure.

Israel draws its inner spirit from the transcendent realm of chochmah. As the Zohar states, “Oraita me-chochmah nafkat” — the Torah emanates from chochmah. The source of Israel’s faith is beyond all spiritual delight, beyond all ideals. Ideals belong to the realm of binah. Ultimately, they restrict our aspirations and are unable to provide an absolute and constant level of morality.

Separating Binah from Chochmah
Nadav and Avihu drew their inspiration from the wellsprings of binah. They sought the sublime experiences that characterize this realm, a spiritual grandeur that is accessible in our world. Due to their heightened awareness of their own greatness, however, they mistakenly saw in the holy realm of binah the ultimate source of reality. They placed all of their aspirations in this spiritual realm.

By doing so, they abandoned the higher source of light that transcends all spiritual freedom and joy. The true basis of life is rooted in the supernal realm of chochmah and Torah. Unpunished, their mistake would have brought about the collapse of the world’s moral foundations. History is testimony to movements dedicated to great ideals that, because they were not anchored to the elevated source of chochmah, descended into the darkest depths of ignorance and cruelty.1

Nadav and Avihu erred by pursuing the spiritual joys of prophecy and inspiration in a form detached from Torah and its practical teachings. This is what the Mekubalim meant by saying that Nadav and Avihu divided binah from chochmah. They tried to attain closeness to the Holy on their own initiative, offering a fire “that God had not instructed them.” The various explanations for their behavior suggested by Chazal— that they were inebriated, that their heads were uncovered (a sign that they lacked proper awe of Heaven), that they taught Torah in front of their teacher - all reflect the same basic flaw. Nadav and Avihu concentrated their efforts on their own spiritual attainments, without integrating the discipline of Torah. They were highly aware of their own spiritual greatness, but personal holiness must be negated before the higher light of Torah.

Repairing the Mistake of Nadav and Avihu
The Torah stresses that Nadav and Avihu had no children. Their service of God was not one that could be transmitted to future generations. And yet their independent spirit and idealism have an important place in the future Messianic Era:

“Remember the Torah of Moses My servant, which I enjoined him on Horev, laws and statutes for all of Israel. Behold, I am sending you the prophet Elijah before God’s great and terrible day. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.” (Malachi 3:22-24)

Malachi envisioned a future reconciliation between fathers and children. His prophecy also mentions Eliyahu HaNavi and the Torah of Moshe. What is the connection between these different themes?

The pre-Messianic Era is a time characterized by a tragic rift between the younger generation, idealistic and independent in spirit, and the older generation, faithful to the old traditions and the Torah of Moshe. This divide parallels the sin of Nadav and Avihu, who separated binahfrom chochmah, dividing the ideals from their eternal source.

But the unique personality of Eliyahu, combining the prophetic ideals of justice with zeal for God’s bris and Torah, will repair this rift. It is Eliyahu’s synthesis of Torah and idealism that will reconcile the generations. And together, the passionate spirit of youth (binah), together with the orderly and practical wisdom of the elders (chochmah), will bring about the final redemption.

(Sapphire from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Orot HaKodesh, vol. II, pp. 283-286; vol. III, pp. 360-361 by Rav Chanan Morrison)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1 How many millions have perished in wars over religious beliefs, as well as political ideologies such as communism and fascism?

Eat to Survive

by Rabbi Dov Berel Wein

All living creatures that exist in our world require nutrition to be able to survive. Human beings, being the most sophisticated of all creatures on this planet, are especially concerned with the food that they eat. Most human beings know that they eat to survive, but there are many, especially in Western society today, that survive to be able to eat.

The variety of foods, recipes and menus that are designed by human beings for their food consumption is almost endless. And medical science has shown us that what and how we eat affects our health, longevity, psychological mood and even our social standing. As such, it becomes almost logical and understandable that the Torah, which is the book of life and of human beings, would suggest and ordain for us a list of foods that somehow would prove harmful to our spiritual health and traditional growth, to prevent man from harm.

In this week's Torah reading, we are presented with such a list of forbidden and permissible foods available for the consumption by the Jewish people, for them to maintain their status as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. The Torah, in effect, is telling us that the physical foods that we consume somehow affect our inner souls, psyches and patterns of behavior. We are what we eat!

One of the hallmarks of Jewish survival throughout the ages has been the observance of the laws pertaining to kosher food, which takes on not only a physical dimension but an overriding spiritual dimension as well. What Jews eat has become the standard to measure the level of piety and tradition that exists within the national entity of the people of Israel.

The Talmud is of the opinion that eating non-kosher food somehow affects our spiritual senses. Commentators thought that eventually generations of Jews who unfortunately consumed non-kosher food became less charitable with their wealth, talents, and time. I know of no survey or statistical study that relates to this issue. However, in my many years as a rabbi of a congregation and as a fundraiser as well, I have noticed that generations of Jews who have assimilated and are no longer observant tend to be less committed towards charitable Jewish causes that were helped by their kosher food-eating ancestors.

There is no question that the laws of kosher food have contributed immensely to the survival of the Jewish people and the strengthening of Jewish core values throughout the ages. Kosher food was and is the hallmark of the Jewish people and remains a bulwark against the ravages of intermarriage and the adoption of value systems that are antithetical to Torah values and traditional Jewish societal life.

Perhaps even more than having a mezuzah on the doorpost, having a kosher kitchen brought a feeling of spirituality and godliness into the home, no matter how modest its physical appearance and stature may have been. It is ironic in the extreme that in our current world, where kosher food is so readily and easily available, and with so many varieties of Kosher food, which can satisfy any gourmet pallet, tragically so many Jews have opted out from the observance of eating kosher in their daily lives. A renewed drive to promote the kosher home in all its aspects is certainly needed.

Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Refuting Criticism by the Ridbaz - part III

#311 – part III

Date and Place: 19 Sivan 5670 (1910), Yafo

Recipient and Background: Rav Yaakov David Wilovsky (Ridbaz), a leading rabbi who moved to Eretz Yisrael and was known for being, among other things, a strong opponent of leniencies on Shemitta.

Body: I now respond to your argument that I have no reason to fight (promote halachic arguments) because I have already published [my book on the laws of Shemitta,] Shabbat Ha’aretz. I already told my illustrious friend that I purposely did not set out [the halachic analysis] in a fully clear manner, organized and sufficiently deep. There are certain angles and clear reasons that I totally omitted. The reason behind this is that I did not want the leniency to be too entrenched. In that way, it would always be considered a ruling for exceptional times and a matter that was permitted only due to pressing circumstances.

When one broadens the discussion along the approach of Torah analysis, in the way it has always been practiced in Jewish scholarship, the prohibition would be weakened too much, which I do not want to do under any circumstances. Although if there was an absolute need to present the matter in the clearest manner, I still would not stop pointing out on a regular basis that the leniency is for difficult circumstances to be considered anew based on the times. But still, I prefer to not get to that point, and I would leave the matter with the flimsy presentation that I gave it in the introduction [to Shabbat Ha’aretz].

In truth, one cannot talk, in regard to the matter of Shemitta in Eretz Yisrael, about the customary practice. After all, as long as there was little Jewish-owned [agricultural] land, there was no set custom, because there was, for a long time, a consensus that Shemitta does not apply to non-Jewish fields. It turns out, then, that the present Yishuv created the question, which was born together with the very difficult circumstances. When you deal with a new question, you need to include all of the levels of halachic doubt.

The doubts include the following – A. the basic obligation of Shemitta, whether it is from the Torah or Rabbinic [in our times]; B. The doubt about which year Shemitta is. (Although there is a consensus on which year to observe, it has not been clarified in a manner that there is no doubt. It is clear only that we should not observe more than one year, whereas the year was chosen based on the approach of the Rambam. That does not mean that there is no longer doubt about the year, and the doubt can be combined with other doubts [to arise at leniency]). C. Also, the fact that there is a land tax and the nature of the [Turkish] laws of land regarding ownership, which treat all the land as the property of the kingdom, making the farmer just a renter who receives 90% of the produce according to the law, and probably only 6 or 7 portions, are among the points that lead to leniency in the proper manner.

When we compare [the present situation] to the strict rulings on matters that used to be assumed to be permitted or were recently ruled on for leniency, there should not be any room whatsoever to complain about the leniencies.

Sichot with Rosh HaYeshivah Parshat Vayikra - Rabbi Dov Begon and Rabbi Menachem Listman (video)

The Exodus from Egypt and the Future Redemption

by HaRav Dov Begon
Rosh HaYeshiva, Machon Meir

When Rav Kook sets out to direct us in how we must relate to the redemption process we are undergoing in our generation, he focuses on the difference between that process and the Egyptian Exodus. The latter was carried out “bechipazon” [in haste] (Some say that the Egyptians acted in haste, and some say that the Israelites did, see Berachot 9a). All at once, the Israelites were transformed from a nation of slaves to a liberated people full of inner fortitude and nobility (Ma’amarei HaRe’iyah, page 165).

By contrast, what characterizes the future redemption - of which we are a part - is its gradualness, as in the Prophet Yeshayahu’s words, “You shall not leave in haste” (Yeshayahu 52:12).

We are marching forward slowly towards the complete redemption. The purpose of that redemption is not to escape from Egypt or from the forty-ninth level of impurity, but to illuminate the whole world with the light of pure faith and to purge the Jewish People of all the alien traits whose stamp was left upon them during the dark exile. The future redemption requires that we polish ourselves like a fine gem, so that we can rid ourselves of all chaff and filth and light up the whole world with the precious light of our good and noble soul. As is known, polishing fine gems demands much time and patience.

Our generation is at the height of the redemption process, and, precisely in these times, we must remember that “we will not leave in haste”. We need a great deal of patience, and much faith. How fortunate we are that we have merited to see with our own eyes the fulfillment of Yekhezqel’s prophecy: “I will gather you out of all the countries and will bring you into your own land” (Yekhezqel 36:24). The day is not far off when we will merit also, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean... A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh... And you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people, and I will be your G-d” (Yekhezqel 36:25-28).

Besorot Tovot,
Shabbat Shalom and Chag Kasher v'Sameach
Looking forward to complete salvation,
With the Love of Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael.

To see an obligation as something we actually want to do

by Rav Binny Freedman

What do you do when you can’t do what you want to do, and what you have to do, you really don’t want to do?

Sound confusing? That was actually our reality during Covid, as the world turned upside down and we all found ourselves suddenly, in an entirely new reality.

It reminds me of the story of my cousin, Aryeh Yakont z”l, who was a Holocaust survivor. His family lived in Antwerp and he and his brother Ephraim were just boys when the Nazis occupied Belgium. Very quickly, things went from bad to worse, their father Betzalel was taken away by the Gestapo, and their mother Shoshana (my Aunt) went into hiding with her two small boys in the house of a kind Christian neighbor. Eventually, as things got worse, they had to stay hidden and quiet, all day, in a tiny hidden room the size of a closet, with no windows, for two years before they were eventually liberated.

The family reunited and came to Israel after the war and Aryeh ended up as Chabad Chassid living in the Bayit Vegan neighborhood of Jerusalem. One Shabbat at his Shabbat table, I asked him how he survived such a horrific experience; how do you stay sane as a ten-year-old boy, in a closet, for two years? He said he had seen other families carted off by the Gestapo, and had heard stories about what happened to Jewish children held by the Nazis; so, he knew how lucky he was …

There is an interesting occurrence in this week’s portion of Vayikra, which is rather unique and actually occurs only three times in the entire Torah:

“If (‘Eem”) you offer a meal offering of your first fruits to Hashem (G-d)…” (Vayikra  2:14)

Rashi notes that the word ‘if’ does not really make sense as this is referring to the Omer offering of Barley which was actually an obligation. Rather, this is one of the three places in the Torah where the word Eem actually does not mean ‘if’; it means when; when you offer up the Omer offering of barley…

Of course, this begs the question: if the Torah intends this as an obligation, why is the word normally implying volunteerism used? Why does the language seem to imply that the offering is something I might choose to do rather than an obligation?

The other two instances of this strange anomaly are in the book of Shemot.

“If you will build an altar…” (In the Temple) it cannot be of hewn stone (Shemot 20:22) which really means when you (are obligated to) build an altar…

And “If you will lend money…” (To your fellow Jew; ibid. 22:24) which really means, as Rashi again points out, when you lend money as this mitzvah too is an obligation.

So if these three mitzvoth: To build an altar in the Beit HaMikdash, to lend money to one another, and to offer up the Omer sacrifice on the second day of the Pesach holiday, are all obligations, why are they presented in a language implying they are voluntary?

Perhaps the goal is to see an obligation as something we actually want to do? Think about the difference in the way we perform our obligations, and the way we engage in the activities we really want to be doing.

What husband or parent or close friend doesn’t feel obligated to acknowledge the birthdays of their loved ones? But whether we see finding a birthday present as a burden or a blessing is what makes all the difference.

These three mitzvoth actually represent a much larger idea.

The altar we are obligated to build represents the relationship we have with HaShem as it is the vehicle whereby we offer sacrifices, representing what we give back to HaShem. Clearly, we are obligated in mitzvoth that frame our relationship with Hashem: to keep kosher, to fast on Yom Kippur and the like. Do we see these as a burden, or do we rise to the challenge of allowing them to enhance our lives?

The money we are obligated to lend our fellow human beings in need represents our relationship with our fellow human beings. To visit the sick, care for the needy and take care not to cause suffering to the unfortunate, such as widows and orphans. Again, do we see these as obligations? Or do we challenge ourselves to revel in the opportunities they afford us to make the world a better place?

Lastly, in this week’s portion, the mitzvah of offering up the Omer of barley actually represents our relationship with ourselves. Barley is animal food and this offering represents our ability to overcome the animal that rages within all of us; to become better. It was meant to be offered on the second day of the Pesach chag; the day after we commemorate getting out of Egypt. It is essentially the first day we woke up to a new reality: the reality of freedom. All of a sudden no-one else was telling us what to do, we were given the opportunity to choose to hear a greater voice, to use our time wisely, and challenge ourselves to become the best that we can be.

Indeed, this is actually how the entire book of Vayikra begins. Take a look at a Torah Scroll and you will notice that the letter aleph in the word Vayikra, (literally: “and He called…”) is written smaller than the rest of the word. Without the aleph it would only spell the word va’yaker which means ‘and He happened upon…’

Everything that happens in this world can be seen as a calling, or as a coincidence; the choice is up to us. How do we choose to see the world we live in? Is life a series of random occurrences leaving us with no choice but to react to each event as it unfolds, or is life a calling, challenging us to find ways to rise to the moment, every moment?

If a ten-year-old boy, essentially locked in a closet with his brother for two years, can live through that with a positive attitude towards life, then we owe it to ourselves and everyone around, to aspire to the same.

We are living a new reality; the question is, will the world become the better for it? That ultimately, will be up to us.

Shabbat Shalom.

Crisis for Canadian Jewry

by Igal Hecht

• Because this is precisely where Canada is going. Historically, Canada has been behind Europe on antisemitism by a generation, but the pace at which it is gaining momentum is now catching up. The same forces that have harmed France and the United Kingdom are now entrenched in Canada: radicalized academic environments, media that demonize Israel and downplay antisemitism, politicians pressured to appease extremists, and a Jewish community that, even as it grows more alarmed, is still unwilling to confront the reality of the threat.
• At the eye of the storm is the Liberal Party of Canada and its new leader, Prime Minister Mark Carney. Many would argue that in the past decade, the Liberal government under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau increasingly empowered antisemitic elements.... In the process, it has encouraged antisemitic opinions to intensify and be legitimized.
• Britain's and France's abuses did not happen by chance. They were the consequence of political choices. In Canada, those choices have already been made.
• Some in the media, politics and faculty members excused or justified these acts. What if black students had been prevented from moving freely on campus? All hell would have broken out — or should have. Yet, when it comes to Jews, or as the antisemites like to say "Zionists," no one, it seems, has a problem.
• In Carney's Canada, violence, intimidation and dangerous rhetoric against Jews, like that of the Nazi sympathizers of the 1930s, are now becoming the norm.

Since October 7, 2023, on university campuses across Canada, encampments have appeared, where Jewish students and faculty are harassed and obstructed. "Montreal has become North America's capital of antisemitism," according to Professor Gad Saad, of Montreal's Concordia University. The city is quickly becoming the continent's largest hotbed of radical Islam. Pictured: A banner calling for a violent "intifada" at an anti-Israel protest encampment, on the campus of McGill University in Montreal, on April 29, 2024. (Photo by Graham Hughes/AFP via Getty Images)

History is a stern teacher. Too frequently, its warnings go unheeded. Twenty years ago, France descended into a season of antisemitic violence that continues to this day. In 2006, when a young Jewish man named Ilan Halimi was kidnapped, tortured for three weeks, then brutally murdered by a Muslim criminal gang infamously referred to as the "Gang of Barbarians," the international community was shocked. The reason for the kidnapping, torture and murder was the old stereotype that supposedly all Jews are rich. Halimi's family could not afford to pay the 450,000 euros demanded as ransom.

Antisemitic crimes in France, however, exceeded that single event. In 2012, a Muslim terrorist attacked a Jewish school in Toulouse and murdered a rabbi and three young children.

For centuries, Jewish communities have been, with various pretexts, objects of hostility.

Continue Reading Article

The Ettinger Report: US Interest Mandates Regime-Change in Iran

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

*Does US policy toward Iran refrain from - or repeat - past mistakes?

*The diplomatic option (negotiation and containment) is effective when conducted between parties, which consider negotiation as a step toward peaceful coexistence. However, as evidenced by its 46-year-old rogue track record (since toppling the pro-US Shah), the Ayatollah regime – just like ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the PLO/PA and Hezbollah – has employed negotiation as a tactic to advance its aim to topple the “apostate” Sunni regimes and bring the “infidel” West to submission.

*Will the US sustain the 46-year-old self-destructive diplomatic option toward the Ayatollah regime, ignoring the fact that the latter is driven by a 1,400-year-old fanatical, religious ideology that transcends financial and diplomatic consideration, and mandates the toppling of all "apostate" Sunni regimes, and bringing the Western "infidel" - especially "the Great American Satan" - to submission?

*The diplomatic/negotiation option has played a key role in transforming Iran from "The American Policeman of the Gulf" into the leading global epicenter of anti-US wars, terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and the proliferation of advance military systems from the Persian Gulf, through the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, North and West Africa to Latin America and US soil.

*The diplomatic/negotiation option has been a clear and present threat to the survival of every pro-US Arab regime, the pro-US regimes in Latin America and – according to the FBI - to US homeland security.

*Will the US ignore the reversibility (short term effectiveness) of maximum-pressure-economic-sanctions, which (temporarily) limited the rogue capabilities of Iran, but failed to detach it from its fanatical vision and moderate its conduct?

*The Ayatollah regime views US Presidents as a temporary historic episode, while the Ayatollah regime is eternal by divine right. Hence, Iran has prolonged any negotiation process, willing to hunker down, shift to a lower gear and postpone policy achievements, awaiting to a more accommodating President, prepared to shift to a higher gear, and resume the pursue of their fanatical ideological goals.

*The failure of the 46-year-old diplomatic option, and the 40 year old economic sanctions, exacerbated by the reluctance to engage in regime-change, paves the road to the possible emergence of the first ever apocalyptic, megalomaniacal, nuclearized regime, with its terror arms stretched from the Middle East, through Africa to Latin America and US soil.

*Western reluctance to engage in regime-change serves as a decisive headwind to the majority of Iranians who yearn for a regime change, and a tailwind to the oppressive Ayatollah regime.

*Iran’s domestic opposition is aware that regime-change is preconditioned upon game-changing external involvement, as it was in 1978/79, when the US brutally pressured the anti-Ayatollah Iranian military to refrain from stopping Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power. Moreover, external US-British involvement played the key role in the 1953 regime-change, which toppled Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh’s government, and restored the monarchy of the Shah. On the other hand, the absence of external involvement was responsible for the failure of the 2009 and 2022 attempts by the opposition to topple the Ayatollah regime.

*Refraining from regime-change is perceived as weakness by rogue regimes. It undermines the US’ posture of deterrence, whets the appetite of Islamic terrorism, undermines the stability of all pro-US Arab regimes and US’ homeland security, and expands the prospects of war and terrorism.

*On the other hand, the realization that the Ayatollah regime is not a partner to negotiation, but a target for regime-change, would reflect decisiveness in the face of threat, bolstering the US’ posture of deterrence, eliminating the leading epicenter of global anti-US Islamic terrorism, and advancing liberty for all Iranians. By removing the Ayatollah’s machete from the throats of its Sunni Arab neighbors, thereby reducing global war and terrorism, minimizing the Saudi, the UAE and Egyptian courting of China and Russia, and inducing Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords, possibly followed by Indonesia, Oman and even Kuwait.

*In 2025, the conventional military capabilities of the Ayatollah regime constitute the leading epicenter of wars and terrorism, anti-US terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and proliferation of advanced military systems, as well as an imminent threat to all pro-US Arab regimes. For example, Iran’s success in toppling the pro-US Hashemite regime would transform Jordan into a major platform of anti-US Islamic terrorism, triggering a volcanic ripple effect in the Arabian Peninsula area (48% of global oil reserves), bolstering anti-US global Islamic terrorism.

*Comparing regime change in Iran to previous attempts in Afghanistan and Iraq, ignores the vast differences between them, ethnically, culturally, politically and educationally. In fact, Iran’s population is much more prone to a positive alternative regime.

*Refraining from regime-change would pave the road to an apocalyptic and nuclear Iran, which would result in catastrophic economic and human life cost, that would dwarf any cost currently required by regime-change.

Animal Sacrifices: You or Them

by Rabbi Pinchas Winston

ONCE BACK IN the 1980s while driving a car I came across a talk show on the radio. Normally I would have just turned off the radio, but the topic gave me reason to pause, and the person calling in gave me reason to worry about the future of mankind. Those worries have since materialized.

The show debated whether animals should be used for scientific experiments. One man who sounded middle-aged said that he felt animals should not be used for such purposes, so after some give-and-take, the talk show host decided to push the envelope a bit and asked, somewhat emphatically, “So you’re telling me sir that if your son was dying and a potential cure depended upon animal testing, you’re rather let your son die?”

All of a sudden, there was silence. Unsuspectingly, the caller had found himself between a rock and a hard place and wasn’t sure how to get out in one piece. You could feel his uncertainty over the airwaves, and I like so many others listening in waited with anticipation for his answer. Would he stick to his liberal guns and “give up” his son, or would he capitulate to the question and contradict himself?

It could have been the anonymity or that he knew the question was only theoretical, but he did not change his mind. Instead, he answered that he would not allow an animal to be used to save a dying son, and you could almost hear a collective gasp, especially from the talk show host.

I don’t know whether he did it for effect, or because he was really upset, but the host did not waste any time making the man pay for his answer. “WHAT! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WOULD RATHER AN ANIMAL LIVE AND YOUR OWN SON DIE?”

I don’t know if the caller sank deeper into his chair at that moment, but I felt myself doing it for him. I also don’t recall what happened after that, other than driving and thinking if the man really meant what he answered, or was just too embarrassed to change his opinion when it came to his own family. But I do know that many others share his opinion, probably more so today than ever before.

The matter is not much different when it comes to animal sacrifices. If the Temple service were to return today, you can be sure that animal activists would be circling the Temple, protesting animal sacrifices, and trying to shut down the service. Fortunately, when the Temple does finally return it will during the Messianic Era when all people will be on the same page as God.

In the meantime, there is debate, even on the level of the Rambam and the Ramban. The Rambam famously held that God only commanded animal sacrifices to wean us off of the heathen practices of that time. The Ramban strongly disagrees, arguing that the Torah’s use of God’s holiest Name when commanding them reveals just how holy they are.

There is no such debate on the level of Kabbalah. Kabbalah not only holds like the Ramban, but it even explains the impact animal sacrifices have on Tikun Olam—World Rectification. God obviously values His creations, especially the living ones and we even have laws about not unduly causing them pain. But when Adam HaRishon ate from the Aitz HaDa’as Tov v’Ra he damaged the world, and that has necessitated certain rectifications to fix it, often painful ones.

Like war, for example. How many human lives have been sacrificed on the battlefield over the millennia to protect good from evil? We obviously go into battle with at least the belief that we will return alive. But we know that there is a very strong chance that many will not, like in the Battle of Normandy in 1944, and yet we go out into battle anyhow.

Animal sacrifices also became necessary as part of the tikun process after the sin of Adam. His sin affected four levels: the mineral world, the vegetation world, the animal world, and the human world, and an animal sacrifice according to the Torah rectified all four. The salt used corresponded to the mineral world, the wood that was burned, the vegetation world, the animal that was offered up obviously rectified the level of the animals, and the human bringing the sacrifice fixed the level of man.

This may be why the Torah mentions on the word “vayikra” the Aleph is smaller to distinguish between the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu and Bilaam. The point could have been made elsewhere, like in Parashas Bilaam where it might have been more appropriate.

Making the point because of a word that implies God’s endearment of Moshe may be to tell us that sacrifices, like the opinion of the Ramban, are dear to God. You tell important things to the ones you cherish, and what follows after God’s endearing call to Moshe is the sacrifices.

Personally, I’m an animal lover. All animals fascinate me. I even talk to them but, don’t worry, I don’t hear them talk back to me, at least not in any language I can understand (although, I do get the drift when a cat arches its back and hisses menacingly at me). I have difficulty stepping on ants.

But I love God more, and my relationship with Him is the top priority. I’d rather no one have to pay for any of my mistakes, not even animals. But I make them, and the only One Who can tell how to fix them is God. And if that includes an animal sacrifice…
www.thirytsix.org / www.shaarnunproductions.org / @ShaarnunProductionsInc (YouTube).

Haggadah Shel Pesach, “The Wise Son Says,” is available in Paperback and Hardcover through Amazon and, PDF version, through Thirtysix.org.

Good Shabbos,
​Pinchas Winston
​Thirtysix.org / Shaarnun Productions

Rabbi Doniel Glatstein on Vayikra: The Meaning of the Vilna Gaon's Remez To All the Korbanos In the First Pasuk of Shema (video)

Rabbi Ari Kahn: Spring (video)

Rav Kook's Ein Ayah: Immediate vs Eternal Needs; Emotional and Intellectual Prayer

Immediate Vs Eternal Needs
(based on Ein Ayah, Berachot 1:137)

Gemara: [Yeshaya told Chizkiya, a righteous king, that he was going to die in this world and be excluded from the world to come. Chizkiya enquired why he deserved such a strong punishment.] “Because you did not take part in procreation.” Chizkiya explained: “It is because I saw in ruach hakodesh (Divine revelation) that bad children will come from me.” Yeshaya responded: “What do you have to do with Hashem’s secrets?”

Ein Ayah: Chizkiya, who, as a king, was concerned with the present, feared for the nation’s present situation. He saw, with the spirit of Hashem he possessed, that if he would beget children, they would be destructive, which would cause much destruction if they would sit on the throne.

However, Yeshaya said to him: “What do you have to do with Hashem’s secrets?” The significance of these words is as follows. Prophecy looks at the eternal situation of the nation, in regard to which the days of one generation are not considered to have much importance. If the chain of kingdom would be stopped and leave the ruling family, this could cause an eternal fall. In contrast, the stumbling block that could be caused by one wicked king who emanated from the seed that Hashem chose would pass because, at the end, the seat would be set on the base of justice and straightness. Therefore, Yeshaya was telling Chizkiya that he had no right to interrupt the eternal dynasty due to a temporary vision that appeared to him in ruach hakodesh.

Emotional and Intellectual Prayer
(based on Ein Ayah, Berachot 1:141)

Gemara: “Chizkiya turned his face to the wall and prayed” (Yeshaya 38:2). What is the wall? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: from the walls of his heart.

Ein Ayah: There are prayers that come from an intellectual feeling. This occurs when the intellect looks at the crucial need to pray and recognizes prayer’s great value. Realize that the intellect is related to the spirit of the heart that dwells in the cavity of the heart. However, when one powerfully requests mercy, to the point that the physical powers are also moved by the emotion of prayer, and it turns out that the prayer works on the body and not only the soul, it is called a prayer from the wall of his heart. In other words, it does not come only from the cavity of the heart but also from the involvement of the flesh, as the pasuk says: “My heart and my flesh will sing out to the Living G-d” (Mishlei 27:22). (Mishlei 27:22).

The Rationale of Sacrifices

by HaRav Mordechai Greenberg
Nasi HaYeshiva, Kerem B'Yavneh

After Sefer Shemot concludes with the construction of the mishkan and the dwelling of the Divine Presence in it, Sefer Vayikra opens with the sacrificial service in the mishkan. The Rishonim dispute the rationale of sacrifices:

The Rambam, in Moreh Nevuchim, explains that the sacrificial service comes to draw man away from idolatry. The Torah took man's nature into account, and since common practice then was to sacrifice on altars to the gods, the Torah did not want to detach Israel entirely from this service. "That would have been as if a prophet were to come in our time, who would call for the service of Hashem and say: "G-d commanded you not to pray to him, not to fast, and not to ask his salvation in times of trouble." Therefore, the Divine wisdom retained the form of service that they were accustomed to, and moved it to the service of G-d.

The Rambam brings proof to this from the pasuk in Parshat Beshalach, "G-d did not lead them by the way of the Philistines ... for G-d said, 'Perhaps the people will reconsider when they see a war and they will return to Egypt.'" (Shemot 13:17) G-d was concerned there that Bnei Yisrael were not yet accustomed to act as free men. Here, too, he did not forbid them from offering sacrifices, until they would be detached entirely from idolatry. In short: There is no inherent value to the sacrificial service, but rather it is a means to distance the people from idolatry. Thus, we find in many of the Prophets that there is no inherent purpose in sacrifices, but instead they say: "Does Hashem delight in elevation-offerings and feast-offerings as in obedience to the voice of Hashem?" (Shmuel I 15:22) "'Why do I need your numerous sacrifices?' says Hashem." (Yeshaya 1:11)

The Ramban objects strongly to the Rambam's view, since according to him the entire idea of sacrifices is only, "to counter the wicked and foolish [people] of the world," whereas the Torah says that they have a "pleasing fragrance." He also asks from the sacrifices that Hevel and Noach offered, even before there was idolatry in the world. Rather, the Ramban writes that it is more logical that all the actions in a sacrifice indicate that man deserves to have all of these actions done to him:

He sinned to his G-d with his body and soul, and he deserves that his blood be spilled and his body be burned, were it not for the mercy of the Creator who took from him a substitute. This sacrifice atones, so that its blood should be in lieu of his blood, a soul in lieu of a soul, etc.

However, the Ramban concludes that while this fits well in an Aggadic manner, in the Kabalistic approach, "there is a hidden secret to sacrifices" The Meshech Chochmah, in his introduction to Sefer Vayikra explains that "it is to draw close all the forces of the worlds. It is something electric, spiritual, which, through the actions of the priest, do wonders in the various worlds."

The Meshech Chochmah further explains that, in fact, there is no dispute between the Ramban and the Rambam. The Rambam talks about sacrifices on an altar, which are truly to wean from idolatry, while the Ramban talks about sacrifices in the Temple, which have inherent worth, and about them it says that they have a "pleasing fragrance." These are the sacrifices that Noach and Hevel offered, and even the Rambam agrees to this. He explains with this the reason why it is forbidden to offer on an altar after the destruction of the Temple. This is because then the desire for idolatry no longer exists, and therefore there is no reason to sacrifice on an altar.

Perhaps we can bring proof to his suggestion that the Rambam does not negate the Ramban's words that there is inherent rationale for sacrifices. The Rambam writes in Hil. Me'ilah (8:8) as follows: "All of the sacrifices are in the class of chukim (decrees). Chazal said that the world exists for the service of sacrifices."