“[First] Sell me your firstborn birthright.”

by Rabbi Pinchas Winston

ONE OF THE things that has always impressed me about Torah—not that Torah needs to impress me, or that I need to be impressed to accept its authority—is the way it is not afraid to relate stories in a way that can easily be misconstrued. It could easily leave out such stories, or adapt them for a wider audience, but Torah instead just seems to tell it like it was.

For example, when Eisav came home exhausted and on the verge of death, Ya’akov used the opportunity to “extort” the birthright from him. True, Eisav had worked himself to that point by murdering lots of people, as Rashi notes, but did Ya’akov know that? Perhaps he did.

Even so, how many people have looked at Ya’akov’s actions with contempt? A lot. Personally, I have been asked several times over the years, “How could Ya’akov have acted so cruelly to his brother at such a time of need?” When I told them the Rashi, they looked at me suspiciously, as if Rashi was just a cover-up.

It doesn’t help that Ya’akov later dressed up as Eisav and stole his brochos by deceiving his own father. Wasn’t that a profanation of the Name of God? After all, Jews and gentiles have read the Bible throughout the ages, and the latter have often used the Chumash itself to indict the Jewish people.

Before dealing with that question, there is another matter. As Rashi points out, Ya’akov was the real firstborn anyhow. He was conceived first, just born second. And, as the title states, the right of the firstborn belongs to the one born first.

Okay. Then why didn’t God just cause the babies to flip-flop before birth and cause Ya’akov to be born first? According to the Torah, they were constantly in movement anyhow, so, at the last second Ya’akov could have been maneuvered into position to be born ahead of Eisav. Think of all the logistical problems it would solved after birth!

No need to buy the birthright.

No need to steal the blessings.

No need to run to Lavan’s house.

Etc.

Well, since God does not make mistakes, He obviously wanted Ya’akov to have to buy the birthright, and to do it the way he did. He obviously wanted Ya’akov to have to “steal” the brochos, and to have to run to Laban’s house to avoid the revenge of Eisav. Whatever Ya’akov went through, it was what God planned for him from the start. The question now is, WHY?

There are a lot of reasons on various different levels of Torah understanding. One of them, though, is not discussed much at all, at least not directly. It has to do with something we learned from last week’s parsha, when Avraham went out of his way to BUY Ma’arah Machpelah, in order to bury Sarah, just as Ya’akov would later buy Shechem, and Dovid HaMelech, Har HaBayis.

As was explained back at Succos time, regarding the obligation to actually OWN one’s lulav and esrog on the first day of the chag, something mystical happens when we purchase something. A connection is made between the purchaser and what is purchased, on a soul level.

Now, one might argue that Eretz Yisroel, like all inanimate objects, doesn’t HAVE a soul. That’s not entirely true, but it does not matter in this case. People become VERY attached to objects because it is possible to invest oneself in them to a very large degree.

We become sentimental about things because of what they come to represent to us, and that itself is like an aspect of life. When we give up money to buy something, especially if we earned it, then we give up an aspect of ourselves.

The same thing is true with respect to relationships. When people lose a spouse after many years of a happy marriage, they feel as if they lost a part of themselves. They did. Over the years, each spouse invested more of themselves into the relationship, and once it ends, it takes that investment with it. It’s the price we pay for years of happiness and growth.

This is why Avraham insisted on buying Ma’arah Machpelah. It was about more than just securing the land. It was about investing himself in it, about building a spiritual connection to what is effectively the portal to Gan Aiden, so that he and his descendants would remain spiritually attached to it forever.

Likewise, Ya’akov HAD to buy the birthright. Only then could he TRULY own it, and therefore, make it a part of him. Only with such a strong spiritual connection to such a strong spiritual responsibility could Ya’akov Avinu take full advantage of the right of the firstborn.

We see this dynamic again when the tribe of Levi, at the time of the golden calf, inherited from the firstborn when they put themselves on the line to avenge God. Their self-sacrifice made them fitting to be leaders of the Jewish people, something they acquired when they responded to the call, “Who is for God, come to me!”

People sometimes joke about how Jews are always looking to get the best deal, maybe even get what they want for free. But the best things in life are NOT for free, because if they were, we could never really enjoy them, or use their spiritual potential to our spiritual advantage. And, if the Torah teaches us anything, it is how to use life to our best spiritual advantage.

Rav Kook on Parashat Toldot: Abraham Kept Mitzvot

Why are practical mitzvot so central to Judaism? Why is it not enough just to believe in the Torah’s central tenets and teachings?

When famine struck, Isaac considered leaving the Land of Israel. But God commanded him to remain in Israel. God allayed Isaac’s fears, promising him:


“I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars of the sky, and grant them all these lands... Because Abraham obeyed My voice; and he kept My charge, My commandments, My decrees, and My laws.” (Gen. 26:4-5)

Abraham kept God’s commandments?

Indeed, the Sages interpreted this verse literally. They wrote that the Patriarchs fulfilled the precepts of the Torah, even before their revelation at Sinai centuries later.

Fifth-century scholar Rav Ashi made an even more audacious claim. He asserted that Abraham even observed the mitzvah of eiruv tavshilin - a rabbinically ordained ritual which enables one to prepare food and lights for the Sabbath when a holiday falls out on a Friday (Yoma 28b). (Ordinarily, it is forbidden to cook on a holiday if the meal is intended to be served after the holiday is over.)

Observing Eiruv Tavshilin

A certain scholar once commented to Rav Kook that Rav Ashi’s statement clearly cannot be taken at face value. How could Abraham know what the rabbinical courts would decree a thousand years in the future? The Sages must have intended to convey a subtler message: Abraham’s philosophical mastery of the Torah was so complete, his grasp of the Torah’s theoretical underpinnings so comprehensive, that it encompassed even the underlying rationales for future decrees.

Rav Kook, however, was not pleased with this explanation. In his response, Rav Kook emphasized that the Torah’s theoretical foundations cannot be safeguarded without practical mitzvot. It is impossible to truly internalize the Torah’s philosophical teachings without concrete actions.

This is the fundamental weakness of religions that rely on faith alone. Without an emphasis on deeds, such religions retreat to the realm of the philosophical and the abstract. They abandon the material world, leaving it unredeemed. The Torah’s focus on detailed mitzvot, on the other hand, reflects its extensive involvement with the physical world.

Levels of Holiness

Rav Kook elucidated this Talmudic tradition in a slightly different vein. While Abraham did not literally perform the ritual of eiruv tavshilin as we do today, he was able to apply the essential concept of this ceremony to his day-to-day life. This was not just some abstract theory, but practical knowledge which guided his actions.

What is the essence of eiruv tavshilin? The Sages explained in Beitzah 15b that this ceremony helps one fulfill the Biblical injunction to “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.” Due to the fact that there is a holiday preceding the Sabbath, the Sabbath could be forgotten or neglected. In what way might one forget the sanctity of Shabbat?

The holiness of Shabbat is greater than the holiness of the holidays. But when Shabbat immediately follows a holiday, one might mistakenly equate the two and forget that there are different laws governing them. This could lead one to desecrate the Sabbath by performing activities that are permitted on holidays, such as cooking.

Just as we need to distinguish between the holy and the profane, so too we need to distinguish between different degrees of holiness. This is the underlying purpose of eiruv tavshilin: to remind us of the higher sanctity of the Sabbath.

Abraham, who kept the entire Torah, also made this fine distinction - in his life and actions. Abraham differentiated not only between the sacred and the profane, but also bein kodesh le-kodesh, between different levels of holiness.

(Sapphire from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Igrot HaRe’iyah vol. I, p. 135 (1908); vol. III, p. 92 (1917))

The Answer to the Horrific Accident – Saying the Travelers Prayer with Intention

by HaRav Eliezer Melamed
Rosh HaYeshiva, Har Bracha

When we experiencenational disasters such as last week’s serious accident, we must awaken and searchthe meaning of things * We must be diligent in adhering to the laws of tefilatha’derech, and saying it with kavana * Tefilat ha’derech is said in the plural,so that someone traveling will include himself with the public * There is noobligation to add the words “roadaccidents” to the text of the prayer, but someone who wishes to add it ispermitted * There is doubt whether the prayer should be said for an inter-cityride, and therefore it should be said without the name of Hashem * In our daysit is correct to say tefilat ha’derech when one gets into the car, beforestarting to travel

Mourning and Repentance

In shock and mourning over the passing of the Atar family in a heavenly storm, Yariv and Shoshana and their six children, I dedicate the column for an aliyah to their souls. When such dear people abruptly leave this world, we all have to wake up and examine the meaning of life. The disaster occurred on election day, and the first thought is how small all the personal tensions surrounding the elections are in the face of life itself, and how much we must strive to live in the greatness worthy of the precious life God gave us. Out of this terrible shock, we will deal with the laws of the tefilat ha’derech(the traveler’s prayer) and arouse ourselves to say it with kavanah (intention).
Tefilat Ha’derech and its Meaning

The Sages instituted a prayer for the traveler, it is tefilat ha’derech (Berakhot 29b). The more protected place for people is their natural habitat, i.e., their house or their city. When a person disconnects from the city, his friends and neighbors, and leaves, he is exposed to a certain danger. If attacked, there would be fewer people to come to his aid. If he gets hurt, it will take longer to be taken to the hospital (see Maharal Nativ Gemilut Chasadim 5). Therefore, our Sages instituted tefilat ha’derech.

When we examine the tefillah, we find that the prayer is said in the plural, and this is not by chance. Spiritually, disengagement from the public is the root of the danger for traveling, and therefore anyone who sets out on the road must include himself with the public, thereby making his prayer more acceptable.

Since we are already standing in prayer before the Creator, and asking that our traveling will pass in peace, we continue to ask Hashem to succeed in our path. This is the text of the prayer: “May it be Your will, Lord, our God and the God of our ancestors, that You lead us toward peace, guide our footsteps toward peace, and make us reach our desired destination for life, gladness, and peace. May You rescue us from the hand of every foe and ambush, from robbers and wild beasts on the trip, and from all manner of punishments that assemble to come to earth. May You send blessing in our handiwork, and grant us grace, kindness, and mercy in Your eyes and in the eyes of all who see us. May You hear the sound of our humble request because You are God Who hears prayer requests. Blessed are You, Lord, Who hears prayer”. There are certain differences between the wording of the prayer of tefilat ha’derech,and all are worthy.

Is it Necessary to Mention in the Prayer “Road Accidents”

In the past, most of the dangers of the road stemmed from robbers and wild beasts, but today the main danger is from accidents, and the question arises as to whether it is correct to add a request for rescue from road accidents in the wording of tefilat ha’derech.

There are those poskimwho say that it is proper to mention in tefilat ha’derechthe danger of accidents, and this does not defy the wording of the Sages, for indeed Ha’Ravya wrote that it is permitted to add to tefilat ha’derechunique dangers for a certain road. Some say that one who wishes to add “road accidents” is permitted (Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach). There are also those who believe that since we are asking that God save us from “all manner of punishments that assemble to come to earth”, road accidents in general are included, and it is preferable not to change the text set by our Sages. In practice, everyone can do as he chooses.

A Blessing is Recited When One Travels a Parsah– Approximately Four Kilometers

Our Sages determined the reciting of tefilat ha’derechfor a trip whose distance was more than a parsah(Berakhot 30a). A parsahis four mil, and each milis 912 meters long. Consequently, the distance of a parsahis approximately four kilometers (3,648 meters). If the travel is shorter than a parsah, tefilat ha’derechis not said, since being close to the community, presumably it is not dangerous. There is no need to be meticulous in measuring the traveling distance – everyone should speculate according to what he considers to be a parsah.
Figured by Distance and Not Time

Some say that the rate of a parsahis meant to give us a period of time, that if the travel takes more than seventy-two minutes, which is the time it takes for an average person to walk aparsahon an unpaved road – tefilat ha’derechmust be said. And if less, because the danger does not last for long – tefilat ha’derechis not said.

However, according to the majority poskim, our Sages’ intention was to determine the distance to which tefilat ha’derechshould be recited. Their reasoning was, the longer the travel is, the farther away it is from the community, and the greater its dangers. Time is of no importance in this context, since even in the time of the Sages horse riders passed the rate of a parsahin less than ten minutes, and our Sages did not make a distinction between someone walking and a rider, but determined that in any case tefilat ha’derech should be said when travelling a parsah. Therefore, even in our times when there are fast cars, we measure the length of the road, and if it is more than a parsah, tefilat ha’derechmust be said. This is even truer today, when road accidents are one of the main dangers to human life on the road.

A Particularly Dangerous Way, Even if it is Short

When the road is dangerous, even its length is less than a parsah, tefilat ha’derech should be said. Thus, when certain roads are considered dangerous due to the harassment of Arabs who throw stones, and sometimes even throw Molotov cocktails or shoot, tefilat ha’derechshould be said even if travelling less than a parsah. 

Should a Blessing be Recited on Urban Travel

Today, when many people travel long trips within urban areas, a big question arose: whether to say tefilat ha’derechon trips within the city. On the one hand, our Sages determined tefilat ha’derechto roads outside the city, and if so, a blessing should not be recited on a trip within the city. On the other hand, in our time the urban areas have grown extensively, and people can travel for hours without leaving them, such as traveling from Rehovot to Kfar Saba, and back. Today, there is also a danger in these trips, especially when traveling on highways (in fact, more than half of those killed by road accidents, including pedestrians, are killed in the cities).

Indeed, there are those poskimwho believe that it is obligatory to say tefilat ha’derechin the city today, since the danger of accidents in the city is equal to the danger outside the city. It is also possible to say that urban roads are not considered an inhabited area, since they are meant for travel only.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that our Sages determined the prayer only for the way outside the inhabited areas, and we have no authority to continue to say tefilat ha’derechwithin the city. Apart from that, there are those who believe that it was possible to cancel the obligation of tefilat ha’derechoutside the city, since it was based on much more dangerous ways, with robbers and wild beasts.

In Practice, It is Proper to Bless Without Saying God’s Name

Practically, it seems that although this is not obligatory, nevertheless it is good for every traveler in the city, who travels approximately four kilometers (a parsah), to say tefilat ha’derechwithout mentioning the name of God at the end, i.e., to say at the end of the prayer: “Baruch ata, shomay’ah tefilla”. This is what the Responsa Yaskil Avdi (7, Kuntres Acharon 3) wrote, and also what Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu ztz”ltold me.

It is Correct to Say Tefilat Ha’Derechbefore Beginning to Travel

The poskimare divided regarding where is the right place to say tefilat ha’derech. There are those who say that it is correct to recite tefilat ha’derchin the city when leaving the house (Ateret Zekanim 16: 7), but according to the majority ofposkim, although bediavadone fulfills his obligation even when tefilat ha’derechis said in the city, l’chatchillait is proper to say it after leaving the city, because it is then that the travelling upon which we pray for begins.

However, it seems that today, after we have reached the conclusion that it is good to bless over an urban journey, the correct place to say tefilat ha’derechis when one settles down in the car before the journey begins, so that tefilat ha’derechwill apply to all the city travel as well. According to what we have written above, the traveler should act as follows: If the intention is to take an inter-city journey, before starting the trip, tefilat ha’derechshould be said with mentioning God’s name. And if the intention is to travel within the urban areas, it is correct to say it without the name of God.
Until when can Tefilat Ha’DerechBe Said

If one forgot to say it upon his departure, if until his destination there remains a parsah(approximately four kilometers), he should say tefilat ha’derech, but if there remains less – he should say the tefilla without mentioning God’s name at the end.

If one travels a few times a day, it is sufficient to say the prayer for the first time, and have intention in his request for all the trips that he makes that day. But if he planned only one trip, and then decided to go again, then he has to say it again. When the travelling continues for a few days, each morning one should say tefilat ha’derech.

Why Doesn’t Tefilat Ha’DerechOpen with ‘Baruch‘

There are those who questioned the text of tefilat ha’derech– why doesn’t it open with ‘Baruch‘, for we have a general rule: any brachathat is not a bracha ha’smucha l’chaverta(lit. a brachaadjacent to its companion – a brachadirectly following another), it should open with a bracha?

There are those who believe that one should say tefilat ha’derechclose to another bracha, if possible (Maharam of Rothenburg). However, the halacha is that it is possible to say tefilat ha’derecheven without saying it close to a blessing, since it is not considered a blessing but a prayer. Others say that tefilat ha’derechis indeed a bracha – the brachaof “Shomaya tefillah” in the Amidah prayers – and since the main place in the Amidah prayer is close to the blessings before it, then even when it is said separately there is no need to open it with “Baruch“.


This article appears in the ‘Besheva’ newspaper, and was translated from Hebrew.

The progressive West must stop fetishising Palestinian extremists

by Stephen Daisley



He is bare-chested, muscular and not unattractive. A Palestinian flag blazes in one hand, a slingshot is strained taut in the other. All around him is smoke and press photographers. Aed Abu Amro, a 20-year-old Gazan, is rioting on the boundary between the Hamas-run statelet and Israel’s southern frontier. The terrorist organisation has been fomenting disorder there for months now, a function of its viral victims strategy: provoke the Israel Defence Forces into retaliating and let images of dead Palestinians zip their way onto every smartphone on the planet. If only Hamas put that kind of ingenuity into governing, Gaza might not have a 44 per cent unemployment rate.

As a live Palestinian, Amro, who was snapped mid-rampage on Monday, will not have the same impact on low-information media consumers. He has, however, stirred that morbid romanticism which draws Western progressives to the Palestinians, ever since Laleh Khalili, a professor at SOAS, tweeted the photograph and the words ‘Holy shit what an image’ on Tuesday. Khalili’s tweet has been retweeted 48,000 times and liked 124,000 times.

Holy shit what an image. "13th attempt to break the Gaza blockade by sea". Photo by Mustafa Hassouna (Andalou Agency for Getty): pic.twitter.com/0s2zxf72z2
— Laleh Khalili (@LalehKhalili) October 23, 2018

Newsweek gushed of ‘the now-iconic photo’ that ‘some [are] suggesting the image is reminiscent of the Biblical story of David and Goliath’. The New Zealand Herald wrote it up under the headline ‘Palestinian goes viral while leading the people’ and told its readers the image had ‘drawn comparisons with the iconic French Revolution painting, Liberty Leading the People, by Eugene Delacroix’. It topped The Guardian’s best photos of the day gallery and The Atlantic’s photos of the week list. Social media is awash with the picture and there is scarcely an anti-Israel agitator who has not tweeted, Facebooked or Instagrammed it. A student dorm room poster has been born.

Depictions of heroic resistance arouse Rousseauian passions in certain sections of the left, a predilection for radical chaos and contempt for liberal reform. This impulse rewrites the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a romantic epic in which crudely sketched characters are swept up and righteous victims ennobled by their oppression at the hands of inhuman tormentors. The left has spent so long making icons of the Palestinians that it scarcely remembers they are human beings. ‘If I get killed, I want to be wrapped in the same flag,’ Amro told Al-Jazeera. This is not an image to rush to the T-shirt presses; it is a tragic tableau of suffering and pride and hatred and fear.

Amro is the new Ahed Tamimi, the 17-year-old Palestinian jailed for eight months for assaulting Israeli soldiers. She has become an anti-occupation celebrity not just for Palestinians but for their Western idolators. In a series of interviews with Tunisian media at the beginning of the month, she said:

‘We should always be slapping soldiers, wherever they may be, regardless of whether they did anything or not. Ultimately, these are occupying soldiers. They occupied our land, and they shoot at little children and target homes and people. So this is a natural reaction to the presence of the occupation, to the presence of soldiers on my land. Everybody should be slapping soldiers.’

What did the Jeanne d’Arc of faculty lounges across the West mean by ‘my land’?

The following day, she told another interviewer:

‘The previous generation fought, died as martyrs, were wounded and imprisoned, for the sake of the two-state solution. They placed their trust in the world and in the international institutions, but they did not reach this solution. We, the [new] generation, will not repeat this. We, as a generation, will fight for the liberation of Palestine in its entirety.’

Tamimi will fight for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state, which is located, for those who still inhabit the fact-based community, not on ‘her land’ but on land to which Jews are indigenous, in which they alone have ever been sovereign, from which they were expelled, to which they returned, and upon which a rival Palestinian nationality so defined has staked a claim to nationhood for little more than a century and to statehood for around half that time.

Despite all this, the Jewish state is willing to cede yet more land for the creation of a Palestinian state, a set-up in which, according to ‘moderate’ Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas — the quote marks are intended as sarcasm but he really is what passes for a moderate in Palestinian politics — ‘we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands’.

Amro and Tamimi are the cultural successors to Abbas, Palestinians whose preference for rejectionism over coexistence is not only indulged but sentimentalised in alt-left kitsch.

Western leftists have little time and even less comprehension for Palestinians who seek comity and compromise, who acknowledge Israel as the state of the Jewish people, who recognise Israel’s legitimate security needs and who spurn the self-harming violence of their fellow Palestinians. The peacemakers exist but they do not capture the imagination of remote revolutionaries. They are the wrong kind of Palestinians.

Instead, Aed Abu Amro will be the face of Palestine and Tamimi its voice. As Israel forges once inconceivable ties with Saudi Arabia and Oman, as the Palestinian state runs perilously low on sand in the hourglass, those who claim to stand in solidarity with them will continue to objectify, fetishise and patronise the Palestinians. They have no interest in actual liberation; a Palestinian state would rob them of their little morality play in the desert.

The Palestinians will go on being pin-ups and go on being stateless.

Are Jew-haters possessed?

by Victor Rosenthal
The Pittsburgh synagogue massacre happened a week ago, and I haven’t stopped thinking about it. I am not sure why – I live in Israel and we’ve had worse massacres. I have friends who lost children in suicide bombings. My son was first on the scene of a bus that was bombed. It’s always horrifying, whether there are one, ten or thirty victims.

I once lived in that Squirrel Hill neighborhood, but it was for a short time many years ago and I barely remember it. I think the main thing that causes my emotional response is that it was a small Conservative shul with mostly older members, like the one I went to for 25 years in Fresno. I know those people – the guy that comes early on Shabbat to open up and lead services, the one that greets people at the door, even the 97-year old woman. The average age of the Pittsburgh victims was over 80 years.

Imagine the hate that must be in the murderer, that made him open fire at such people. Who hates like that? Maybe Samir Kuntar, who bashed the brains out of a four-year old Jewish child with his rifle butt. Maybe some of the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

I have always been fascinated (not in a pleasant way) by extremes of hate, especially toward Jews. That is not to suggest that black slavery or the various genocides are not also horrifying, but they are different phenomena with different motivations and manifestations. I think it’s more illuminating to look at the details of each case than to try to generalize about multiple forms of inhumanity. Indeed, I find the standard liberal response to atrocities like Pittsburgh, which always must include mentioning racism, “Islamophobia,” and multiple forms of gender-related bias, offensive. It pretends that Jews are basically treated like everyone else (because who isn’t the victim of some kind of prejudice?) and that all we have to do to end it is to convince everyone that all humans are siblings. “Hate is not welcome here,” say the signs.

But it’s not the same. There is no hatred that is at the same time as pervasive (in both time and space), as intense, and as murderous as Jew-hatred. There is no other hatred that flourishes even where its targets can’t be found, or which transmogrifies itself to stay in existence despite variations in social, political, or religious environments. Yes, there was a nasty Armenian genocide which happened at a particular time and place, but there have been countless massacres, expulsions, pogroms, terror attacks, one almost-total genocide, and several wars motivated by genocidal intent over all of recorded Jewish history and everywhere that Jews lived. Jew-hatred initially took (and still takes, in some contexts) a religious form, then a national/political/economic one, and ultimately the murderous and inescapable racial configuration of the Nazis.

The form of Jewish nationalism known as Zionism developed during the 19th century as a result of the refusal of Western European nations to allow Jews to integrate into their societies by maintaining legal and social restrictions on their educational and occupational opportunities, and the continued vicious physical and economic persecution of Jews in the Russian Empire. It was a combination of the hope that in a state of our own we could be a normal people, which would result in our being treated like any other nationality; and the despair that the quality of our existence in the diaspora would never be acceptable. But the diabolical force of Jew-hatred was cleverer than the Zionists, and as the center of gravity of the Jewish people shifted from the diaspora to the State of Israel, our state also became the focus of Jew-hatred.

Almost all of my life in America I lived among non-Jews, and I experienced a varying amount of anti-Jewish feeling. When I lived in an ethnic neighborhood of Long Island, it seems to have depended on what church someone went to. In Central California, many people had never met a Jew before, and while nobody asked me about horns, sometimes they seemed to come close. I was used to hearing the expression “Jew him down,” and a good friend actually tried gluing a nickel to the sidewalk (I wasn’t fooled and told him to pick it up). One of my best friends was a Mennonite, and his church – and politics – were strongly anti-Zionist. He asked me once what I thought, he listened, and we agreed not to discuss it.

His church once hosted a vicious Holocaust denier – I went to the event and wrote about it here. Never in my waking life did I feel more in the presence of the darkest evil than on that day. I won’t forget it.

I called the mimetic institution of Jew-hatred “diabolical.” It’s often compared to a virus because of the way it spreads and mutates, but I prefer the analogy of diabolical possession because of the way it twists its victims and causes them to commit acts of unspeakable evil. Who would have thought that the Pittsburgh shooter was capable of gunning down a 97-year old woman?

Paradoxically, the effect of this demonic affliction is to make the possessed attribute a demonic nature to Jews. The great historian Bernard Lewis made a very illuminating remark in a short essay from 2006 that is one of the best things I’ve read about Jew hatred. He said that there are two distinguishing characteristics that set Jew hatred apart from ordinary antipathy to the Other: one is holding Jews to a higher standard than anyone else, and the other is the “accusation of cosmic, satanic evil” to Jews or their state. The double standard sometimes appears in other forms of prejudice, but the attribution of diabolical evil is unique.

Lewis argues that this follows from the root of Jew-hatred itself, the accusation of guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus. Interestingly, he notes that although Jews were looked down upon and oppressed to a greater or lesser degree in the Muslim world, the attribution of demonic evil was not found among Muslims until it was imported from Europe, beginning in the 19th century, and then promulgated wholesale in the Middle East by the Nazis. Today, of course, the traditional memes of Jews and Israel being the root of evil in the world are as popular among Muslims as Christians, and have been absorbed by Israel’s antagonists in its unending conflict with its neighbors.

Lewis goes on to say that the behavior of the international community, especially as embodied by the United Nations, has done a great deal to validate the most extreme anti-Jewish acts of the Arab world, including ethnic cleansing of Jews in the parts of Palestine that came under Arab control, and of their own Jewish populations after 1948. The UN, in a word, never said “boo” about any of this, while expending great resources to aid Arab refugees (or more correctly, to aid the Arab states in exploiting Arab refugees as a weapon against Israel).

While it’s hard to see an institution as possessed by demons, the shameless acquiescence to demonic anti-Israel narratives by developed nations that should know better makes one wonder about the leadership of those nations. Perhaps their cabinets should include a Minister of Exorcism that could intervene in the most egregious cases?

The Middle East "Truce": Why Hamas Cannot Be Trusted

by Bassam Tawil

• These benefits for Hamas are exactly why the proposed truce is dangerous and sends the wrong message to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists. A truce now says that if you engage in violent, extortionistic acts, you get what you want.
• This victory for Hamas will, of course, only increase the terrorists' appetite and motivation to continue their attempts to kill as many Jews as possible. They will see any truce as a retreat on the part of Israel in the face of violence and terrorism.
• Hamas will now have more time to prepare for the next war against Israel. The proposed truce will give Hamas breathing space to smuggle more weapons into the Gaza Strip, dig new tunnels and recruit thousands of Palestinians to its ranks.
• A real truce between Israel and the Gaza Strip will be achieved only after the jihadi terrorists are removed from power, and not rewarded for violence and threats.

Pictured: Palestinian rioters in Gaza burn the Kerem Shalom Crossing, used to transfer goods from Israel to the Gaza Strip, May 4, 2018. (Image source: IDF/Flickr)

It is no secret that most of the Arab countries do not trust the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas. President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, for instance, as well as many Palestinians, do not have any confidence in Hamas, particularly after the summer of 2007, when the Islamist movement violently seized control of the Gaza Strip. Earlier this year, Abbas threatened that "shoes will be pouring" onto the heads of Hamas leaders.

Now, however, Israel is being asked to trust Hamas. This request is coming from Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations, whose representatives have been working hard the past few weeks to arrange a truce agreement between Israel and Hamas.

Continue Reading Article

The Truth and Deception of Yaakov

by HaRav Mordechai Greenberg 

Nasi HaYeshiva, Kerem B'Yavneh

"Give truth to Yaakov." (Micha 7:20) The primary trait of Yaakov is that of honesty. However, our parsha relates actions of Yaakov that stand in conflict with the trait of honesty. Yaakov takes advantage of Esav and purchases from him the birthright. He acquiesces to his mother's command and goes to deceive his father, Yitzchak. Yaakov later says to Rachel, "I am his [Lavan's] brother in deception." (Rashi Bereisheet 29:12) How can we learn the trait of truth from Yaakov?

The Netziv (Harchev Davar) cites the Midrash on the verse, "Fetch me from there two choice young kids of the goats" - good for you and good for your children. Good for you that you will receive the blessings through them, and good for your children, who will be atoned through them on Yom Kippur. What is the connection between the blessings and the two goats of Yom Kippur.

The Netziv explains that every trait has use, and "bad traits" have good in them, provided that they are used in proper measure. This is similar to poisons that are sometimes used as medicines, and they are good when used with professional supervision.

The same is true with the two goats. One was sacrificed on the Altar, whereas the second was sent to azazel, which is a kind of offering for the forces of tum'ah. This is also something positive when done upon G-d's command (cf. Ramban to Parshat Acharei-Mot). This is what Rivka meant. The two goats of Yom Kippur are equal in their mitzvah, even though one is for holiness, and the second - the opposite. So, too, the two traits that Yaakov is expressing now, one of truth, in listening to his mother, and the second of falsehood, in deceiving his father - both are considered a mitzvah to bring the blessings upon himself.

In Midrash Rabbah it says that Yaakov was punished because he caused Esav to "scream a great and bitter cry." His punishment was that Mordechai later, "screamed a great and bitter cry" in Shushan.

Why was Yaakov not punished for causing that his father "trembled very greatly?" The Netziv explains that to use a sin for pure intentions there is a need for extreme carefulness not to derive pleasure from the sin. This is unlike a mitzvah, where even if one derives pleasure from the mitzvah, the mitzvah remains intact. However, when doing a sin with pure intentions, it is not considered a mitzvah when one derives benefit from the sin.

This is expressed in the Gemara (Nazir 23b), where it says, "Great in a sin done with pure intentions," which is learned from Yael (who seduced Sisera and killed him). The Gemara asks, "But Yael derived pleasure from the sin?" and answers that the pleasure of the wicked is considered bad by the righteous. Based on this, when Yaakov scared Yitzchak, he did not derive any pleasure, and certainly felt bad, but was forced to do this. On the other hand, when Esav screamed, Yaakov felt inwardly happy. Since Yaakov was doing a sin for the sake of pure intentions, he was not allowed to derive pleasure from it and was therefore punished.

This was Yaakov's test, that he knows how to deceive, but does this with pure intentions and does not derive pleasure from it. Through this he proved that his trait is truth even at a time that he needs to lie. Everything is tested based on the its opposite. Avraham, whose trait was chesed, was tested with the trait of yir'ah - "Now I know that you are a G-d fearing man". (22:12) Otherwise, it would have been possible to think that the trait of chesed was natural to him, and is not so much of a virtue. Similarly, Yaakov, whose trait was truth, was tested whether he knows how to deceive when necessary without being affected and not to derive pleasure. Therefore he says, "I lived with Lavan and observed the 613 mitzvot," and I was not drawn to deceit like Yaakov.

Chazal comment in the Midrash that when Yaakov went in to Yitzchak, he prayed, "Hashem, rescue my soul from lying lips, from a deceitful tongue." (Tehillim 120:2) This is most striking! He is going in to lie, and asks that G-d rescue him from falsehood? Rather, even though now he is rightfully going to deceive his father, there is concern that he might be affected by this also in the future, even when there is no need, and he prayed about this.

This is what Yitzchak said to Esav, "Your brother came with cunningness." (27:35) Why did Yitzchak have to say this to him and cause him anguish? Rather, he told Esav that he had mistaken in estimating Yaakov. Until now Yitzchak thought that Yaakov was completely straightforward, and could not lie even when necessary, so that he requires Esav's assistance in serving G-d. Now Yitzchak became aware that Yaakov also can come with cunning. Since he now sees that Yaakov not only "dwells in tents," but is also a man of the world - "Indeed, he shall remain blessed." (27:33)

More Than Meets the Eye

by HaRav Zalman Baruch Melamed
Rosh HaYeshiva, Beit El

Dedicated to the memory of R. Avraham ben-tziyon ben shabtai

TWO APPROACHES
Two distinctly different approaches can be taken to the events that unfold in this week’s Torah portion, Parshat Toldot. At first glance, the story is filled with conflicts and other hardships; it opens with a report on Rivka’s barrenness, goes on to discuss the quarrels between the shepherds of Avimelech and those of Yitzchak, and concludes with Ya'akov's struggle to obtain the blessings designated for him. Ultimately, Ya'akov is compelled to flee from his brother Esav, who wishes to kill him over the blessings. The events have another, even deeper dimension as well. Yitzchak and Rivka quickly understand that their home will not be just any home. Far from it: from this abode, two distinct leadership approaches - as represented by Ya'akov and Esav - will be introduced to the world. In order to give birth to these unique children, much preparation, personal spiritual growth, and prayer is needed.

Yitzchak no longer limits his achievements to the spiritual realm. In fact, he becomes very wealthy despite the severe physical conditions in the Land of Israel at the time. At first, his successes arouse, in his neighbors, strong feelings of antagonism towards him. Paradoxically, as Yitzchak's strength increases, his neighbors come to appreciate its unique nature, and soon agree to strike a covenant with him. "We have seen that God is with you," they declare.

The blessing of the first-born, set aside for Ya’akov, hits a snag, with Yitzchak apparently interested in awarding it to Esav; the confusion and delay surrounding this issue are designed to reveal to Yitzchak, Ya'akov, and in fact, the entire world - the Divine, irrefutable nature of the match between Ya’akov and the blessings in question.

Just as in this week's Torah portion, everyone’s private life can also be viewed from two perspectives. The world can certainly be understood as a trouble-filled place, where innocent people often suffer great misfortune. And yet, it is also possible to see the world as a place replete with challenges, a forum in which each person is pushed to exhaust his individual potential, to give full expression to each one of his talents. Successfully confronting these challenges benefit not just the person immediately involved, but the world as a whole.

A COMPARISON
One cannot help but notice the sharp contrasts between the personalities and lives of Yitzchak Avinu and his father, Avraham. The latter is an activist determined to disseminate the fundamental belief in the world's one God; his outreach is evident in the assertion of our sages that Avraham converted men, while his wife Sarah converted women. Avraham's activism had tremendous impact on both his immediate environs and distant locations. His idealism comes to the fore early on, when, the midrash tells us, Avraham - the world’s first monotheist - miraculously survives Nimrod's fiery furnace.

At other end of the spectrum is Yitzchak, who is of an unquestionably passive character. In the course of his life, he doesn't seem to truly struggle or confront his surroundings. Even the basic task of finding a proper wife is "arranged" for him by his father's servant, Eliezer. On the surface of things, this would seem to be a flaw in Yitzchak's personality; one may have perhaps thought that a mature young man would be more active, take greater control of his own destiny.

SELF-RESTRAINT
A deeper look at Yitzchak’s personality and his role in the world, however, indicates that it is precisely because of his lofty nature and the sublime quality of his mission - that Yitzchak was relieved of dealing with "this-worldly" concerns.

Our rabbis explain that Yitzchak personifies "Midat HaDin" - literally, the attribute of Strict Justice. What does this quality mean, and how does it apply to a person? According to our tradition, "Din" relates to the extent to which a person has succeeded in completely attaining control over himself, and in Yitzchak's case, submitting himself to the will of God. In Yitzchak's life, this quality finds its most profound expression during the "Akeida," - when he showed that he was willing to sacrifice his very life in response to a Divine command. When Yitzchak is relieved of material concerns, he is freed up to sanctify and elevate himself to the status of what our sages call "Olah Temimah" - or "Pure Burnt Offering." This dedication does not simply contribute to Yitzchak's own personal path towards perfection; it also bestows blessing - in the form of both spiritual and physical bounty - on the entire world.

A TZADDIK TALKS, PEOPLE LISTEN
After our teacher, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook of blessed memory, passed away, the late Rabbi Shlomo Goren was asked to deliver a eulogy in his honor. In the course of his talk, Rabbi Goren repeatedly said that Rav Tzvi Yehuda instilled a fear in people, an emotion that discouraged anyone he encountered from disobeying him or strongly disagreeing with him. Rav Goren explained that the sages referred to this phenomenon in the Tractate of Berachot with the following words: "Any one who fears Heaven - his words are accepted by others." When a person truly fears Heaven, when he submits himself to God's will, those around him experience first hand this person's strong attribute of self-discipline; it radiates outwards and prompts others to follow his directive...

This dynamic was certainly an essential element of the personality of Yitzchak Avinu. He submits himself to the Divine will, cultivates his own personal attribute of fear of Heaven, and from this internal greatness, he elevates daily life - as he grows in both importance and wealth. This upward spiral continues until all associated with him recognize his greatness. Even Avimelech chooses to strike a covenant with Yitzchak.

Yitzchak Avinu's role in reference to mankind is comparable to the role of the Sabbath in relationship to time. On Shabbat, we refrain from performing acts of creative labor; in fact, we completely detach ourselves from daily routine. All this with an eye towards our own spiritual improvement. A Sabbath observer is also able to subsequently inject blessing into the other six days of the week. So, too, Yitzchak's elevated status served as the source of blessing for the entire world. It took form on a personal level by miraculously bringing him great wealth. "That year, Yitzchak reaped one hundred times the regular crop..."(Bereishit 26:12) "And the man became greater and greater..." (26:13)

THE BIRTH OF YA’AKOV AND ESAV
After Yitzchak managed to withstand the trial of the Akeida, and after Avraham found just the right match for his son, we would have expected Yitzchak to continue unfettered on the path towards consolidating his home. But this is not what happened at all. At first, he could not father children, given the fact that Rivka was barren. Our sages teach us that Rivka suffered from a serious physical deficiency - she had no womb - and she therefore had no hope of giving birth to a baby. Despite the couple's predicament, Yitzchak and Rivka entreated God to heal her, to transform her body into one that could produce children. It worked.

In reference to Yitzchak's prayer, the Torah says, "Vay'etar Yitzchak." The plain meaning of this phrase is, "Yitzchak entreated." Through the midrash, we are offered two other explanations: According to Rabbi Yochanan, Yitzchak poured out his heart to God generously (literally, "in a wealthy fashion.") R. Yochanan bases his explanation on the fact that the root of the word "Vay’etar" - "Atar" - means "wealth." Reish Lakish, however, says that the term means that Yitzchak "overturned the decree" of barrenness on his wife, Rivka. Reish Lakish derives his explanation from the Hebrew word for a pitchfork, a farm implement used for "turning over" hay...

Rabbi Yochanan was known as a complete Tzaddik, a fully righteous person. He lived in Eretz Yisrael his entire life; he lived to a ripe old age; he lead a steady, consistent life and did not experience any major upheavals. It may be for this reason that he understands Yitzchak as having prayed "generously" - in terms of both the quality and quantity of our forefather's supplications.

Reish Lakish, on the other hand, was a Ba'al Teshuva - a penitent - and was thus on a higher level, in a certain sense, than his colleague. (The sages teach that a Ba'al Teshuva is greater in that he has had to overcome his evil inclination more than a complete Tzaddik, who has not had to face such challenges.) Reish Lakish gave "more of himself" to God. He was a sage whose life knew many ups and downs, numerous upheavals and revolutions. In fact, Reish Lakish was originally a robber, and "worked on himself" to such an extent that he was able to eventually become one of the prime scholars of the Talmudic era. Thus, Reish Lakish understood Yitzchak's fervent prayer - comparable to a pitchfork that picks up and tosses hay in a haystack - as having effected a major upheaval, even revolution - in his wife Rivka's physical health.

Our teacher, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook of blessed memory, used to say that the unique quality of the Land of Israel is that it has the power to transform reality, turn bad to good, impure to pure, forbidden to permissible. The Torah describes our land as a "Land Flowing with Milk and Honey." Milk, note the sages, should have been forbidden by the Torah, given the fact that it is extracted from a creature - a cow - while the animal is still alive. Nevertheless, the matter was discussed in Tractate Bechorot, and the sages eventually permitted the drinking of milk based on the verse that states that the Land of Israel "flows with milk and honey." If the Torah praised the Land as being a place flowing with milk and honey, they reasoned, it is hard to imagine that these very products would be forbidden to consume!

Although the honey cited by the Torah is a specific reference to date honey, it certainly also refers to honey produced by bees. At first blush, bee honey, too, should have been forbidden by the Torah - since it originates in the body of a live insect. Here, too, the sages conclude, however, that the special verse sanctions the consumption of this product. Milk and honey, two products that Eretz Yisrael is famous for- are symbolic, then, of the unique power of our land to sometimes overturn or transform previously-existing realities.

Yitzchak Avinu's self-discipline and mastery over himself, combined with the unique qualities of Eretz Yisrael, a land he cleaved to and never left - facilitated a miracle, by transforming the barren Rivka into an expectant mother.

INTERNAL STRUGGLE
Rivka's pregnancy did not mark the end of her suffering, though. The pregnancy itself became very complicated and rather painful - "The two boys ran about within her," says the Torah. Our sages explained this "running" in the following manner: When Rivka would pass by a synagogue, Ya'akov would kick, in an effort to get out (to worship in the Synagogue) Similarly, when she would pass by an idolatrous temple, Esav would press to leave (to worship there).

The ability to distinguish between good and evil develops within a person only as he matures; it is therefore very difficult to accept the sages' description of the pregnancy literally - as if Esav had already chosen idolatry as a way of life, while Ya'akov chose Torah! Esav was obviously not consciously aware that his mother was passing by an idolatrous temple - and Ya'akov didn’t consciously understand that his mother was passing by a synagogue.

If so, what is the meaning of the midrash?

The differences between Ya'akov and Esav don't derive from two variant worldviews; their differences are intrinsic. Ya'akov and Esav, so to speak, may even be said to be two different types of creations. Ya'akov, by his nature, is drawn to the world of spirit. Material reality, for him, is just a means by which he develops his spiritual potential. Esav, however, is drawn by his nature to the material, to the physical. Since the distinction between Esav and Ya'akov is natural and intrinsic, even before they were born, we read of them being drawn to the house of idolatry and synagogue, respectively.

The birth of Ya'akov and Esav was unlike any other. Two diametrically opposed paths were born, two clashing perspectives, each of which was to govern the world in his own special way.

There is no doubt that Ya'akov Avinu represents the natural and true heir to the legacy of Yitzchak and Avraham. It therefore follows that the blessing, which symbolizes the path of Avraham, should be awarded to Ya'akov. Here, too, though, the most natural and most correct situation did not come easy. Here, too, we encounter complications, and Ya'akov is forced to obtain the blessing of the birthright in a rather deceptive fashion. Why? Why was Yitzchak Avinu willing to choose Esav over Ya'akov?

Numerous commentators have attempted to explain Yitzchak's behavior, but it seems to me, that perhaps the greatest lesson can be learned if we are to leave this question unanswered. Suffice to say that the blessings bestowed by Yitzchak upon Ya'akov are not the "property" of Yitzchak; they are Divine blessings designated specially for Ya’akov and his heirs by God. Yitzchak is simply a messenger.

Family Decisions (Why did Yitzchak want to bless Eisav?)

by Rabbi Dov Berl Wein

The troubling question that has persisted throughout the ages of biblical commentary on this week’s parsha is: What is Yitzchak thinking in regard to giving the blessings and heritage of Avraham to Eisav? Basically the comments and explanations fall into two categories. One of them is that Yitzchak is fooled by Eisav and is really unaware of his true nature and wanton behavior.

Rashi, quoting Midrash, interprets that Eisav "hunted" his father with his pious speech and cunning conversation. Yitzchak is fooled by Eisav and believes that Eisav, the man of the world and the physically powerful figure is better suited to carry on Avraham’s vision than is Yaakov, the more studious and apparently more simple of the brothers.

The other opinion, more popular among the later commentators to the Torah, is that Yitzchak is aware of the shortcomings of behavior and attitude of his elder son. His desire to give the blessings to Eisav is due to his wish to redeem and save his son, and to enable Eisav to turn his life around and become a worthy heir to the traditions of his father and grandfather. He thinks that by somehow giving the blessings to Eisav, Yaakov will not really suffer any disadvantage in his life’s work, while Eisav will find his way back to holiness through the blessings that he has now received.

These two divergent attitudes towards the wayward child in Jewish families is one that is enacted daily in Jewish family life. Later Yitzchaks either willfully allow themselves to be deluded regarding the behavior and lifestyle of children or they are aware of the problem and attempt to solve it with a giving nature and a plethora of blessings.

Rivkah, Eisav’s mother, is not fooled by her son’s apparently soothing words nor does she believe that granting him blessings will somehow accomplish any major shift in his chosen lifestyle. To a great measure she adopts a policy of triage, saving Yaakov and blessing him while thus abandoning Eisav to his own chosen wanton ways.

The Torah does not record for us the "what if" scenario – what if Eisav had received the blessings would he then have been different in behavior and attitude, belief and mission. However, from the words of the later prophets of Israel, especially those of Ovadiah, it appears to be clear that God somehow concurred with Rivkah’s policy and holds Eisav to be redeemable only in the very long run of history and human events.

The verdict seems to be that one must be clear eyed and realistic about the painful waywardness and misbehavior of enemies of Yaakov, be they from within or without our immediate family and milieu. There are many painful choices that need to be made within one’s lifetime and especially in family relations.

There are few pat answers to varying and difficult situations. Perhaps that is why the Torah itself does not delve too deeply into the motives of Yitzchak and Rivkah but is content merely to reflect the different emotional relationships each had with their two very different sons. The Torah emphasizes the role that human emotions play in our lives and does not consign all matters to rational thought and decision-making

Better Late … Period!

by HaRav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l

based on Siach Shaul, p. 81-82

The Talmud begins with a discussion of night (regarding Kri’at Shema). Creation started at night (Bereisheet 1:5). Night precedes day. There are two philosophies in this matter: the Jewish and the non-Jewish. Whatever includes more complexity requires more preparatory time. Whoever is preparing for a more important position must work longer for it.

We find, in terms of different periods, that the world we live in is like the night (Pesachim 2b), in which we prepare for the world to come, which is like the day. "It is for us to do [the mitzvot] today and receive their reward tomorrow (in the next world)" (Eiruvin 22a).

Eisav and Yaakov symbolize the different approaches. Eisav came out first, he was born developed, and he continued to develop quickly. He married early and raised families into political/military units quickly. In contrast, Yaakov did everything – raising family, creating a base of livelihood, returning home – slowly. This contrast is of particular interest considering that the directions of Yaakov’s and Eisav’s nations are inversely proportional – when one falls, the other one rises (Pesachim 42b).

Bnei Yisrael do not want to "harvest its fruit in this world." Even the material success that we are apt to receive for our good deeds is not an ends of its own but a means to continue doing mitzvot so that we can merit the world to come (Rambam, Teshuva 9:1). Eisav is the opposite. He grabs the fruit immediately. He is developed early; he wants to enjoy quickly; and the results follow suit. When one harvests the fruit in his youth, his old age consists of times that are of no interest. An old Torah scholar is different, as his mind becomes more settled as he ages (Kinim 3:6). That is why one who knows how to put the night first will merit having the day shine brightly, whereas one who puts the day first receives a never-ending night.

"Avraham was old" (Bereisheet 24:1). Chazal (Bereisheet Rabba 65) tell us that Avraham innovated old-age. In contrast, there is a Yiddish saying about the negative element of Terach’s old-age. This is because all of Terach’s vitality was in his youth, when he had physical strength, and this is representative of the non-Jewish approach. We believe in improving in old-age, as Avraham taught.

The midrash (Bereisheet Rabba 63:9) tells of the Roman official who asked a Jew: "Who will seize the kingdom after us." The Jew answered: "[Yaakov’s] hand was holding [Eisav’s] ankle." The official responded: "See the old things from a new old man." Everyone knows about the rise and fall of nations, but this idea came not from a youngster but from a "new old man." We are an old nation that does not lose its vitality in "old age." While this surprised the Roman, it is an old secret of our people. Our national trials and tribulations are a preparation for the future – for the time of Mashiach, and we should value the State of Israel as being a step in that direction.

This world is like night … but there is light in the night as well. The light of the Torah may look small to us, in comparison with the sun, or historically in comparison to the success of certain nations, but the success is being stored up and the moon will eventually be restored to its greatness. When do we say Kriat Shema at night? The answer is: when we purify ourselves (see Berachot 2a). It is, for example, when a person comes home from work in the field and does not eat and sleep and spend time with his family first but makes sure to leave time to daven and learn Torah. While it seems too great a sacrifice, this is the way to make sure that one is spiritually ready for the next day’s work so that it will not swallow him up.

The New Jihad: More Threatening Than Ever

by Guy Millière

• It is important to emphasize that radical Islamists use means other than terrorism to gain ground.
• This week, the unelected judges of the European Court of Human Rights submitted to the demands of Sharia blasphemy laws and decided not to allow criticism of Muhammad, lest Muslim feelings be hurt. The court actually chose hurt feelings over freedom of expression and truth as a defense.
• "As someone who has known what it is to live without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberal and progressive – people who claim to believe so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights – make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom and those very minorities... We need to say to Muslims living in the West: if you want to live in our societies, to share in their material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional". — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2016.

Following the destruction of the Islamic State, awareness of the danger embodied by radical Islam has been largely erased in Europe. Knife attacks and the slaughter of passers-by in France or Britain were not treated by the mainstream media as more important than road accidents. Pictured: Police officers and soldiers secure the site of a terror attack, in which a police officer was shot and killed, on April 20, 2017 in Paris, France. (Photo by Aurelien Meunier/Getty Images)

When the Barcelona terror attack took place August 17, 2017, as horrible as it was (13 deaths, 130 injured), the jihadists did not consider it a success. They had a more lethal project. They wanted to drive vans packed with explosives into the of the Sagrada Familia basilica and two other tourist areas of the city. That, however, was the last major jihadist attack in a Western country. The Manchester attack had taken place two month earlier, on May 22, 2017; the attack in Nice, France, had taken place on July 14, 2016; and the in Orlando attack, in Florida, on June 12, 2016.

The destruction of the Islamic State under President Donald J. Trump has not only deprived jihadists of what had become a rear base and training camp; it also deprived them of the idea that they could quickly defeat the West.

Continue Reading Article

Rav Kook's Ein Ayah: Can Removing Be Positive?

(condensed from Ein Ayah, Shabbat 7:6-8)

Gemara: [We begin with the piece of gemara discussed last time and continue with the new section, which ensues, regarding untying.]

Where was tying done in the Mishkan [which would make it a melacha on Shabbat]? Rava said: They would tie things to the stakes that held the tent in place. Abaye said: That is tying while having in mind to untie it [as the Mishkan was periodically moved]?! Rather, said Abaye: It was when the weavers of the fabric sheets, upon a thread being broken, would tie it up. That explains [the origins of] tying; what can you say about untying. If you suggest that it was when two threads were accidentally tied together so that it was necessary to undo one of them, [this does not make sense]. After all, even when preparing something for a human king, one does not act in such [an unprofessional manner, to have to redo things], all the more so when it is done for the King, who is the King of kings.

Ein Ayah: [Last time we saw how the threads discussed could be seen as a metaphor for thoughts and philosophical ideas.]

Regarding thoughts from different elements that should be united, any separation or lack of connection is a disease and ruins the completeness of the thought process. Therefore, the metaphor of tying together thoughts is appropriate, but the metaphor of untying them does not seem appropriate as a high-level positive action, considering the need for internal factors in the development of the performance of the work in order for something to qualify as a melacha. The high level of thought applies only in increasing connection between things.

There are indeed times when ideas, which should fit well together, become complicated and form contradictions one with the other. Then, they are not capable of being interconnected anymore. In such cases, one idea has to be removed from the group of compatible thoughts, so that a more compatible one be chosen to take its place. Then, a spiritual group of ideas can ostensibly be achieved. This is the idea of the need to untie a thread so that another one can be connected.

However, the removal of one idea from the others cannot be considered a positive action of man in his effort to complete his spirit. After all, every time a good idea is removed, there is an element of destruction to the mass of ideas. The entire unit is affected by the change in the order of matters. Changes in order can be destructive even in connections of society and government (i.e., the matters of human kings). It is all the more evident that such disruptions are problematic when it comes to deep and lofty spiritual matters (i.e., matters that relate to the King of kings).

If the Synagogue Shooter Were Muslim, the Media Would Be Defending Him

by Daniel Greenfield

Two types of people plot attacks against Jewish synagogues and community centers: Nazis and Muslims.

In 1999, Buford O. Furrow, a white supremacist, opened fire at a Jewish Community Center in the Los Angeles area. He wounded three little boys, their teenage female counselor and an elderly female receptionist. He told the FBI that he wanted this to be "a wake-up call to America to kill Jews."

While Furrow was carrying out his attack, President William Jefferson Clinton was in the White House.

In 2000, Ali Hassan Abu Kamal and Mazin Assi attempted to firebomb a synagogue in New York.

“A bias-motivated attempt to firebomb a synagogue?” the New York Times wondered. “Or a misguided message critical of Israeli policies against Palestinians?”

In 2006, Naveed Afzal Haq used a teenage girl as a hostage to force his way into the Seattle Jewish Federation where he shot 6 women. The Muslim attacker shouted, “You Jews” at the non-Jewish marketing director and shot her in the stomach. The bookkeeper went into cardiac arrest, died at the scene, was revived and died again on the operating table and still lived to testify at Haq's trial.

"I want these Jews to get out,” Haq could be heard shouting on the phone.

The media attempted to portray Haq as mentally ill. The local alternative paper insisted that his “his anti-Semitic rhetoric” was just a “veneer” on “a man disturbed by feelings of inadequacy and rejection.”

In 2009, James Wenneker von Brunn, a white supremacist, opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. His rhetoric, claiming that Obama was controlled by the Jews, closely echoed the more recent Squirrel Hill synagogue shooter’s rants about Trump being controlled by the Jews.

This would be one of two major anti-Semitic attacks by neo-Nazis during the Obama years.

That same year, another major anti-Semitic terror plot was broken up by the FBI. But this time the perpetrators were Muslims and the media coverage couldn’t have been more different.

“Look at the Jewish guy. You’re not smiling no more, you f___r. I hate those bastards. I hate those m______s. Those f____g Jewish bastards. I’d like to get one of those. I’d like to get a synagogue. Me. Yeah. Personally,” Abdul Rahman, also known as James Cromitie, had ranted.

The targets of the Muslim terrorists known as the Newburgh Four had been two synagogues. And the media took the side of the anti-Semitic terrorists.

"Newburgh Four: poor, black, and jailed under FBI 'entrapment' tactics," The Guardian had wept. NPR, The Nation, Mother Jones and BuzzFeed all wrote sympathetically of the synagogue terrorists.

Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept simpered over Cromitie as "an impoverished African-American Muslim convert" who "had never evinced any inclination to participate in a violent attack".

That’s quite a description of the man who had bragged, “With no hesitation, I will kill 10 Jews.”

HBO aired a documentary, The Newburgh Sting, supportive of the synagogue terrorists. It won a Peabody Award.

In 2011, Ahmed Ferhani was arrested after plotting to blow up “the biggest synagogue” in Manhattan. Along with Mohamed Mamdouh, he had considered dressing up as a Hassidic Jew and attacking a synagogue with a gun and a grenade.

“I intended to create chaos and send a message of intimidation and coercion to the Jewish population of New York City,” Ferhani admitted at his trial.

Ferhani was defended by Linda Sarsour and many on the Left. Just two years ago, The Nation headlined a sympathetic piece about the synagogue terrorist as, “A Muslim Man Was Ensnared in a Terror Plot by the NYPD—He Just Attempted Suicide”. The Huffington Post ran a post titled, “An Entrapped Muslim Man Just Attempted Suicide, But Does Anyone Care?”

Both media outlets have accused President Trump of somehow being complicit in the latest synagogue shooting when they are actually the ones who continue to be complicit in anti-Semitic violence.

“The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting Is the ​Inevitable Result of​ Trump’s Vile Nationalism,” The Nation shrieks. This is the same vile rag which has repeatedly defended Muslim synagogue terrorists.

In 2014, Frazier Glenn Miller, a white supremacist, opened fire at the Overland Park Jewish Community Center. He murdered three people. Afterward he shouted, “Heil Hitler”.

Miller had earlier stated, “I have a great deal of admiration Louis Farrakhan,” and admired Iran’s leader because, “he tells the truth about the Jews.”

The only thing he regretted is that all of his victims turned out not to be Jewish.

All this happened under Barack Obama. And Miller had expressed a certain implausible liking for Obama. Like Miller, Obama also had an affinity for Farrakhan, having posed with him, and for Iranian leaders.

There are two groups that plot terrorist attacks against Jewish synagogues and centers in America and Europe: Nazis and Muslims.

The media unequivocally condemns Nazis, but equivocates when the attackers are Muslims.

When a Nazi attacks a synagogue, the media blames Republicans. But when a Muslim attacks a synagogue, the media will claim that he was a mentally ill man entrapped by the FBI. Buford O. Furrow and Robert Bowers are monsters, but Abdul Rahman and Ahmed Ferhani are victims.

President Trump has never expressed an ounce of sympathy for Bowers. Instead he firmly demanded justice. “Anybody who does this deserves the death penalty. When people do this they should get the death penalty and they shouldn’t have to wait years and years. Now the lawyers are going to get involved and we’ll be ten years down the line. Anybody that does this to innocent people who are in temple or in church, should pay the ultimate price.”

It’s the media which has repeatedly expressed sympathy for synagogue terrorists.

The same media busy blaming the Squirrel Hill synagogue attack on Trump would have been defending the terrorist if his name had been Rahman instead of Robert.

And the media has two things in common with the Squirrel Hill synagogue shooter.

Robert Bowers hated Trump. And he hated the Jews in the Trump administration. “Trump is surrounded by kikes,” he complained.

The media responded to Bowers’ attack by going after Jews.

The Atlantic decided to publish an execrable blood libel by Franklin Foer which called for "shunning Trump’s Jewish enablers. Their money should be refused, their presence in synagogues not welcome." Julia Ioffe, who had previously been fired for a Trump incest tweet, but was hired anyway by GQ, accused Trump of being responsible for the synagogue shooting. But not before blaming pro-Israel Jews.

The media isn’t just exploiting the murder of Jews to attack Trump. It’s even sickeningly exploiting the murder of Jews to attack Jews.

That isn’t opposing anti-Semitism. It’s engaging in it.

When you oppose anti-Semitism, then you oppose the murder of Jews. By Nazis and by Muslims.

By anyone. Period.

The Left’s position on the murder of Jews is wholly politically opportunistic. It opposed the murder of Jews by Hitler, and supported the murder of Jews by Stalin. And now it opposes the murder of Jews by neo-Nazis and supports the murder of Jews by Islamic terrorists.

Its moral preening after the Squirrel Hill shootings is the posturing of a depraved movement.

The same journalists and activists lecturing on Trump’s complicity in the massacre were outraged when he cut funding to the Palestinian Authority terrorists who are being paid to murder Jews.

On a November four years ago, two Muslim terrorists entered a synagogue in Har Nof, Jerusalem.

They used axes, knives and a gun to murder four Rabbis, three of them Americans. Photos showed a floor covered in blood and torn prayer books.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine which took responsibility for the attack is popular on college campuses. Its signage is often displayed by campus hate groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. British leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn was photographed with the attack mastermind.

And the payments to the terrorists continued, paid for with foreign aid from the United States.

President Trump has called for ruthless action against the Muslim and Neo-Nazi murderers of Jews. If the media wants to sincerely oppose anti-Semitism, it could take a lesson from him.

Or it can go on exploiting the Neo-Nazi murder of Jews to promote the agenda of the Islamist murderers of Jews.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Rabbi Ari Kahn on Parshat Chayei Sara: Looking for a Princess

The Yishai Fleisher Show: For the Love of Sarah

The first purchase of the Jewish people in the land of Israel is Sarah's burial site. It was Abraham who negotiated for the Machpela out of love for her. Join Rabbi Yishai for some ancient Middle Eastern land haggling in Hebron, and for the mass pilgrimage to the Tomb of the Mammas and the Pappas on Chaye Sarah.

The critical November 2018 mid-term election

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Trump: a coattail – or an anchor chained – President?

The November 2018 mid-term election will determine the future maneuverability of President Trump, and will shape the dominant worldview of the strongest legislature in the world, which is co-determining and co-equal to the executive branch, and Israel’s systematic and most effective ally in face of pressure by all US Presidents from Truman through Obama.

The coming mid-term election will be – once again – a referendum on the popularity of a sitting President: 49% approval rating (50% disapproval) of President Trump, according to a November 1 Rasmussen Reports; 40% (54% disapproval) according to an October 28Gallup poll; 43.9% (53% disapproval) according to an October 31 RealClear Politics.

Will Trump be a coattail-President elevating the Republican party to mid-term election gains in the House and Senate, as has happened on rare occasions, such as the 1934 election (President Roosevelt), 1998 (President Clinton) and 2002 (President G.W. Bush)?

Or, will Trump be an anchor-chained President pulling the Republican party down to significant losses – and even to minority status in one/both Chambers – as has usually been the case: President Obama (2014 and 2010), President G.W. Bush (2006), President Clinton (1994), President G.H. Bush (1990), President Reagan (1986 and 1982), President Carter (1978), President Ford/Nixon (1974), etc.?

Since 1950, a sitting President’s party has lost an average of 24 House seats in the mid-term election, which is the minimum required for a Democratic House majority in 2019. The current balance is: 241 Republicans and 194 Democrats.

The Senate hurdle – facing the Democrats – is much higher, since the 35 Senate seats up for the coming November election consist of 9 Republicans and 26 Democrats, 10 of whom are in states won by President Trump in 2016 (only 1 Republican incumbent from a state won by Hilary Clinton in 2016), and 13 Democratic incumbents from states with a republican governor (no Republican incumbent from a state governed by a Democrat).

While sustaining the Republican majority in the House and Senate would maintain President Trump’s relative-freedom of operation, a loss of one/two Chambers would tie his hands internally and globally, commercially and militarily, due to the power of the US Legislature, which was deemed by the Founding Fathers as the “secret weapon” against a potential tyranny of the Executive.

The centrality of the US constituent and Congress

The unique power of the US Legislature – compared to all other democracies – was crafted by the 1789 US Constitution, which enshrined the concept of liberty (impacted by the Biblical concept of Jubilee, as inscribed on the Liberty Bell), by ensuring the co-equal, co-determining and independent status of the Legislature, as defined by the first article of the Constitution.

At the same time, the Constitution limits the power of the President, who – unlike other Western democracies – is not a super legislator, does not determine the legislative agenda, nor the identity of the legislators and the leaderships of the House and Senate, committees and subcommittees.

The natural ultra-ambition of the Executive branch is neutralized (in the US) by a complete separation of power among the co-equal and co-determining Legislature, Executive and Judiciary; an elaborate system of checks and balances; endowing the Legislature with the Power of the Purse and Oversight of the Executive; and the co-existence of the Federal government side-by-side with the governments of the 50 States. This transforms the American voters into the strongest constituents in the globe, directly determining the fate of their legislators, and the level of Presidential maneuverability, every two years.

Therefore, legislators are loyal, first and foremost, to their constituents, lest they follow in the footsteps of Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley (defeated in the 1994 general election) and Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (defeated in the 2014 primaries), who were substantially more engaged with national party issues, than with the concerns of their district constituents. In fact, the clout of constituents – who opposed the increase of imports - caused 2/3 and over 1/2 of the Democratic House Representatives to vote against Democratic President Clinton’s Free Trade Agreements with China (in 2000) and Canada (in 1993) respectively.

The US Constitution provides Congress with the power to limit, amend, suspend, rescind, fund/defund and investigate Presidential policies, establish and abolish government agencies (e.g., in 1947 and 2001, Congress established the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security respectively), initiate and terminate the development of military systems, confirm/reject appointments to top government positions, ratify/reject international treaties, covenants and agreements, impose/remove sanctions on foreign countries, etc.

Amending the US Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both Chambers in addition to 3/4 of the Legislatures of the 50 States – a majority which is extremely difficult to assemble, and therefore only 27 Amendments to the Constitution have been approved so far.
Legislators prefer to focus on district and state issues – which preoccupy their constituents – rather than national security and foreign policy issues, which attract the attention of a slim percentage of the constituency. However, the Legislature can flex its awesome muscleand severely limit or overrule a President – on domestic, national security and foreign policy issue - when a President acts like a monarch, ignores the Legislature, implements a significantly failed policy, or departs sharply from the worldview of US voters.

Globalization has expanded the number of congressional districts, which depend on foreign trade and the global arena, hence the substantially expanded number of legislators involved in international-oriented legislations.

Limiting the Commander-in-Chief

While the US Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) refers to the President as the Commander-in-Chief, his maneuverability can be heavily constrained by Congress.

For example, in 1974, Congress legislated – in defiance of the Administration - theJackson-Vanik Amendment, which facilitated the Aliyah (immigration) of one million Soviet Jews to Israel. In 1964, Congress passed the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,” which authorized President Johnson to launch the military involvement in Vietnam, but in 1973 – in defiance of President Nixon - the Church-Case Amendment terminated the US military involvement in Southeast Asia, as did the Clark Amendment (1976) and the Boland Amendment (1984) – in defiance Presidents Ford and Reagan respectively - to the US military involvement in Angola and Nicaragua, respectively. In 1986, Congress overrode President Reagan’s veto of the Comprehensive Apartheid Act, which paved the road to ending South Africa’s Apartheid regime. In 1999, President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but the Senate has yet to ratify it. The 2012 Defense budget included Congressional sanctions, which halved Iran’s oil export, contrary to President Obama’s policy. In 2012, in opposition to President Obama’s stance – Congress reduced foreign aid to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt by $450MN. In 2015, the Senate refused to ratify the Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA), thus enabling President Trump to withdraw from the agreement in 2018. In 2017/2018, Congress enacted the Russian Sanctions Bill, notwithstanding President Trump’s opposition.

Congress and Israel

Being the most authentic representative of the US constituency, both Congressional chambers reflect the special attitude by the American people toward the Jewish State since the 17th century’s Early Pilgrims. According to the 2018 annual Gallup poll of country-favorability, Israel benefits from a 74% favorability (71% in 2017). Israel is perceived as a special ally, morally and strategically, in a region with is vital to the US economy, national and homeland security.

For instance, in 1891 – six years before the First Zionist Congress – 431 top US personalities, including the Chief Justice, the House Speaker, additional Congressional leaders, Governors, Mayors and businessmen, signed the (William) Blackstone Memorial, calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel. In 1947/48, the State Department, Pentagon and CIA, along with the NY Times – in contradiction to public opinion and Congress - lobbied brutally against the establishment of the Jewish State. In 1957, leaders of the US Senate and House (led by then Senate Majority Leader LBJ) forced President Eisenhower to retreat from imposing sanctions on Israel (in an attempt to force an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza), but they were “outflanked” by Israel’s full withdrawal…. During 1990-1992, Congress (led by the late Senator Daniel Inouye – D-HI) expanded US-Israel strategic cooperation unprecedentedly, notwithstanding the systematic, aggressive opposition by President G.H. Bush and Secretary of State Jim Baker. In 2014, Congress thwarted President Obama’s attempt – during the Protective Edge war in Gaza - to withhold $225MN, which were committed to Israel’s acquisition of Iron Dome’s missiles.

The 400 year old roots of the special American attitude toward the Jewish State; the track record of Israel as a uniquely unconditional, reliable, effective ally, militarily, economically, scientifically and morally; as well as Israel’s role/potential in face of the mounting challenges and threats to the US and the Free World, provide for the sustained Congressional support of enhanced US-Israel strategic cooperation, in spite of the retirement of a relatively-large number of pro-Israel legislators, and the expected election of a few potentially-hostile new legislators.

The US public, in general, and the 2019 incoming Congress, in particular, will approach Israel, by and large, in accordance with Israel’s proven and potential contribution - to the US - in facing the threats of the anti-US Iran’s Ayatollahs; Sunni and Shite terrorism (from the Middle East to Latin America); and the need to bolster the pro-US Arab regimes, which have the Ayatollahs’ machete at their throats.

The incoming Congress will become, increasingly, aware of Israel’s proven capabilities(already benefitting the US and the pro-US Arab regimes) in the areas of intelligence, counter-terrorism, conventional warfare, counter-Cyber warfare, upgrading and developing military systems, groundbreaking hi-tech innovations, irrigation, agriculture, etc.

The November 2018 midterm election will produce the 116th Congress, which will determine the domestic and international maneuverability of President Trump, including US-Israel relations, which have been transformed from a one-way street to a mutually-beneficial, two-way street relations, increasingly benefitting the US militarily and economically.