Yehoshua – the Advantage of the Student

By HaRav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l

based on Siach Shaul, p. 420-421

Moshe did not merit to enter and capture Eretz Yisrael on behalf of the nation. His disciple, Yehoshua, about whom it is said, "the lad did not abandon the tent" (Shemot 33:11) did so instead. While Moshe’s sin caused this outcome, certainly it was set from beforehand that it would be Yehoshua who would bring the people in. (We will not get into the solution to the paradox of bechira and yediah (human choice and divine foreknowledge)).

Moshe’s failing is explained as follows: "Since you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me" (Bamidbar 20:12). The stated reason, a lack of belief which caused a lack of sanctification of Hashem’s Name is hard to understand in its simple meaning. After all, Moshe spoke to Hashem "face to face" on a level never before or after matched. What does it mean that he did not believe?

The Sabba MiNovordok (Madreigat Ha’adam, Birur Hamidot 6) explains that Moshe made a calculation stemming from his desire to sanctify Hashem’s Name. [He did not want to speak to the stone that Hashem selected out of fear that the people would say that it was a stone that had the natural powers to give water.] The mistake was that one never obtains sanctification of His Name by violating His word. The mistake stems from a person’s willingness to base his actions on his own reasoning. The spies made a similar mistake. They were afraid that the fulfillment of the mitzvot in the Land could not be done in the way it was in the desert.

Yehoshua, on the other hand, had a different position. He accepted matters with a "simple belief" without bringing into consideration the prospect of the divine word contradicting his intellectual calculations. This approach uses the strengths of being student-like. By this we mean being like a student who does not ask or investigate what he is told but accepts it with simple belief so that no possible idea can prevent him from carrying out the instructions without question. Yehoshua reached this level by being the "lad who did not abandon the tent."

The gemara says that the word "emunat (the belief of)" (Yeshaya 33:6) refers to the Talmudic Order of Zeraim (dealing with agricultural halacha). Conquest of the Land is related to Zeraim. This is where one requires belief, specifically simple belief without questioning. Therefore, if someone has any lacking in the correct type of belief even in the most subtle of ways, it is still a lacking that disqualifies him from conquering the Land.

The Red Heifer and Logic

By Rabbi Dov Berl Wein

The mitzva of the red heifer interrupts, so to speak, its narrative of the events that befell the Jewish people in the desert with the description of a commandment that admittedly has no rational human understanding in logical terms. Even the great King Solomon, the wisest and most analytical of all humans, was forced to admit that understanding this parsha of the Torah was beyond his most gifted intellect and talents.

If the Torah is meant to instruct us in life and its values, to improve and influence our behavior and lifestyle and to help us achieve our goal of being a holy people then why insert this parsha in the Torah when it can seemingly have no practical impact on our daily life or broaden our understanding of God’s omnipresence in our lives?

Though there is a section of Mishna devoted to the laws and halachic technicalities of the sacrifice of the "red cow" it does not deal with the underlying motives for the existence of this commandment and it also does not address why this parsha is inserted in the midst of the description of the events that occurred in the desert to the generation of Jews who left Egypt and stood at Mount Sinai.

We have historical record and description in the Mishna and from non-rabbinic sources as to the actual performance of the commandment in Temple times. This comes as a reminder of our necessary obeisance to God’s commandments even if they are not always subject to actual human understanding. Yet, some glimmer of comprehension is demanded by us to make this parsha meaningful to us.

I think that perhaps the Torah comes to point out the very fact that human life is in fact always irrational and that human behavior many times defies any logic or good sense. How could the generation that left Egypt and witnessed the revelation at Sinai complain about food when there was adequate Heavenly food? How could they prefer Egypt or the desert itself over living in the Land of Israel? And how could Moshe’s and Aharon’s own tribe and relatives rise against them in defiant and open rebellion?

Are these not basically incoherent and irrational decisions with a terrible downside to them? And yet they occurred and continue to recur constantly in Jewish and general life throughout history. In spite of our best efforts and our constant delusion that we exist in a rational world, the Torah here comes to inform us that that is a false premise.

If everyday life defies logic and accurate prediction then it is most unfair and in fact illogical to demand of Torah and God to provide us with perfect understanding of commandments and laws. The Torah inserts this parsha into the middle of its narrative about the adventures of the Jewish people in the desert to point out that the mysteries of life abound in the spiritual world just as they do in the mundane and seemingly practical world.

One of the great lessons of Judaism is that we are to attempt to behave rationally even if at the very same time, we realize that much in our personal and national lives is simply beyond our understating.

The Spirit Always Prevails (Parashat Chukat)

By HaRav Zalman Baruch Melamed 

Rosh HaYeshiva, Beit El

Dedicated to the speedy recovery of Asher Ishaayahu Ben Rivka

The Sages relate that Og king of the Bashan said: "What is the size of the Israelite Camp? Three square 'Parsaot' (Persian miles)." He then went and uprooted a mountain encompassing three square "Parsaot" with the intention of throwing it onto the Israelites. As he carried the stone above his head, the Almighty caused ants to come upon it, and they penetrated the mountain, until it fell on his head and became lodged on his neck. He wanted to pull it off, but its "teeth" (i.e., projecting sides) extended in each direction, as it is written: "You 'smash' the teeth of the wicked." Rather than reading it "smash" ("Shibarta"), read it "extended" ("Shirbavta"). Moses was ten cubits in height, yet, compared to Og, he was very short. What, then, did he do? He took a spear ten cubits in height, jumped ten cubits, struck Og in his ankle, and killed him.

This, then, is how the Talmud describes the confrontation between Moses and Og king of the Bashan. What we have here, of course, is an idea hidden in symbolism. Og believes that brute physical might is the determining factor in war, and that one who possesses such might is bound to triumph. Og was not perturbed by Israel's spiritual strength. Yet, he was defeated. Without values, it is impossible to succeed. The "teeth" of the mountain that extended in each direction symbolize inner division and defilement - power-struggles within the ranks of Og's army.

As a matter of fact, Og's placing the mountain on his head is what eventually brought about his death via the blow in his ankle. He fell, and the stone smashed his head. The spirit always triumphs. This is what our sages wished to tell us in this Midrash. Sometimes it takes time and is not visible to the eye, yet, in the end, spirit always prevails over matter. Matter deteriorates and passes. It is large and impressive but possesses no permanency. Spirit itself possesses degrees of potency. The highest degree is faith in the Almighty and His Law; the stronger this faith is, the more assured, speedy, and complete is victory.

Israel's first war after entering the Land of Israel was with Sichon, the King of Cheshbon. It is said of Rabbi Kook, zt"l, that when he traveled in the Diaspora and spoke about the importance of coming to live in the Land of Israel. People would respond by making calculations as to whether or not such a move would actually be feasible. The Rabbi explained that a Jew must immigrate to Israel with trustfulness and confidence. This is the reason, explained the Rabbi, that the King of "Cheshbon" - which means "calculation" in Hebrew - had to be defeated first.

In our Torah portion ("Chukat") the Jewish people have come a long way. The earlier battles, in which there had been great sanctification of God's name, have passed. The Children of Israel now find themselves opposite the Jordan, in a land that will become sanctified only after Israel has crossed over onto the Western side of the river. We find ourselves in a similar situation today. We already have a number of victories under our belt, but the battle is not yet over. The Torah lights our way, and we advance with complete confidence that all opposition will be crushed in the face of Israel's mighty faith - a faith that is growing ever stronger.

US pressure on Israel? No need to panic!

By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Can Israel afford to defy US presidential pressure to concede land, which is historically and militarily critical to the future of the Jewish State?

US presidential pressure has been an integral part of the US-Israel saga since 1948. However, in retrospect, US pressure on Israel has been based on erroneous assessments of the Middle East, failing to advance the cause of peace, as evidenced by the only two peace accords (between Israel and Egypt and Jordan), which were the result of direct Israeli initiatives, not US pressure.

In fact, US pressure on Israel has forced Arabs to outflank the US from the maximalist side, causing further setbacks to the peace process.

Furthermore, the outbursts of US pressure, over the last 69 years, have resembled bumps on the road of staggering, mutually-beneficial, defense, commercial, technological, scientific and agricultural US-Israel cooperation, which has exceeded expectations.

From 1948, US presidential pressure on Israel – in defiance of the majority of Americans and their representatives in the House and Senate – has reflected the worldview of the State Department bureaucracy, which has systematically misread the Middle East.

For example, in 1948, “The Wise Men” at the State Department opposed the establishment of the Jewish State, contending that Israel would be an ally of the USSR and would be crushed by the Arabs. In 1979, the State Department stabbed the back of the pro-US Shah of Iran and courted the anti-US Ayatollahs. In 1990, it considered Saddam Hussein a potential ally, unintentionally providing a “green light” for his invasion of Kuwait. In 1993, Foggy Bottom embraced Arafat as a messenger of peace, worthy of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. In 2011, it referred to the Arab Tsunami as the Arab Spring, transitioning toward democracy. In 2011, it turned its back on Egypt’s pro-US Mubarak, welcomed the rise to power of the anti-US Muslim Brotherhood, and in 2014, it turned a cold-shoulder toward the current pro-US Egyptian leader, General Sisi.

If Prime Minister Ben Gurion had succumbed to US pressure during 1948-49, he would not have established the Jewish State, nor asserted Israeli sovereignty over western (pre-1967) Jerusalem, significant parts of the Galilee and the Negev, laying the foundations for the most effective US beachhead in the Middle East.

If Prime Minister Eshkol had submitted to the 1967 US pressure, he would not have preempted the Soviet-backed Egypt-Syria-Jordan military assault, intended to annihilate Israel, as a prelude to the pro-Soviet Egyptian hegemony of the Arab World, toppling the pro-US Arab oil-producing regimes, and devastating the US national security and economy. Nor would Eshkol have reunited Jerusalem, which has allowed unprecedented free access to all holy religious sites in the city.

Contradicting the architects of US pressure on Israel, the defiance of US pressure since 1967 transformed Israel from a supplicant to a strategic partner of the US, bolstering the vulnerable pro-US Arab regimes, sparing the US the mega-billion-dollar requirement to expand its naval, air and land military presence in the Middle East, Indian Ocean, Red Sea and Mediterranean.

If Prime Minister Begin had surrendered to US pressure in 1981, he would not have ordered the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, which spared the US a traumatic 1990-91 confrontation with a nuclear Saddam Hussein.

If Prime Minister Shamir had acceded to US pressure, retreating from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), which dominate the 9-15-mile-wide “pre-1967 Israel,” he would have transformed Israel from a national security producer, extending the strategic hand of the US, into a national security consumer, a burden upon the US.

If Prime Minister Olmert had abided by US pressure, he would not have devastated the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, which would plague today’s global order with a nuclear Assad or nuclear ISIS.

If Prime Minister Netanyahu had not stood up to US pressure, allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state in the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, he would have triggered an anti-US chain-reaction in the region. This is evidenced by the Palestinian track record, which would have led to the toppling of the vulnerable Hashemite regime in Jordan, causing a ripple effect which would have destabilized all pro-US regimes in the neighboring Arabian Peninsula, upgrading the geo-strategic profile of Iran, Russia, China and possibly North Korea in the Middle East.

US presidential pressure of Israel has been an inherent, unavoidable leadership-litmus test for Israeli prime ministers, whose challenge has been to overcome – not to avoide - pressure, while adhering to core ideology and strategic goals. True leaders do not sacrifice deeply-rooted ideology and long-term national security on the altar of short-term, tenuous convenience (e.g., relief from US pressure). Leaders are aware that steadfastness and defiance of pressure may injure frivolous popularity, but enhance durable respect. Fending off – and not hesitancy and retreat in the face of - pressure, has advanced Israel’s posture of deterrence, thus moderating Arab aggression.

In the battle against Iran’s Ayatollahs and other Islamic terrorists, and in the attempt to bolster pro-US Arab regimes, the US prefers a defiant and not a vacillating Israel as an ally.

The assumption that Israeli prime ministers must bow to US pressure and commit to dramatic concessions - lest they severely undermine US-Israel relations – ignores precedents set by former Israeli prime ministers, and constitutes a poor excuse for weak Israeli leaders.

At the end of a 1991 meeting between Prime Minister Shamir and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, Senators George Mitchell and Bob Dole - which I attended and was replete with disagreements - the latter said: “Mr. Prime Minister, do you know why the Majority Leader and I absolutely disagree with you, but immensely respect you? Because you’re tough!”

Ignoring Middle East reality, US pressure on Israel has focused on the Palestinian issue, which has never been the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a core cause of regional turbulence and anti-US Islamic terrorism, nor a crown-jewel of Arab policy-making. Hence, the Israel-Jordan peace treaty and the recent enhancement of Israel-Saudi relations are totally independent of the Palestinian issue.

Will President Trump learn from past mistakes, by avoiding self-defeating pressure on Washington’s most reliable, effective, democratic and unconditional ally?

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu follow in the footsteps of Prime Ministers Ben Gurion, Eshkol, Golda Meir, Begin and Shamir, who generally defied US pressure – while expanding Jewish presence in Jerusalem and the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria - and therefore earned esteem, catapulting the national security of Israel and its strategic ties with the US to unprecedented heights?

Palestinians: Why Abbas Cannot Stop Funding Terrorists

By Bassam Tawil

• This is their way of expressing their gratitude to those who have chosen to "sacrifice" their lives by trying to murder Jews. It is also their way of encouraging young people to join the war of terrorism against Israel. The financial aid sends a specific message: Palestinians who are prepared to die in the service of murdering Jews need not worry about the welfare of their families.
• The more years a Fatah terrorist serves in Israeli prison, the higher the salary he or she receives. Some Fatah terrorists held in Israeli prison are said to receive monthly stipends of up to $4,000. Many of them are also rewarded with top jobs in both Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Why should any Palestinian go to university and search for a job when he can make a "decent living" murdering Jews?
• Such a plan to dry up the funds that support terrorists and their families, is doomed from the start unless these leaders reverse their behavior and embark on a process of de-radicalizing their people.

In his recent meeting with US presidential envoys Jason Greenblatt (left) and Jared Kushner (center) in Ramallah, an enraged Mahmoud Abbas (right) rejected their demand that he halt payments to terrorists and their families. (Photo by Thaer Ghanaim/PPO via Getty Images)

For the record, this is not a defense of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas or of funding terrorists. It is simply an explanation of what is taking place. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the idea of ending payments to Palestinian terrorists and their families is a challenging one, to say the least. Old habits, especially of hate, are hard to break.

The practice of paying salaries to terrorists and the families of "martyrs" is as old as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was founded in 1964. It did not start after the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1994. Nor did this practice start after Abbas was elected as president of the PA in January 2005.

Prior to the establishment of the PA, the PLO relied solely on Arab and Islamic financial aid to pay salaries to imprisoned terrorists and the families of those killed in terror attacks against Israel.

Continue Reading Article

Yishai Fleisher: The Birthday Show

The Jewish Power Drive: A Torah Thought for Parashat Korach

By Moshe Feiglin

And they gathered upon Moses and Aaron and they said to them, ‘It is too much for you, for all the congregation is holy and G-d is among them, and why should you lord over the congregation of G-d?’ (From this week’s Torah portion, Korach, Numbers 16:3).

Korach’s struggle against Moses and Aaron was the classic power struggle. A leader rises who is determined and delineates a goal. He is an exemplary role model and leads the people successfully. Nevertheless, some people are dissatisfied and question his authority. “Why should you lord over us?” Korach and his assembly ask Moses and Aaron. “True, you strive for a lofty goal, but your motivation is nothing more than power driven arrogance.” What is wrong with them? Didn’t they see what happened to the king of the only superpower in the world (Pharaoh) when he dared to defy Moses? What did they see that we can’t see?

The answer is simple. They didn’t see anything because they were blinded by the strongest of all human drives: the drive for power.

The uninitiated cannot understand this. A person who has not tasted the taste of power – someone for whom the safety catch on the power grenade has never been pulled – cannot comprehend just how strong this drive is. But people are willing to die for power; they are willing to kill their children and their wives to achieve it. The human race has experienced no stronger drive.

In order to ensure the continuity of life, the Creator embedded the drive for procreation in both humans and animals. And to ensure the continuity of human society, the Creator created an even stronger drive; the power drive. There is no society without leadership and few would be willing to assume the weight of the community on their shoulders without the motivation fostered by this drive. Without the drive for power, human society would return to a state of chaos.

Just as we cannot give birth without the drive to procreate, so we cannot lead without the drive for power. The challenge is not how to eliminate it, but rather, to serve G-d with all our hearts. In other words, to enlist both our good inclination – the aspiration for liberty and responsibility – and our evil inclination – the aspiration for power, to achieve our goals. The good inclination must lead and chart out the course, the framework and the rules, while the drive for power must provide the energies necessary to succeed.

Shabbat Shalom,

Chodesh Tov.

Taking Versus Giving

By HaRav Dov Begon
Rosh HaYeshiva, Machon Meir

This week’s parashah begins, “Korach took” (Numbers 16:1). Korach’s whole interest in life was in taking. He yearned to take the leadership away from Moses and Aaron. His legendary wealth was the result of taking. He pursued honor and desired to take it away from others, as reflected in his telling Moses and Aaron, “You have gone too far” (16:3), interpreted by Rashi as meaning: “You have taken far too much greatness for yourselves.” 

He generated controversies -- built upon insincere motives -- within the Jewish People, and these controversies brought tragedy upon himself, his family and his company: “The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their houses, along with all the men who were with Korach and their property” (16:32).

Moses, as opposed to Korach, was the embodiment of the trait of giving: “I did not take a single donkey from them” (16:16). He was humble, “more so than any man on the face of the earth” (13:3). When G-d sent him to lead Israel in their exodus from Egypt, Moses argued, “I beg you, O G-d, I am not a man of words... I find it difficult to speak and find the right language” (Exodus 4:10). Moses fled from honor, hence honor pursued him.

Right now, we must learn a lesson from the tragedy of Korach and his company. We must not be guided by selfish self-interest either on the personal or national level. Materialism must not stand at the center of our lives, since it leads to the moral breakdown of the individual and the community. Quite the contrary, we must yearn for and educate towards giving, towards altruism and morality, towards benefiting our fellow man, loving him and developing friendship with him.

It is true that we live in a materialistic generation: As Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook wrote:

“We have a tradition that spiritual rebellion will surface in Eretz Yisrael and among the Jewish People at large at the onset of their national rebirth. The material complacence which will beset part of the nation, thinking that they have already arrived at their final destination, will make them less spiritual... The longing for lofty, holy ideals will cease, and spirituality will automatically decline and wane” (Orot, page 94).

Yet the day is not far off when a revolution will transpire in the form of a great movement of repentance which will revive the nation and bring redemption to them and to the whole world. This will be the sort of repentance which stems “from the holy spirit which will proliferate then” (Ibid.). Through this, we will merit with our own eyes to see “a new light shining over Zion” (morning prayers).

Looking forward to complete salvation,
Shabbat Shalom.
Chodesh Tov.

My Conclusion from the Yemenite Children Horror

By Moshe Feiglin

Finally, most of the facts are on the table. Thousands of Yemenite children in Israel were abducted from their parents between 1948 and 1954. Some were sold to adoptive parents in Israel and abroad. Others were even used for medical experiments. On Wednesday, the government finally released some of the protocols regarding the affair, which has been covered up until now.

So now what do we do with the horrifying facts that were revealed? Will it help for state leaders who were not even born in those years to apologize to relatives of the abducted children who are too young to remember what happened? Even if we eventually learn all the hair-raising details, what can we do with the information? Where can we take it? How do we use it to create a formula that will prevent this type of evil from ever rearing its head here in the future? What is the principle that allowed it to happen and how can we eliminate it forever?

When Abraham was asked why he lied about his wife he answered, “There is no God in this place, and they will kill me.” When the government is centralized, when man decides that he is replacing God and takes the authority to run the life of another person – to decide where he will live, what he will believe, where he will work, how much he will earn, etc. – he will eventually also be willing to sacrifice that person’s body on the altar of some lofty ideology.

Where there is no God, there is no God’s image, either. And then there is no difference between man and dog, so why shouldn’t we perform some medical experiments on him? For the greater good, of course. Because where there is no God, the individual is nothing more than biological waste.

My conclusions from the Yemenite Children horror:

• To keep a healthy distance from centralized government. 
• To keep a healthy distance from any regime that attempts to control more and more pieces of the lives and liberty of its citizens. 
• To keep a distance, for example, from a regime that decides that it is fine to torture tens of young boys to produce “evidence” that over one year later has not led to one serious indictment (so that the “country won’t fall apart,” as Bennett justified this recent scandal). 
• To keep a distance from any regime that decides that it is fine to take biological samples from its citizens for biological marking – to enhance their security, of course. For the greater good, of course. 

Yes, I am talking about the recently passed Biometric Law.   That is how it begins…

Israelis Should Listen to Abbas – to Every Word

By Gadi Taub

Ha’aretz’s May 29 editorial was “Listen to Abbas.” I want to join this call. Listen very carefully. Abbas is very careful to use the term “two states,” but not “for two peoples.” Because the Jews are not a people in his eyes, the two states that Abbas refers to are a national Palestinian state and a country called Israel, to which “the refugees” eventually “will return.” Two countries will be west of the Jordan: one theirs and the other – also theirs.

Abbas knows from experience that it is sufficient to wrap this hostile position in a few terms that have a friendly ring – peace, harmony – so that well-meaning Israelis will hasten to interpret them according to their own wishes, ignoring everything else he says, allowing him to blur the fact that the Palestinians have refused every serious proposal put before them.

Last month, during his visit to India, Abbas spoke of the Nakba – an injustice that, in his words, “began over 100 years ago with the appearance of Zionism with its false vision….Our people will not leave behind the issue of the Nakba until all their legitimate national rights are recognized, without exception – and first and foremost, the right of return.”

If we begin to listen to Abbas, methodically and over time, we will discover that he is not preparing himself for any compromise. 

The writer is a senior lecturer in communications and public policy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Korah: The Impure Populist Charade

By Rav Yehuda HaKohen

“Koraḥ son of Yitzhar son of Kehat son of Levi separated himself, with Datan and Aviram, sons of Eliav, and On son of Pellet, the offspring of Reuven. They stood before Moshe, leaders of the assembly, those summoned for meeting, men of renown. They gathered together against Moshe and against Aharon and said to them, ‘It is too much for you! For the entire assembly – all of them – are holy and HaShem is among them; why do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of HaShem?’” (BAMIDBAR 16:1-3)

Koraḥ – a highly respected Levi and cousin of Moshe – brazenly accused two of history’s greatest leaders of covetously assuming chief positions and elevating themselves above the Children of Israel. In what appeared to be a gallant protest on behalf of the masses, Koraḥ portrayed the Kadosh Barukh Hu’s chosen shepherds as corrupt officials unworthy of their status.

But Koraḥ’s populist charade was impure. Equality does not necessitate uniformity and Koraḥ’s accusation that Moshe sought to create a hierarchal system to benefit his family over others ignores the distinct roles and functions within Am Yisrael. Any worthy examination of the special tasks within Israel necessitates starting not from the branches but from the actual tree and its roots. Each of us is a unique expression of the collective Israeli soul – Knesset Yisrael – that shines into our world through millions of Jews in space and time, each with a distinctive function within the greater Hebrew mission.

Rather than debate the actual roles and tasks of different tribes, it is important to first understand what Israel is, as well as our unique historic mission. Our equality does not result from being created identical but rather from the fact that we each have equally crucial functions and important roles to play as part of the greater Hebrew mission. Tribesmen of Yehuda cannot be priests and Kohanimcannot be kings. Disastrous consequences resulted from King Uzziah burning the ketoret in the Temple and the Hasmonean priests usurping the throne. Not because one role is superior to the other but because every unique part of the Israeli collective must serve the function he or she was Divinely created for.

A healthy attitude fosters the realization that we are each uniquely fashioned for a very specific purpose and one who tries to negate his or her unique function in an effort to usurp the roles of others will ultimately only miss out on the experience of fully expressing his or her true inner essence.

By posing as a champion of the people, Koraḥ endeavored to incite a mutiny meant to advance himself to power in place of Moshe. And worse – by rejecting the Divine selection of Moshe and Aharon, Koraḥ was in fact rejecting the Torah.

Koraḥ was accompanied in his attempted coup d'état by a number of esteemed national leaders, securing for his campaign a stamp of legitimacy. One of his followers, however, appears conspicuously absent from the narrative following his initial introduction.

On son of Pellet had been one of the original leaders of the attempted mutiny yet he is not mentioned in the later confrontations or in the consequences that follow. The Sages teach (Sanhedrin 109b) that On’s righteous wife successfully persuaded her husband to withdraw from Koraḥ’s group. She said, “What do you have to gain from this? Even if Koraḥ is successful, he will be the High Priest and you will serve him as you currently serve Moshe and Aharon.” She then prevented Koraḥ from coaxing her husband back into the feud by sitting with her head uncovered outside her family tent. As a Hebrew man, Koraḥ would not permit himself to see a married woman’s hair and, as a result, gave up on the idea of recruiting On back to his inner circle. Due to her wise intervention and willingness to publicly shame herself by exposing her naked hair, On’s wife saved her husband from harm and protected her family from terrible catastrophe.

That we do not even know the name of On’s wife is itself a great testament to her modesty and complete identification with the Hebrew collective. Throughout our history, women have often been the source of Israel’s true inner strength. While the spotlight in Scripture generally shines on male figures, many of these heroes are only able to achieve greatness due to the loyal support and self-sacrifice of their wives. Daughters of Israel, who modestly work behind the scenes as silent partners to their husbands, often shy away from honor while providing support and encouragement from the home. The story of On is a perfect example of a man whose righteous wife was able to think clearly and take decisive action for the sake of her family and the entire Hebrew Nation.

Unlike Koraḥ’s wife, whose endless nagging and belittling of her husband had actually provoked his seditious behavior in the first place, On’s wife heroically brought her husband back from the brink of self-destruction. With a wisdom and determination so typical of Hebrew women, she succeeded in keeping On away from meaningless conflict while building a strong Torah home on the foundations of HaShem’s Truth.


With Love of Israel,
Yehuda HaKohen

Holy and Secular in the Redemption of Yisrael

Rav Uri Sherki
Yeshivat Machon Meir
Kehilat Beit Yehuda, Y'lem

The national rejuvenation of the Yisrael, which was expressed in a practical manner by the existence of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel, encompasses many different levels, which can be divided into two categories: bringing the secular to life and bringing the holy to life. Rejuvenation of the secular includes returning to all of the realms that we were unable to develop during the bitter days of the exile. This includes political, economic, and military existence, as well as our own culture and the arts.

In the early days of Zionism, religious people objected to having the Zionist Congress concern itself with culture and religion, fearing that this might inhibit cooperation between different sectors of the nation and interfere with achieving the desired political goal of establishing a viable country. Rav Kook was opposed to this approach, and he felt that it was not possible to have an authentic national awakening without a corresponding cultural rejuvenation. This means that it is necessary to become involved in culture in spite of the danger that this might force us to struggle in order to form its proper characteristics (Igrot Re’iyah, 158).

And what constitutes holy rejuvenation? We might have thought that it would consist of returning to traditional religious behavior, which is concerned only with the spiritual fate and the happiness of each individual and not with political rejuvenation – that is, that the nonreligious sector would repent and begin to observe the mitzvot. However, while it is certainly important for every Jew to observe all of the mitzvot, that is not the main focus of the “holy” rejuvenation.

The holy without the secular is weak, and it does not have the power to lift up the lives of the community and of all humanity. Secular living itself contains hidden within it a power of holiness which could not break through during the exile, the “sanctity of nature.” This will be revealed by the process of redemption (see Orot, page 45, and Orot Hakedusha Section 2, 23). This leads us to the conclusion that rejuvenation of the secular is in itself a form of renewal of sanctity and not merely a preliminary step towards the goal.

The denial by religious people of the value of the rebirth of the secular and the view of participation in the Zionist enterprise as a dangerous adventure which is liable to exact too high a price while at the same time raising the banner of religious isolation – all this will lead holiness to become weaker, since it cannot stand alone without the vitality of the secular life. Rav Kook writes:

“In religious circles on the other hand (that is: as opposed to the drying up of the holy sources by the academic secular sector), this can lead to a weakening of force, because of a lack of the secular influence... We must therefore reveal the program of unified spiritual force, since this is our unique secret which will never be revealed to any other nation.” [Igrot Har’iyah, 748].

Religious holiness, which Rav Kook describes as “regular holiness,” is no more than one aspect of true exalted holiness. Exposing the exalted form of holiness, which operates in all realms of life and appears in all its perfection through the combination of the various identities that make up the public face of Yisrael - religion, nationalistic feeling, and a cosmopolitan outlook (see Orot, pages 70-72) - is the mission of the generation of rejuvenation.

“I did not Take One Donkey from Them”

By HaRav Mordechai Greenberg

Rosh HaYeshiva, Kerem B'Yavneh

Datan and Aviram accused Moshe of some very serious faults, such as not keeping his promise to bring the people to a land of milk and honey. An even worse accusation was that he took on himself to become “a ruler over us.” [Bamidbar 16:13]. From Moshe’s reply, we can see what they claimed: “I did not take one donkey from them” [16:15]. As Rashi notes, “Even when I went from Midyan to Egypt and put my wife and son on a donkey – when I could have taken one of their donkeys, I only took one of mine.”

Moshe, our first leader, teaches us how to lead the public. This is also what the profit Shmuel said near his death: “Now, behold, answer me before G-d and before his anointed one – whose ox did I take, whose donkey did I take, whom did I defraud, whom did I oppress?” [Shmuel I 12:3, from this week’s Haftorah]. Shmuel’s behavior and his wariness of taking any physical benefits were evidently part of the education he received from his mother.

In the beginning of the book of Shmuel, we are told, “And his mother made him a little coat which she brought to him from year to year” [Shmuel I 2:19]. Evidently the verse is trying to contrast this behavior with what we are told about the corrupt customs of the sons of Eli, who took advantage of their high positions for their own personal benefit. The late Chanan Porat correctly wrote that this little act of giving Shmuel his own personal coat was an act of defiance against the behavior of the sons. It was as if she said: “My son will not benefit from public property, he will not wear a coat that was bought from public funds, even if in a formal sense this would be permitted. My son will not make use of ‘a grandiose government vehicle, added pay for clothing, or free electricity.’ He will not strike to improve his physical benefits. My son will wear his own little coat.”

I remember when I was very young, when an electric refrigerator was still considered a luxury, somebody advertised that he had a refrigerator to sell. Paula Ben Gurion, the wife of the Prime Minister, called the man and asked about the terms. The two of them settled all the details. However, a few hours later she phoned the man to call the deal off, since David Ben Gurion refused to let her buy the refrigerator. He said thst most of the people were still using ice boxes, “and what is good for everybody else is good for us too.”

It is written in the Tosefta about the era of the Second Temple that the people “loved their money.” The Natziv explains that the main problem was with the leaders of the nation, adding, “And this evil inclination is still extant among us.”

You Say You Want a Revolution

By Rabbi Ari Kahn

The time was ripe for a power grab: The frightful report of the spies and the unequivocal sentence handed down were still ringing in the peoples’ ears; the Promised Land never seemed farther away. The strategy was simple: Foment unrest, and stage a takeover. The tactics employed were cynical: Collect the disheartened, and create the facade of a united opposition. The message was populist: “All the people are holy.” (B’midbar 16:3). The results were disastrous: Death and even greater despair. The leader of this uprising was none other than Moshe’s own cousin, Korach.

What may have seemed like a unified revolt was more like a chimera, an impossible confederation between Korach, from the tribe of Levi, a trio of Reuvenites, and a larger group of other men, presumably all firstborn sons who, like the Reuvenites, considered themselves wrongly displaced priests: Until very recently, it would have been the firstborn sons who would have been the kohanim,religious and political leaders who served God in the newly-built Mishkan. Members of the tribe of Reuven, the eldest of Yaakov’s sons, as well as the firstborn sons of other families, forfeited this honor through poor judgment and sin; the Levites were appointed in their stead.

Korach was both power-hungry and an opportunist; in addition, he was a first class manipulator. He was well aware of the heartfelt disappointment of those who had been passed over, and set out to use it to his advantage. In what may have seemed an act of historic reconciliation, he, a member of one of the most illustrious families of the very tribe that had displaced the firstborn, reached out to form a coalition with them. As the new kohanim, and the stewards of the Mishkan, the Levites were more than simply those chosen to replace the firstborn who had sinned; they were actually complicit in what Korach must have described as Moshe’s greatest act of “infamy,” his call to wipe out the perpetrators of the sin of the golden calf. Foremost among those perpetrators were the firstborn; the people who sprang into action and carried out Moshe’s order to kill the sinners were from the tribe of Levi – arguably, even Korach himself had taken sword in hand. To make matters even worse, Korach pointed out, there was one guilty party in the golden calf debacle who had gotten off “scot free:” Moshe’s brother Aharon seems to have benefitted unduly from his family connections; Aharon, then, was the weak link on Moshe’s team.

Korach argues that the firstborn, despite their sin, are still holy. This statement, coming from a member of the privileged clan of Levi, had tremendous impact on those who felt wronged. Charmed by his words and seduced by his apparent sincerity and empathy for their loss, two hundred and fifty men mobilized to shore up Korach’s rebellion.

Yet the two other heads of this three-headed monster cannot be easily reconciled with one another. If Korach himself will become the new high-priest, how does this help the three Reuvenites who stood shoulder to shoulder with Korach? If they are to reclaim the role of the kohanim for their tribe, where does that leave the firstborn sons of the other tribes?

The person who saw through the deception and realized that Korach’s words were no more than demagoguery was the wife of one of the original conspirators, On, son of Pelet - a man who is not only a hapax legomenon but a complete mystery in terms of his disappearance. As the rebellion takes shape, Korach bands together with Datan and Aviram, sons of Eliav, and On son of Pelet - all from the tribe of Reuven. And yet, as the rebellion unfolds, On seems to vanish. In the final act, all the other co-conspirators perish, while On is never heard from again.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 109b-110a) fills in the details of On’s disappearance, and identifies On’s wife as the heroine of this cautionary tale. On’s wife sees that Korach is taking advantage of the feelings of guilt, frustration and loss that are running rife among the firstborn men. She understands immediately that Korach is making cynical use of their anguish, and using them as pawns in his own game. She understands that although Korach, too, feels he has been slighted, allowing him to feign empathy for the others, he will not hesitate to cast his allies aside when his own desires are fulfilled. She sees that the endgame is poorly conceived and unrealistic; the chimera really has only one head, and that is Korach; the others are being played. Mrs. On spells it out for her idealist husband: “You will never be the leader. You have only one choice to make: Will you follow Moshe, or Korah?” “My ‘comrades’ will soon be here to collect me, so that we may march together in protest,” he worries. She gives him a drink, puts him to bed, and says, “I will take care of this.”

Knowing that the battle cry of this revolution is “Everyone is holy,” (16:3) she stands at the entrance to their tent and brushes her uncovered hair. The other rebels arrive; upon seeing a married woman’s uncovered hair, they quickly turn around and walk away rather than cast their eye on such immodesty. These “holy” people were willing to rebel against Moshe, to slander Aharon, to cast aspersions on those chosen by God Himself, and to undermine the faith of the entire nation – but they were not willing to look at a married woman’s hair.

This Talmudic passage gives full expression to Korach’s manipulation and to the tragic gullibility of his followers. Korach convinces them that they are as holy, if not more holy, than Moshe and Aharon. He convinces them that they should be the ones to don the clothing of the kohen. He convinces them to take incense in hand and approach the Mishkan – despite the fact that even bona fide kohanim who brought incense when not specifically commanded to do so had perished in the Sanctuary. And like Nadav and Avihu, the 250 faux-kohanim perish. Korach, Datan and Aviram, who sent their duped followers to their deaths, do not make that mistake. They never put on the clothing of the kohen, nor do they bring incense; they know what the consequences will be.

In fact, for these three men, the entire charade had very little to do with holiness; that was merely the bait they used to lure in their supporters. For Korach, Datan and Aviram, the rebellion had been about leverage and power from the very start. They hoped that Moshe would retire in order to preserve unity. They expected that this modest, selfless public servant would retreat, and take Aharon with him.

Korach, Datan and Aviram had a very different agenda than the other participants in the rebellion, and different fates awaited them. The two hundred and fifty men who joined Korach in a desperate and misguided attempt to serve God had been led astray by a man who sought glory, power, honor – not holiness. This naïve but misguided group truly sought holiness, and like Nadav and Avihu, they were consumed by a fire that came from God. They departed in a blaze, like a sacrifice on the altar. Korach, Datan and Aviram, on the other hand, sunk into ignominy. They fell into a never-ending abyss.

Only one of the conspirators lived through this episode: On, the son of Pelet, was saved by his wife’s keen insight and decisive action. She understood Korach’s strategy, and saw through his tactics. She understood the tragic, warped piety of the firstborn men who joined the rebellion, men who saw themselves as holier than Aharon, holier even than Moshe - so holy that they could be stopped in their tracks by a few strands of hair.

Illiberal Left Attacks Christian Zionists, Again

By Ari Morgenstern

IfNotNow protesters disrupt a Boston Red Sox baseball game on June 13. 

Photo: IfNotNow via Twitter.

JNS.org – Every few years, a young far-left activist discovers Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and they are appalled. The idea of conservative Evangelicals advocating for the Jewish state runs counter to every prejudice about Christians the young advocate was raised to harbor. So the individual scours the internet, desperately hunting for that one item that will confirm their bigotry. And when they come up dry, they ignore, tinker with or amend the facts because they cannot confront a simple reality: They are intolerant of Evangelical Christians.

The latest example of this pattern is provided to us by Benjamin Koatz, who authored an op-ed in the Forward demonizing Christian supporters of Israel in an effort to justify the decision of his group, IfNotNow, to disrupt a pro-Israel church event. The piece does not discuss real policy disagreements with CUFI, but it makes painfully clear just how far gone are the author and his cohorts.

As part of the effort to denigrate CUFI founder and chairman John Hagee, Koatz links to a video produced by the organization We Hold These Truths. On Koatz’s own blog he notes that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) described We Hold These Truths as a “conspiracy-oriented anti-Semitic group.”

It’s not surprising that Koatz finds common cause with the darkest fringe groups on the internet since he believes, “This far-right Evangelical Zionist dominion still reads to me like political conspiracy theory.” Nor is it surprising that Koatz’s attack was published by the Forward which has an unfortunate history in this context.

While not relying on antisemites to substantiate his other claims, the rest of Koatz’s assertions are equally absurd. We’ve heard them all before, and they’ve all been discredited.

For example, Koatz argues that CUFI’s members and Hagee are antisemites. The opposite, of course, is true. And on the specific assertion regarding Hagee’s sermon on the Book of Jeremiah, that issue was closed nearly a decade ago. In fact, at the matter’s conclusion the ADL wrote a letter to Hagee noting, “We are grateful that you have devoted your life to combating anti-Semitism and supporting the state of Israel.”

In addition, Koatz also goes to great lengths to argue that Christian Zionism is motivated by eschatology. This anti-Christian stereotype has been debunked in a variety of outlets including New York Magazine. In fact, in 2011 Hagee noted the following in the very same outlet that published Koatz’s appalling accusations:

The vast majority of Christian Zionists and Evangelicals do not believe there is anything we can do to hasten the second coming of Jesus. Our theology is clear that we humans are utterly powerless to change God’s timetable. Yes, like many Jews we do believe that the creation of Israel was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. And like our Jewish friends we also search the scriptures to understand what may come next in God’s plans for His creation. But since we are powerless to change these plans, our motives for standing with Israel come from elsewhere.

It’s plain to see that Koatz is dishonest and misguided. But what is far more troubling is that he and his group behave as if Christian Zionists do not deserve the same basic decency accorded to all other people groups.

Reasonable individuals can disagree without behaving unreasonably. Groups like Americans for Peace Now, which often disagree with CUFI’s policy positions, make their case without demonizing Christian Zionists. And CUFI discusses policy on a regular basis with those who hold a different worldview. CUFI has met with leaders that span the political spectrum, from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to Vice President Mike Pence. At times we disagree and at others we find common ground, but never do we denigrate or demonize.

I’m not sure if Koatz and his group genuinely want to effect policy or if they are simply interested in making a spectacle, but either way, barging into a church sanctuary and advancing anti-Christian stereotypes is simply beyond the pale.

Ari Morgenstern is the communications director for Christians United for Israel.

Ahead of Upcoming Britney Spears Concert in Israel, El Al Flight Attendants Lip-Sync US Pop Star’s Hit Song ‘Toxic’

(Ed. Note: Can't decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing)

On the 55th Anniversary of Our Aliyah

BS”D 

Parashat Korach 5777
By HaRav Nachman Kahana

The Gemara (Bava Batra 74a) informs us that the place where Korach and his followers are being held under ground completes a monthly cycle that brings them near the surface, and they cry out:
משה אמת ותורתו אמת והן בדאין
Moshe is true and his Torah is true and they (Korach and his followers) are liars.

My life too revolves around a cycle, although a daily one. Every morning upon awakening, I recite “Modeh Ani”, and thank HaShem for implanting me and my family in Eretz Yisrael – even after 55 years.

On the 26th of Sivan, Tuesday of this week, my wife and I will celebrate our 55th year since aliyah – 55 incredible years during which we witnessed, and in some way had a part in, the miraculous trek of our nation from galut punishment to Hashem’s embrace and call to Am Yisrael to return home.

Our target time for aliya was June 1962. In December 1961, we were on the east side of Manhattan and passed Ochs Trading Co., the supplier of products for people making aliya. I said to Feiga, “Let’s go in and make our purchases”. She replied, “You mean it’s real?” I answered, “Very real. Here it begins.”

Mr. Ochs greeted us warmly. We bought a fridge, stove and other appliances compatible with the electric current of Israel. We gave the date when we wanted the items to arrive at the then-existing port in Tel Aviv.

As we were arranging the delivery, a couple came to the store to pay for their purchases and Mr. Ochs introduced us. He said that they were from Argentina and were leaving that night for the Bror Chail kibbutz in the northern Negev. I told them how much I envied them.

Six months later, on the morning of our departure, I went to Mr. Ochs to make our last payment. While there, a couple came in to make their purchases for Israel. Mr. Ochs told them that I was leaving that night for Israel. They said to me, “How we envy you.” I answered, “I know the feeling.”

I left the store and the East Side where I had learned for five years in the Rabbi Ya’akov Yosef Yeshiva. I went down into the subway with the joyous feeling that I would most likely never see this place again.

That night, friends and relatives gathered at the airport. The experience was like that expressed by Juliet to Romeo, “Parting is such sweet sorrow.” We were sorry to leave family, but that feeling was obscured by the sweetness of a dream come true.

Undoubtedly, leaving one’s parents and family is distressing, in fact, departing from family was one of Avraham’s tests.

By the time of my aliyah, I had already realized that every Jew is a world onto himself, and HaShem expects each of us to fulfill his personal commitment to the ideals of the Torah and to Am Yisrael in Hashem’s Promised Land.

During the years when I taught at BMT (Bet Midrash LeTorah), students would ask me why rabbis remain in the galut if aliya was imperative to Judaism?

I would reply that human beings are born one by one and that even identical twins emerge one by one.

We live essentially one by one. If your head hurts, your mother or wife can give you an aspirin, but it is your head that hurts. In the normal course of events, we die and are buried one by one, and we present an accounting of our deeds before the Almighty one by one. In the world to come, the religious leaders who are now in voluntary galut will have to justify their actions. However, their rationalizations are not yours.

Before we were married, Feiga and I had agreed that we would live our lives in Eretz Yisrael. It was our hope that eventually our parents and family would join us; but even if not, our decision was set in stone and only HaShem could prevent our aliya.

The PA system called for all passengers on the El Al flight to Tel Aviv to make their way to the aircraft.

We said our farewells and parted from the group as we began walking in the night air towards the “eagle” that would take us out of “Egyptian” bondage to freedom in the Jewish homeland.

Our family and friends stood on the overlook where we could see each other as we ascended the stairs to the plane. My most vivid recollection is of my father waving to us.

The plane was a Boeing 707; three seats on each side separated by an isle; tiny in comparison to today’s aircraft.

We had never flown before, so Tehillim were recited very fervently. The plane taxied slowly towards the runway. The engines roared and the plane gained speed as it lifted off over Long Island. Very quickly we were veering left, northward over the ocean. We landed in Paris and then in Rome. Upon takeoff from Rome, the pilot announced that the next landing would be in Tel Aviv. We flew over the eastern Mediterranean as Cyprus slowly disappeared from sight.

It was another two hours before the shoreline of Tel Aviv appeared. The city was quite small, and the desert could be seen not far to the south.

The plane circled to make its approach from the east. It passed over farmland that today is covered with high-rise buildings. It descended, and we finally felt the wheels firmly on the ground. All the passengers began clapping, as Israeli melodies played in the background. I was told that only on flights to Israel do passengers clap on arrival.

The plane came to a halt, the doors opened and I took my first deep breath of the אוירא דישראל – the air of Eretz Yisrael – that is said to make one wise.

We disembarked. Walked four steps on the holy land insuring our place in Gan Eden, and fell on our knees to kiss the ground. Never did I feel as tall as in those few moments when I was prone on the earth of Eretz Yisrael.

The following is a short excerpt from my forthcoming autobiography:

It was the 25th of Sivan in the year 5722 (the 24th year of my life). My wife Feiga and I left from two thousand years of exile to return home to Eretz Yisrael.

As I descended the stairs of my parent’s apartment in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, New York, on the trip to the airport to begin the greatest odyssey of our lives, I looked back at what had been my home for over twenty years. My parents, Harav Yechezkel Shraga and Sara Chana Kahana, were the Rav and Rebbetzin of the community. In their home, I was privileged to see the living Torah applied to many communal and personal matters – marriage, divorce, conversion, financial and social disputes.

“How many challenges will we experience and how many dangers will we endure before I see this special home again?” I asked myself.

I entered the car and drove to the end of the street. My jacket, I left it on the porch. Four left turns and in less than two minutes, I was again standing in front of the house. I ran up the stairs and heard a voice deep within me. “Nachman, you long so much for your home. Go back. Medinat Yisrael will get along just fine without you. A Jew returning to Eretz Yisrael does so with pride and gratitude to Hashem for the privilege. He does not look back.”

I ran down the stairs without looking back.

To this day, we have never looked back.

Shabbat Shalom,
Nachman Kahana
Copyright © 5777/2017 Nachman Kahana

Rav Kook on Parashat Korach: Holiness in the Midst of the Community

By Rabbi Chanan Morrison

The Need For a Minyan

Judaism has an interesting concept called a minyan, a prayer quorum. Special prayers sanctifying God’s name (such as the kedushah and kaddish prayers) may only be said when ten men are present. An individual may pray in solitude, but without a minyan, certain parts of the liturgy must be omitted.

The Talmud derives the requirement for a prayer quorum from God’s declaration, “I will be sanctified in the midst of the Israelites” (Lev. 22:32). What exactly does the word ‘midst’ mean?

We find the word ‘midst’ used again when God warned the people living nearby the dissenters in Korach’s rebellion: “Separate yourselves from the midst of this eidah (community)” (Num. 16:20). From here, the Sages learned that God is sanctified within an eidah.

And what is the definition of eidah? The Torah refers to the ten spies who brought a negative report of the Land of Israel as an eidah ra’ah, an evil community (Num. 14:26). So we see that God is sanctified in a community of at least ten members.

The requirement for a prayer quorum, and the way it is derived, raises two issues that need to be addressed:

• Prayer appears to be a private matter between the soul and its Maker. Why should we need a minyan of ten participants in order to pray the complete service?
• Why is the requirement for a minyan derived precisely from two classic examples of rebellion and infamy - the spies and Korach?

Perfecting the Community

Holiness is based on our natural aspirations for spiritual growth and perfection. However, the desire to perfect ourselves - even spiritually - is not true holiness. Our goal should not be the fulfillment of our own personal needs, but rather to honor and sanctify our Maker. Genuine holiness is an altruistic striving for good for its own sake, not out of self-interest.

The core of an elevated service of God is when we fulfill His will by helping and uplifting society. Therefore, the kedushah (sanctification) prayer may not be said in private. Without a community to benefit and elevate, the individual cannot truly attain higher levels of holiness.

This special connection between the individual and society is signified by the number ten. Ten is the first number that is also a group, a collection of units forming a new unit. Therefore, the minimum number of members for a quorum is ten.

Learning from Villains

Why do we learn this lesson from the wicked? It is precisely the punishment of the wicked that sheds light on the reward of the righteous. If the only result of evil was that the wicked corrupt themselves, it would be unnecessary for the law to be so severe with one who is only hurting himself. However, it is part of human nature that we influence others and are influenced by our surroundings. Unfortunately, evil people have a negative influence on the entire community, and it is for this reason that they are punished so severely.

Understanding why the wicked are punished clarifies why the righteous are rewarded. Just as the former are punished principally due to their negative influence on the community, so too, the reward of the righteous is due primarily to their positive influence. Now it becomes clear that true holiness is in the context of the organic whole. And the kedushah prayer sanctifying God’s Name may only be recited in a minyan, with a representative community of ten members.

(Gold from the Land of Israel (now available in paperback), pp. 258-260. Adapted from Ein Eyah vol. I, p. 104.)

Of Lies and Alternatives: An open Letter to HaRav Zalman Baruch Melamed and Ketzeleh

By Jason Gold

(Ed. note: Within several days of each other last week, articles appeared on INN written by or containing information from HaRav Melamed or Ketzeleh about how the government lied to them about new housing construction and what alternatives exist).

Dear HaRav Melamed and Ketzeleh:

I have read your recent articles/op eds on INN last week and thought I could offer some insights.

HaRav Melamed, you are a tremendous talmud chacham and Rosh HaYeshiva in Beit El. Your shiurim show depth and I look forward to them on a weekly basis.  But are you really so surprised that the government would lie to you? I can only conclude that because you are a tzaddik, an ish emes (man of truth) and a yashar (upright) person, that you assume, dan l'caf zechut (judging someone for the best), that the people sitting across from you and promising housing must be honorable as well.  To your way of thinking, they would never lie when it comes to doing what's best for the land and the people. But as you have unfortunately found out, they do lie and quite regularly when it suits them. They don't care about you at all except for one period of time; i.e. election time.  Then they will say anything and promise everything in order to get your vote.  

Ketzeleh, you are a war hero and a wonderful person whom I have admired and respected as you have practically built Beit El with your bare hands.  And you at least have it half right. You identify the problem of Beit El being similar to a battered spouse who takes abuse over and over again and does nothing about it.  You even attempt to identify a solution but again you become that battered spouse and fail miserably.  You identify four other secular candidates in Likud as possible replacements for Netanyahu. Seriously? Do you really believe that any of them, once in power will be any better than Bibi right now? As I mentioned above, they will promise much and deliver nothing.  And I find it equally fascinating that you did not mention Naftali Bennett or Uri Ariel in your candidate wish list. Both are wonderful, good-hearted Gd-fearing people but utterly useless in changing the status quo as they have demonstrated with their failure on Amona and the current housing freeze.

The late great Adir Zik, zt"l, once told me the following when I asked him why the religious zionist settlers don't back someone like Moshe Feiglin.  He said the religious zionist settlers as a group have a built-in inferiority complex and don't believe that someone who looks like them (i.e. a kippa-wearing observant Jew) can ever become PM of Israel.  Also, someone like that would never be acceptable to the goyim. So, content to be second class citizens in their own land, they back failed secular messiah after failed secular messiah, who all have 12 hour planning horizons as Ketzeleh is proposing. And yet Feiglin along with his Zehut party is the ONLY potential PM candidate that actually has a written documented plan to lead the country.  

Gentlemen, it is well past time to realize that failed policies and attitudes are why Beit El and the other settlements are still just settlements and not immovable cities with non-transferable populations like Modi'in and Ma'aleh Adumim.  It is time to realize that only faith-based leadership and not some poseur secular messiah will help not only you but also the other neglected people who get only lip service at election time, like the hungry in J'lem and other cities, the terrified elderly in South Tel Aviv, the drug addict in Be'er Sheva, et al. It goes on and on.  

Continuing on this path is more than just wrong, or battered wife syndrome. It is insanity and as we know the apocryphal definition of insanity as given by Einstein is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".  

A House Full of Sefarim and a Fully Blue Garment

By HaRav Shaul Yisraeli, zt"l

Korach came with two claims against Moshe (Bamidbar Rabba 18:3): Could a house full of holy books require a mezuza? Could a garment that was fully techelet (a shade of blue used in the strings of tzitzit) require tzitzit? Indeed there are two types of complaints that we have been dealing with, generation after generation, and they have broken Israel into splinters and caused discord.

The house full of sefarim is referring to great G-d-fearing Torah scholars, for whom Torah is everywhere they turn and do not go anywhere without being in its proximity. These "holy houses," because of their great connection to Torah, may not feel the value that a little parchment could have, when in truth its great contribution comes from its position at the entrance and exit of the house. These guard Israel at the time they are involved in important affairs. This is a metaphor for the little hints of Torah values, which are found everywhere: in a religious school, in a religious agricultural settlement, in a kibbutz, in classes for youth, in a place where responsible sports are being played without desecrating Shabbat. Each one may be a small thing, but just like a physical mezuza, their location gives them surprisingly great value.

There is also an opposite mistake. People think that a "garment of techelet" can do fine without tzitzit. This can refer to the productiveness and pleasures of life. One is tempted to think that it is enough to infuse simple things with significant content. Indeed, the Chatam Sofer (Sukka 36a) said that working the land in Eretz Yisrael is equal to putting on tefillin because the mundane that is connected to sanctity can be holy itself. Is it so, then, that if the whole garment is techelet, you do not need extra tzitzit (i.e., specifically religious activities)? And if you attach tzitzit, you certainly should not require techelet in the tzitzit! The excitement with the content of the garment (i.e., the totality of life in Israel) takes away from the excitement with specific religious acts.

This too is a mistake. For example, even if the whole nation is holy, Aharon is the "holy of holies" (see Divrei Hayamim I, 23:13). If work in Israel is holy, then activities that would be holy outside Eretz Yisrael are holy of holies in Eretz Yisrael. If plowing is like wearing tefillin, then putting on tefillin is certainly like putting on tefillin! The relative difference between the mundane and holy activities remains the same, just that everything is elevated in Israel. If one does not sense this, then he is like a person who approaches the Temple and desecrates its sanctity (see Bamidbar 17:28).