HaRav Nachman Kahana: From Moshe to Moshe

BS”D
Parashat Shemot 5779
by HaRav Nachman Kahana

At age eighty, after many years of filling important, responsible, royal positions in the Egyptian government, Moshe set out from the palace to see what was happening in those regions far removed from the capital. He saw an Egyptian taskmaster smiting a Hebrew slave. Moshe was seized with wrath and killed the Egyptian.

Why was Moshe shocked by the sight of an Egyptian smiting a Jew? Did he not know that millions of Jews were being beaten daily?

If Moshe believed that he behaved properly in killing the Egyptian, why did he not bring the matter before Pharaoh, instead choosing to flee the country?

Was it just a “coincidence” that Moshe found himself in Yitro’s home?

In the miraculous episode of the burning bush that is not consumed, our sages say that for seven days and seven nights HaShem commanded Moshe to return to Egypt and Moshe refused. Is that possible?

How did it happen that Moshe could come and go from Pharaoh’s palace as he pleased? What is more, how could it be that Moshe severely rebuked Pharaoh in an insulting manner, yet Pharaoh did not lift a finger to punish him?

In Moshe’s first encounter with Pharaoh on his return from Midian, he warned Pharaoh: “I have told you to let My son go and serve Me. If you refuse to let him leave, I will [ultimately] kill your own first-born son” (Shemot 4:23). Yet isn’t it a fact that Pharaoh had no first-born son, but only a daughter, Bitya?

I suggest:

Moshe’s name from birth was Tuvia, but HaShem chose to call him Moshe, which means, “drawn out of the water”, as a hint to Moshe that he had been born to remove the Israelites from Egypt, but not to enter or bring the Jewish People into the Promised Land.

Moshe, as Pharaoh’s adopted son, was heavily ensconced in Egyptian culture. He had studied in excellent military and civilian academies and knew all the “right people” in Egypt.

We can assume that Amram and Yocheved had not been given visitation rights to teach Moshe HaShem’s Torah as it had been received from Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya’akov. Moshe was brought up as the beloved son of Bitya, and many in Pharaoh’s court were probably aware of his Hebraic background.

Out of his love for Moshe, Pharaoh had distanced him from the harsh reality of the Egyptian regime enslaving millions of Jews under heinous conditions. He had further appointed Moshe to run “his household” so Moshe would concentrate totally on the palace and royal court and not on what was happening outside. According to the Midrash, Moshe served in many positions even outside Egypt.

Between Shemot 2:10, in which Bitya adopts Moshe as a son, and the very next verse, in which Moshe “is grown and begins to go out to his own people,” spotting the Egyptian smiting the Israelite, are eighty years that the Torah conceals. We do not know what happened to Moshe during those formative years.

The Jew’s beating led Moshe’s mood to swing between anger and disappointment, between frustration and embarrassment. What emerges from the text is that Moshe had been unaware that the Jews were being cruelly enslaved, and that on a daily basis many were being beaten and killed. As noted, Pharaoh had taken pains to distance him from the harsh reality that reigned in Egypt due to the decree of Pharaoh, himself.

Moshe’s world was about to collapse. Not because he had killed an Egyptian but because of the sudden awareness that the man who had been like a father to him, who had educated him and provided him with all of the world’s bounty, Pharaoh, was a cruel despot who was subjugating an entire nation, and what is more, it was the nation of Yosef, who had saved Egypt.

Moshe understood that he must approach Pharaoh and chastise him. Yet that was a mission impossible for two reasons: Moshe understood now that Egypt’s economy was based on slavery, and all of Egypt’s military and political power derived from its strong economic situation. Moreover, Moshe was incapable of castigating Pharaoh over the fact that Jewish blood was being shed because of Pharaoh. Moshe loved Pharaoh and Bitya and he identified himself as an Egyptian. Moshe was left with no choice but to flee Egypt to escape the reality in which he was indirectly a partner due to his associations with the monarchy.

Moshe fled to Midian and found himself in Yitro’s house. Who was Yitro? The Talmud in Sotah relates that Pharaoh had three advisers who were privy to the plan to enslave the Jewish People: Yitro, Bilam and Iyov. When Pharaoh presented his plan, Bilam agreed immediately. Iyov remained silent and Yitro fled to Midian.

Here Divine Providence directed Moshe, the escapee, to the home of Yitro, the escapee. Yitro knew Moshe from Pharaoh’s palace, and Moshe knew Yitro, as well. In the cold nights of Midian, as Moshe and Yitro sat around the warm hearth, Yitro thought to himself that the only person who could influence Pharaoh was his adopted son Moshe, the man sitting across from him, yet Moshe had fled from his moral responsibility. Moshe thought to himself that the policy of slavery was largely facilitated by Yitro’s not having opposed it, instead preferring flight. Moshe and Yitro were two men who had both fled from the moral responsibility expected of anyone with a spark of integrity and fairness.

One day, Moshe was herding Yitro’s flocks on Mount Chorev, i.e., Mount Sinai. Suddenly he noticed a wondrous sight – a burning bush that was not being consumed. When Moshe drew near to the strange sight, he heard a voice telling him to return to Egypt, to approach Pharaoh, to identify himself as a member of the Jewish People and to demand that Pharaoh let the Jews go. For seven days and seven nights he stood firm in his refusal, arguing by various means that he was not the right man for that mission.

And how indeed was it possible to refuse HaShem for even a moment, let alone seven days and seven nights?

As a rule, spirituality cannot be forced on a person. Everyone is given free will to choose between good and evil. What happened there on the mountain did not involve HaShem’s immediately commanding Moshe to undertake the mission, but rather His arousing Moshe’s pure conscience. For an entire week, Moshe’s conscience weighed upon him to do the right thing, the thing that had to be done, to approach Pharaoh and to demand that he free the Jewish People. Moshe tried to block out the truth within his conscience, but he ultimately gave in and decided that he must return to Egypt. Once he made that decision, HaShem revealed Himself to Moshe and made Moshe His emissary until the day of his death on Mount Avarim.

Moshe returned to Egypt, to the palace of his childhood, to his “mother” Bitya and to his “grandfather” Pharaoh whom he so loved.

One can imagine what occurred when Moshe entered the royal palace after being away for dozens of years. When Pharaoh was informed that Moshe was there, Pharaoh hurriedly summoned Bitya. Moshe approached them, and Bitya ran to hug and kiss him, tearfully exclaiming, “Moshe, my son! Moshe, my son! Where have you been?” Yet Moshe did not respond. Then Pharaoh alighted from his high throne and with a penetrating gaze said to Moshe, in a tone combining anger and pain: “Where were you? Not a letter! Not a single message! Look at your mother Bitya who raised you since you were an infant. Her eyes are red from crying over you!”

Pharaoh waited for an answer that did not come. So, he said to Moshe, “What do you have to say, Moshe?” Moshe looked at Pharaoh and at Bitya, and with tears in his eyes, said, “Let my people go!”

Pharaoh was shocked by what he heard. “Let my people go?” What are you talking about? We are your people!”

Moshe gazed directly at Pharaoh, raised his voice and proclaimed, “The Hebrew slaves are my people! If you do not free them, the HaShem of the Hebrews will kill your first-born son!” But Pharaoh had no sons. In actual fact, Moshe was announcing that if Pharaoh did not free the Israelites, he would no longer be able to view Moshe as part of the royal family. Pharaoh could not bear the threat that Moshe would be cut off from him, but to the same extent he could not sabotage the economic infrastructure of his kingdom – his Hebrew slaves.

In order to remove the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, Moshe would need to trample Pharaoh’s glory and humiliate him in the extreme. But how would Moshe be able to trample the man who had given him his life as a gift, and had raised him and educated him as a son?

HaShem would have to change the way Moshe related to Pharaoh. Moshe’s attitude would have to sink from the heights of love to the depths of hatred. Pharaoh’s reaction to Moshe’s request to allow the Israelites a number of days of rest, “in order to serve HaShem” (Shemot 5:1), was to make the decree even worse for them:

“You are indolent!” retorted Pharaoh. “Lazy! That’s why you are saying that you want to sacrifice to HaShem. Now go! Get to work! You will not be given any straw, but you must deliver your quota of bricks.” (Shemot 5:17-18)

Moshe understood just how evil Pharaoh had become: “All your officials here will come and bow down to me. They will say, ‘Leave! You and all your followers!’ Only then will I leave.’ He left Pharaoh in great anger” (11:8).

Now Moshe was ready to unleash the plagues upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt.

There was great love between Pharaoh and Moshe, which prevented Pharaoh from killing Moshe, even though the latter was there to turn everything upside down in Egypt. HaShem had planned everything. The redeemer had to be a man who had been part of Pharaoh’s royal courtyard, had been involved in all the workings of Egyptian statecraft, and who had a loving relationship with Pharaoh. Only such a man could survive the menace of entering the palace, uttering harsh words to Pharaoh, and emerge unscathed.

The emotional attachment between Pharaoh and Moshe ended in a surprising manner. Our sages say that the entire Egyptian army drowned in the Sea of Reeds except for one man who was spared – Pharaoh. HaShem saved Pharaoh out of an understanding of the great emotional connection that existed between Moshe and the man who had saved him, raised him, nurtured and loved him – the Despot Pharaoh.

Shabbat Shalom,
Nachman Kahana
Copyright © 5779/2018 Nachman Kahana

Past US Mideast blunders - repeated or avoided?

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Western policy in the Middle East – from Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, through Jordan, Egypt and North Africa - has largely failed due to a multitude of erroneous assessments made by well-intentioned policy-makers, researchers, academicians and journalists.

The track record of past blunders
For example, the State Department “wise men” opposed the 1948 establishment of the Jewish State - which they viewed as a potential ally of the Soviet Bloc - contending that it was doomed militarily, demographically and economically. In 1977-79, the US foreign policy establishment courted Ayatollah Khomeini and deserted a critical strategic ally, the Shah of Iran, assuming that Khomeini was seeking human rights and peaceful-coexistence. In 1981, the US punished Israel – militarily, economically and diplomatically - for destroying Iraq’s nuclear reactor, which spared the US a potential nuclear confrontation in the 1991 Gulf War. Until Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the US showered the ruthless Iraqi dictator with intelligence-sharing and commercial agreements. In 1993 and 2005 the US embraced the Israel-PLO Oslo Accord and Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, maintaining that they would advance peace, while in fact they fueled Palestinian hate-education and terrorism.

The 2010-11 eruption of the still-raging Arab Tsunami was greeted as an “Arab Spring,” “Facebook Revolution” and “Youth Revolution;” supposedly, leading Arab societies closer to democracy. During 2009-11, the US sacrificed pro-US Egyptian President Mubarak on the altar of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the largest Sunni-Muslim terrorist conglomerate. In 2011, the US led the NATO toppling of Libya’s Qaddafi - who previously surrendered his infrastructure of weapons-of-mass-destruction to the US and systematically fought Islamic terrorism – contending that a post-Qaddafi Libya would be more democratic and pro-Western. In 2018, Libya is one of the largest platforms of Islamic terrorism. In 2015, the US led the JCPOA accord with Iran’s Ayatollahs, which provided the inherently anti-US rogue regime with an unprecedented tailwind to topple all pro-US Arab regimes, intensify terrorism in the Middle East and Africa, and try to push the US out of the Persian Gulf.

Notwithstanding the failure of all well-intentioned US initiatives to advance Israel-Arab peaceful-coexistence, the US may introduce another peace initiative, overlooking the face that the only successful peace initiatives were directly negotiated between Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan. And the list goes on….

Assessing the track record of past blunders
Such a track record provoked systematic criticism by “The Gang of Four,” who were the leading experts/authors on the Middle East: Prof. Elie Kedourie (London School of Economics & Political Science), Professor P.J. Vatikiotis (London School of Oriental and African Studies), Prof. Bernard Lewis (Princeton University) and Prof. J.B. Kelly (University of Wisconsin). Their criticism, which has been in publication since the 1960s, has been resoundingly vindicated by the Arab Tsunami, which has traumatized the Middle East, and threatened the West, since 2010.

The four luminaries highlighted the Western tendency to oversimplify the highly-complex, fragmented, unpredictable, unstable, intolerant, violent, frenzied and tenuous inter-Arab reality of the Middle East – irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict - which is dominated by ruthless minority-regimes, and is yet to experience inter-Arab peaceful coexistence.

For example, Prof. Elie Kedourie exposed the fumbled US policy which energized Iran’s Ayatollahs, stabbed the back of the Shah of Iran – the US Policeman in the Persian Gulf – dealt the US a game-changing setback, and placed a machete at the throat of each pro-US Arab regime in the Middle East: “An emergency was in the making, which involved the regime in Iran, a pillar of US and Western interests. This emergency was the most serious foreign policy test… which President Carter and his leading officials failed…. The Carter Administration was willing to see [the Shah] go because it had persuaded itself that the alternative would institute democracy and human rights…. From Teheran, Ambassador Sullivan argued that Khomeini was anti-Communist, that the young officers were generally pro-Western, that economic ties with the West would subsist, that Khomeini would play a ‘grandpa like role’, and that election would be likely to produce a pro-Western Islamic republic. In Washington, there was a chorus of academic and official voices singing the praises of Khomeini and the National Front….”

According to Prof. P.J. Vatikiotis: “For the foreseeable future, inter-Arab differences and conflicts will continue…. Inter-Arab relations cannot be placed on a spectrum of linear development… Rather, their course is partly cyclical, partly jerkily spiral and always resting occasionally at some ‘grey’ area…. What the Arabs want is not always – if ever – what Americans desire; in fact, the two desires may be diametrically opposed…. Even without the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arab Middle East would have been a conflict-ridden and conflict-generating area…. Arrangements or alliances made by foreign powers with [Arab] regimes are problematic, dangerous, transient and even meaningless….”

Moreover, “a political challenge to any of these [Arab] regimes can come only in the form of a violent confrontation. Opposition is subversion; political disagreement is treason. The tolerance of opposition is scarce – in fact, nonexistent…. Power changes are therefore possible only via rebellion or revolution….”

The litany of books and essays on the Middle East by Prof. Bernard Lewis have exposed a self-defeating Western policy, sacrificing realism on the altar of wishful-thinking and oversimplification. Many of them were authored before the 1979 toppling of the Shah, the bombing of the US Embassy and Marine Headquarters in Beirut in 1983, the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, the 2001 Twin Towers devastation and the current proliferation of Islamic terrorism in Europe.
Prof. Lewis highlighted features of Islam, which have not been fully-comprehended by Western policy-makers, who tend to sacrifice reality on the altar of rapprochement with Islam: “[Non-Muslims] may receive the tolerance, even the benevolence, of the Muslim state, provided that they clearly recognize Muslim supremacy…. That Muslim should rule over non-Muslims is right and normal…. That non-Muslims should rule over Muslims is an offense against the laws of God and nature…. Islam was associated with power from the very beginning…. The world is divided basically into two. One is the community of the Muslims, the other that of the ‘unbelievers.’”

Western policy in the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf was severely criticized by
Prof. J.B. Kelly: “While the Russians may have miscalculated at times, they have attempted to ground their policy upon reality, not upon wishful-thinking. Western policy, on the other hand, has been based upon illusions, self-deception and calculations of short-term advantage. Nowhere is this more evident than in the formulation and execution of American policy towards Arabia and the Gulf…. In Arabia and the Gulf, the US government allowed itself to be seduced into adoption and implementing ARAMCO’s plans and those of its Saudi Arabian clients…. The State Department lent its unobtrusive support…. Just how great a part-illusion, self-deception and willful-obtuseness have played in fostering [this policy] is clearly revealed in the transcripts of hearings on the subject of American relations with the Gulf states held by the Senate Foreign Relations and the House International Relations Committees from 1972 onward…. None of this [former Secretary of State Joseph Sisco’s Congressional testimony] bore the remotest resemblance to reality…. It was then, and remains still, a mirage….”

Prof. Fouad Ajami, who was the Director of Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University, wrote: “Arabs and Israeli are ready for peace, it is said by many in the US and in the Middle East. The missing ingredient, they argue, is the American role and American peace plan. The other side of this promise is a threat: dire consequences are predicted, for the region and for American interests, if the [US] Administration fails to embark on an activist policy. In reality, the promise is a mirage, the dire consequences an empty threat…. The notion of [the US’] indispensability is a trap. We should not walk into that trap when others set it for us. Certainly, at least, we should be able to avoid entrapping ourselves.”

Repeat or avoid past blunders?
Have Western policy-makers learned from precedents by avoiding – or repeating – costly mistakes? Are they aware that unrealistic policies tend to be self-defeating, yielding more injustice and casualties than that which they intend to cure?!

Question Time

by Victor Rosenthal

Here are some answers to real questions that I’ve been asked. No, I am not an authority on anything, but my views are at least as considered (and probably more so) than those of celebrities and politicians that are often interviewed in the media.

Yes, this will be on the test.

The Palestinians

Q: What is the “Palestinian problem?”
A: The Palestinian Arabs will not accept Jewish sovereignty anywhere between the river and the sea. That’s a problem.

Q: Why will solutions that involve Israel evacuating Jews from some of the land and establishing a Palestinian state always fail?
A: See the answer to the first question.

Q: Why won’t they accept any Jewish state in the land of Israel?
A: For pious Muslims, it is against their religion. For all Palestinian Arabs, it is because they firmly believe that all the land belongs to them and it was stolen by the Jews. Therefore, it would dishonor them to give it up.

Q: Why are they so violent?
A: Because the Quran commands it, and because they believe that violence is necessary to regain their honor.

Q: Can we convince the Palestinians that compromise would be to their advantage?
A: No. We can only convince them that violence will result in painful reprisals and push them farther away from their goals.

Q: Who pointed this out long before the founding of the Jewish state?
A: Ze’ev Jabotinsky.

Q: But don’t they care about economic welfare, peace, a good life for their children, and so on?
A: Sure. But it doesn’t override their religion and their concern for honor (this is a fact of great importance that Westerners rarely understand).

Q: Wouldn’t there be less terrorism if the economic conditions of the Palestinians were improved?
A: No, because terrorism is driven by religion and honor-shame dynamics.

Q: But certainly there are moderate Palestinians!
A: There are, but the nature of Palestinian political consciousness is that the popularity of a leader is directly proportional to his extremism.

Q: What about Arab citizens of Israel?
A: In a practical sense most of them accept the existence of the Jewish state and benefit from it. But ideologically most are opposed to it. Look who they elect to the Knesset.

Q: Why do most “peace” plans involve Jews moving, but never Arabs?
A: Because history shows that Jews can be forced to move far more easily than Arabs. And because most of the world, including many Israelis, have been convinced by anti-Jewish propaganda that we don’t belong here.

Q: Will Trump’s “peace” plan be any different?
A: No. See the answer to the first question.

Q: Why does Israel’s government never push back hard enough against terrorism?
A: Because there is an unelected elite that dominates the legal establishment and doesn’t allow it to.

Q: Why do they do that?
A: Because they want to look good to “enlightened” circles in Europe and America, because they themselves are insecure about Israel’s right to exist, or both.

Iran

Q: Why is Iran so hostile to Israel?
A: Iran’s leaders want to establish a Shiite caliphate in the Middle East and they want to become a world power. They see America as their most important opponent and Israel as an American outpost. They are also motivated by Islamic ideology, which tells them that Jewish sovereignty over “Muslim land” is an abomination.

Q: What will stop Iran’s expansionism?
A: Either the Iranian people will overthrow the repressive regime or Iran will be defeated militarily. There’s no other option.

Q: Will there be war between Israel and Iran?
A: Unless something unforeseen happens – like a counter-revolution in Iran or an attack by the US – it is inevitable. Iran is constantly making strategic moves against Israel, such as Hezbollah’s rocket buildup, introducing Iraqi Shiite militias into Syria, digging attack tunnels under the Lebanese border, building precision missile factories in Lebanon, and – last but not least – the clandestine nuclear program. Israel is trying to blunt these initiatives as much as possible, but at some point it will be impossible to avoid a confrontation.

Q: When will war break out?
A: It’s hard to say. PM Netanyahu has been doing his utmost to combat the threat without opening full-scale hostilities. But as I wrote last week, there could be changes to the leadership in the UK and the US that would make it much harder for Israel to prevail, which could bring about a preemptive war sooner rather than later.

American Jews

Q: What’s the matter with liberal American Jews?
A: American liberals in general simply do not hear the truth about Israel. The information available to them is strained through a very biased filter of liberal media like NPR, the NY Times, and similar print and broadcast media, which are all committed to a 2-state paradigm that was created in the early 1990s with the Oslo accords. The Israeli public moved beyond this as a result of the Second Intifada and the consequences of the withdrawal from Gaza, but the American media never changed its slant.

Q: Why is this?
A: In the past, the US State Department, the oil companies, and others followed the Saudi line established in 1973 that called for the reversal of the results of the wars of 1967/73. The media dutifully followed along.

Q: And more recently?
A: During the fight over the Iran deal, the Obama Administration associated PM Netanyahu with its Republican opposition. Support for Israel became a partisan issue. The administration (which was close to the Israeli Left) and its friendly media strongly pushed the idea that Netanyahu is a right-wing extremist, that Israel is becoming undemocratic and theocratic, and similar themes. The leadership of the Reform movement, with which many liberal Jews are aligned, also took this line. Liberal Jews have no trusted source of information about Israel that presents any other point of view than that of the Israeli Left.

Jew-hatred

Q: Please compare antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
A: Antisemitism is irrational, unjustifiable, hatred of Jews. It involves fantasizing conspiracies, blaming Jews for everything bad that happens in the world, and believing any accusation made against Jews, no matter how fantastic, without proof. It associates Jews with evil forces in the world, be they the Devil, Bolshevism, or capitalism. Anti-Zionism is all that stuff, except its target is the Jewish state. Scratch one and you will usually find the other.

Q: Is antisemitism getting worse throughout the world?
A: Definitely. There are more violent incidents in both Europe and America. There are also many more relatively non-violent expressions of antisemitic and anti-Zionist ideas.

Q: Who’s responsible?
A: The old-fashioned extreme Right, the more modern “intersectional” Left, and Muslims. The violence in Europe seems to be primarily from Muslims, while in America the extreme Right has perpetrated most of the violent incidents. On American campuses, the Left and Muslims have been responsible for increasingly strident anti-Zionist expression.

Q: Will it get worse in America?
A: Politics in America have become polarized to a degree that is unprecedented in my lifetime. A sharp reaction to Trump’s presidency could bring the left wing of the Democratic Party to power, which is characterized by strongly anti-Zionist views. At the same time, the internet and social media have empowered the extreme Right, who now see themselves free to express ideas that were formerly taboo.

Q: What are the most relevant lessons from the Holocaust for today’s situation?
A: First, it is quite possible that they really do want to kill us. And second, we only have ourselves to rely on.

Q: What is the best response to antisemitism?
A: A powerful Jewish state. Not only is it a refuge for Jews facing persecution elsewhere, it can serve as an example of Jewish strength and self-defense.

Summing up

Q: What is the single most unappreciated gift Hashem has given to the Jewish people in two millennia?
A: Sovereignty in our own land.

Q: In addition to being thankful to Hashem, what is the appropriate response to this gift?
A: To treasure and protect it. To never let it slip away.

The Time has Come to Connect to the European Right

by HaRav Eliezer Melamed
Rosh HaYeshiva, Har Bracha

The Friend from Italy

Last week Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister, Interior Minister, and head of the ‘Northern League’ party, Matteo Salvini, many of whom believe will eventually be elected Prime Minister, arrived in Israel. Matteo is considered a friend of the State of Israel. Before his visit, he told a Ma’ariv reporter that “Israel is an example of democracy in the world. I feel honored to visit Israel. Italians have a lot to learn from her. Israel should sit alongside the most developed democracies in Western Europe. We must strengthen ties between the two countries … and contribute to strengthening its borders.” His associates believe that if given the power, chances are he will transfer the Italian embassy to Jerusalem.

During his visit, he met with the Prime Minister and other dignitaries, and declared that he was “proud to be here in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. Anyone who wants peace must support and defend Israel. Israel is a bastion for the defense of Europe and the Middle East.” He called Hezbollah members “terrorists”. When his Left-wing rivals in Italy, who tend to support Israel’s enemies, attacked him for this, he replied on his Facebook page: “It’s strange to read in the Italian press that some people were shocked when I called Islamist terrorists by their name… if we do not define our opponent… it is impossible to win this game.”

Criticism from the Left

The Israeli Left criticized the government for the warm reception given to Matteo Salvini. Knesset Member Tamar Zandberg said: “Netanyahu reaches out to fascist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic leaders.” In other words, according to her, one who respects Israel, is committed to the struggle against anti-Semitism, and even works for it in Europe in cooperation with the World Jewish Congress, and supports Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, is an anti-Semite and a fascist – in contrast to Abu Mazen, denier of the Holocaust and supporter of terrorism, and all his cohorts, who are respected friends. They, of course, are not anti-Semites or fascists…

Salvini is the head of the largest party in the Italian parliament. If the Italian people are concerned about refugees, its apprehension and position should be respected, rather than putting him in line with all those who hate Israel, spitting on him and his people, and moreover, claiming that it is done for moral reasons.

A Disgraceful President

Reuven Rivlin, who whenever interviewed in the media, opens his statements by pronouncing in an impassioned voice: “This is Ruvi Rivlin from Jerusalem”, who made his political fortune from being a descendant of the builders of Jerusalem, could not find the time to meet Salvini for a quarter of an hour, shake his hand, and strengthen his support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – due to his “crowded schedule” of visiting children in kindergartens. Perhaps in his visit, he made a commitment to tell the young children it is forbidden to oppose assimilation, or that Arabs, like Jews, have equal rights to the Land of Israel. It’s regrettable to see how President Rivlin repeatedly humiliates the people and the state and harms Israel’s international standing, while at the same time flatters the Left, who continually distance themselves from sane political positions.

If we were talking about a refined public figure, one who had never met with individuals above reproach, in character or opinion, it would be understandable. However, after the fact that Rivlin sits fawningly with interviewers from the international media – who repeatedly spread blood libels about Israel, and lecture about the settlers dripping with venom – he still dares to refuse a meeting with the friends of the State of Israel?! If the president has a role, then it is to receive such dignitaries with honor, and certainly not to create provocations in opposition to elected officials of a large and important nation.

Support for the European Left – Short-Sightedness

In addition to the moral hypocrisy of Rivlin and the Left, it also signifies political shortsightedness. They persist in telling themselves the story that the more they align with the liberal Left in various countries, the stronger the State of Israel will be. They pay no attention, however, to two fundamental facts: First, in all European countries and other important regions in the world, the national Right is growing stronger, and therefore, the main political effort today must be devoted to cultivating ties with Right-wing parties. Second, the Left is becoming increasingly anti-Semitic, for example, the British Labor Party, which even Left-wing English Jews, members of the Labor Party, admit to it being anti-Semitic today.

Support for the European Right – a Solution to Anti-Semitism

True, in the European Right there remain remnants of murderous nationalism, the legacy of generations of the past. However, it is precisely the connection between the Right-wing parties and the State of Israel that is the best remedy for this, because this connection refines and distances them from the evil anti-Semites, who are unable to bear the connection with the State of Israel.

In other words, the only way to combat anti-Semitism is through a healthy connection of the State of Israel with the emerging national movements in Europe and throughout the world. And the only way to eradicate murderous nationalism is precisely a position of healthynationalism, designed to express the unique identity of each nation.

On the other hand, the attempt of Diaspora Jews to eradicate national identities evokes the terrible demons of murderous nationalism. While their flawed and destructive stance does not in any way justify physical or verbal harm to Jews, nevertheless, the facts must be recognized – the extreme Leftist Jews in the world, determined to counteract the foundations of the national identity of various countries, provokes enormous hatred towards the Jewish people.

Our fragile strategic paradise

by Victor Rosenthal

Caroline Glick is famous for viewing developments with alarm. But this time there is no doubt that her worries are justified.

If Jeremy Corbyn is elected British Prime Minister, it will not only be bad for the Jews of Britain, it will be very bad for Israel. While not the military and economic powerhouse it was in Queen Victoria’s day, Britain still has enormous influence in the world, including a veto in the Security Council. As Glick notes, it is Israel’s biggest European trading partner, including as a supplier of arms and components for American weapons systems. It has nuclear weapons, and the Royal Navy is still not to be sneezed at.

Corbyn has called for a boycott of Israel, accused her of war crimes, and promised to recognize a state of “Palestine” as soon as he takes office. He has laid wreaths at the graves of terrorists (and denied it) as well as expressing sympathy for Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

And Corbyn might make it. Theresa May’s government is hanging by a thread, and she has said that she will not stand for reelection in 2022, the latest possible date for elections. There are serious divisions in the Conservative Party over Brexit and other issues. Recent polling shows the parties within a percent or two. One juicy crisis could precipitate elections at any time.

Glick only discussed Corbyn. But the UK is not the only place that could experience a change in government for the worse, from an Israeli point of view.

Across the pond, the Trump Administration has so far proved itself one of the best allies of Israel in recent times. Trump, Pence, Bolton, and Pompeo are squarely in our corner. But support for Israel has become a partisan issue in recent years. While a large majority of Americans say they support Israel, only 49% of Democrats sympathize with her more than with the Palestinians. And the left wing of the Democratic Party, which is much more anti-Israel, has grown stronger lately, with several outspoken opponents of Israel elected to Congress.

The last presidential election was very close, with Donald Trump squeaking by a lackluster opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump is currently being assailed with accusations of criminal behavior, which – even if they can’t be made to stick – make it difficult for him to expand support beyond his loyal base. It is certainly possible that he will choose not to run again in 2020, or that he will be defeated. Even if he is reelected, he will be gone after 2024. The chance that the next administration will exemplify the values of the left wing – the Obama wing – of the Democratic party is significant.

President Obama already abstained on a Security Council resolution condemning Israel. It is not a stretch to imagine a future Democratic president of like mind voting to sanction Israel for acts of self-defense, or acting against her in wartime. You may remember John Kerry’s acceptance of Hamas’ narrative of during the 2014 Gaza war, the administration’s holding up a shipment of Hellfire missiles during the war, or the unnecessary FAA ban on flights to Israel’s international airport, which some observers attribute to a quiet order from the administration.

The US and Britain are considered Israel’s allies today, although there can be friction or differences of opinion. Vladimir Putin is in a different category. Putin’s Russia is not exactly an ally, but has cooperated with Israel to an unprecedented degree. Without speculating about the reasons for Putin’s attitude, it’s well known that there are highly anti-Zionist and antisemitic circles in Russia, and her policy toward Israel would most likely be considerably worse without Putin in the driver’s seat.

But Vladimir Putin is only human, and humans can die or be overthrown. They certainly get old and tired at some point. Putin is 66, and he will not be in power forever.

All this leads me to speculate about a reasonably probable scenario within the next four years or so, in which Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister of the UK, a left-wing Democrat is President of the US, and perhaps even a more “traditional” (i.e., anti-Israel) Russian leader sits in the Kremlin. What would Israel’s situation look like?

We could expect that Corbyn would encourage economic and other boycotts of Israel, which – unlike today’s impotent BDS movement – could have damaging effects on our economy. At the same time, he would provide both concrete aid to our enemies as well as diplomatic support in the UN. In the event of war, he would call for disadvantageous cease-fires or settlements that would erase Israel’s battlefield gains. Even military intervention is imaginable, given the fanatical anti-Zionism of many of his supporters and associates.

The US administration would no longer be a reliable veto for anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council. That means that – with the support of Corbyn’s Britain – the Security Council could apply economic or even military sanctions against Israel in order to force her to make concessions to her enemies.

One would expect such an administration to follow the precedent of the Obama Administration in intervening in Israel’s domestic affairs, preventing her from building in the territories, forcing her to release terrorist prisoners, and in case of war, using its leverage as arms supplier to prevent a clear-cut Israeli victory. An unfriendly administration could leak information about Israeli plans and operations to her enemies and the media – as the US did in connection with Israeli raids against Iranian arms shipments in Syria. It could prevent Israel from carrying out preventative strikes, as Obama did in 2012 when PM Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Barak wanted to bomb the Iranian nuclear project.

Russia, from her base in Syria, could effectively choke off Israeli air operations with her advanced air defense systems that cover almost all of the area of Israel. She could spread her protective umbrella over Iranian forces in Syria. She could even intervene militarily in a war between Israel and Iran, or Iranian proxies.

This is truly a nightmare scenario, with three nations that today are at worst pragmatic players (Russia) and at best (the US) supportive allies of the Jewish state, becoming hostile to her in a short space of time. In particular, even if this scenario is only partially realized, Israel will face great difficulties if she finds herself at war. And today it is hard to imagine that the conflict between Israel and Iran – the “head of the snake” that animates her multifarious enemies – will be resolved without military conflict.

Israel’s leaders must realize that today we are living in a temporary strategic paradise, which can end at any time. If Theresa May, Donald Trump, or Vladimir Putin (or worse, all three) should be supplanted by their likely replacements, our freedom of action – diplomatic, economic, and military – would be severely circumscribed.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this. One is that we must prepare for the possibility by reducing our dependence on the US and the UK. That’s worth doing in any event.

The second is that we should act within the short time frame available to fundamentally transform our strategic situation. At the very least, that means ending the threat from Iran herself and her proxies by preemptive military action.

We’ve already wasted two years. It’s time to act.

Anti-Semitism Is an Integral Part of European Culture

by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In December 2018, the Fundamental Rights Agency released a major survey on anti-Semitism in 12 European countries. Though flawed and not statistically representative, it draws many important conclusions. It confirms once again that anti-Semitism remains an integral part of European culture. While the findings do not mean the majority of Europeans are anti-Semites, they are nevertheless an indictment of Europe’s hypocrisy, pervasive anti-Semitism, non-selective immigration policies, widespread anti-Israelism, and huge discrepancy between the rhetoric of European leaders on fighting anti-Semitism and their actions.

Continue to full article ->

The Yishai Fleisher Show: Don't Bury Me in Memphis

Rabbi Ari Kahn on Parashat Vayechi: Anointing a King

Blame the Jews

by Victor Rosenthal

“Ahed Tamimi is the Palestinian Rosa Parks” – Aljazeera headline for an article by David A. Love

One of the most illogical – indeed, embarrassingly stupid – ways to criticize Israel is to make an analogy between the “plight of the Palestinians” and the condition of blacks in America, to equate the “Palestinian struggle” to the US movement for civil rights.

And yet it has been highly effective among minorities and on college campuses. It has been used by intelligent and (sometimes) well-informed individuals like Condoleezza Rice, by dog-whistlers like Barack Obama, and by rabble-rousers like Jeremiah Wright. In the age of intersectionality, it is taken as a given that racism against blacks in the US and “oppression” of Palestinians by Israel are similar phenomena, and that opposition to one kind of oppression demands opposition to all.

Progressive ideology insists that racial strife in the US and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have similar root causes, like capitalism (somehow), colonialism, and racism (defined as racial animosity plus power). Progressives like to put the conflict under a microscope with a very narrow field of view, but by doing that they exclude the broader context in which the narrower struggle takes place. The Palestinian struggle is just a subset of the much larger Arab and Muslim struggle to rid the region of Jews and extinguish Jewish sovereignty. Israel has a degree of military power that has so far enabled her to defend herself, but the balance of power – in terms of numbers, financial clout, and even international support – clearly rests with the anti-Israel side.

There is certainly racial/ethnic animosity on both sides, but the hatred that drives Arabs to stab or run down random Jews is only rarely seen among Jews. Colonialism? Who is indigenous, the Jew whose ancestral culture, language, and religion developed thousands of years ago here in the Land of Israel, or the Palestinian whose ancestors most likely came to the land in the late 19th or early 20th century (even as late as 1946), who speaks Arabic like an Egyptian or Syrian, whose religion is the Islam brought to the region by Muslim colonialists from Arabia, and who didn’t even call themselves “Palestinians” until the late 1960s? If there is a “root cause” of the conflict, it is Arab rejectionism, deeply embedded in ideology and religion, and amplified by every input they receive from their media and educational system.

So now consider the black Americans, who were brought to the country as slaves in the most horrible fashion imaginable, and then when slavery was finally abolished, faced systematic oppression ranging from legal apartheid in the segregated South to multifaceted informal discrimination elsewhere. Unlike Palestinians, they are not part of a coordinated effort to ethnically cleanse white Americans from their homeland. Most of their families have been in America longer than many (most?) other Americans. Their struggle against discrimination has been mostly nonviolent.

Both struggles ostensibly aim to obtain human and civil rights for a particular minority group, and both struggles have been adopted by progressives as part of the intersectional framework that they live and breathe. That is the entirety of what they have in common. In reality, the aim of the Palestinian movement is the replacement of the Jewish state with an Arab state, and the ethnic cleansing of its Jewish population. And to a great extent progressive activists understand this, although many would not admit it even to themselves, and prefer to try to maintain the fiction that it is about rights.

The proposition that “all forms of oppression are interrelated” is on the face of it ridiculous, so the effort to convince people that it is true takes interesting forms. One of the most ugly arguments they present is that disproportionate police violence against black people is encouraged by exchange programs for American police officers to learn counterterrorism techniques from Israeli security agencies. Jonathan Tobin called it “an updated version of medieval blood libels.”

There is presently a campaign led by the anti-Israel group “Jewish Voice for Peace” called “Deadly Exchange” which has succeeded in getting several American police departments to cancel cooperative training in Israel. Tobin writes,

The conceit of Deadly Exchange is that such training is both inappropriate for Americans as well as indirectly responsible for outrages like “police murders,” “shoot to kill policies,” “extrajudicial executions” as well as “spying” and “deportation and detention.” The claim here is that Israeli police are a force that is primarily interested in repression and violence and those U.S. personnel that learn from them are more likely to kill Americans…

Treating Israel as a pariah state is both unjust and counter-productive to peace efforts. But by linking Israel and its supporters to disputes about American law enforcement, JVP is seeking to smear them as being ultimately responsible for the murders of African Americans. As crazy as that sounds, it should be eerily familiar to students of history. Blaming Jews for crimes, especially the murder of innocents, even though they had nothing to do with them, is a classic trope of anti-Semitism. In that sense, even though JVP presents itself as defending Jewish values, its campaign is merely an updated version of medieval blood libels, where Jews became the scapegoats for problems that were not of their making.

Blaming the Jews for everything has been a popular pastime since the days of the Black Death, when it was assumed that since no other explanation was forthcoming, the Jews must have been poisoning wells. In 2004, several politicians, retired military officers, and journalists asserted that Jews and Israel were responsible for pushing the Bush Administration into the Iraq War (although it is true that some of the Jewish so-called “neoconservative” officials and journalists supported the war, the primary responsibility has to fall on President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, none of whom are Jewish).

Even some politicians who are generally pro-Israel in their actions find it useful to attribute possibly unpopular decisions to considerations related to Israel. For example, President Trump said last week that “one reason [to keep US troops in the Middle East] is Israel.” Defending his decision not to punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, he said that “Israel would be in big trouble without Saudi Arabia.”

As I’m sure you know, Israel does not expect or want Americans to fight for her, although she is very happy to have an uninterrupted supply of weapons, and appreciates US diplomatic support in the UN. And Israel has no connection to the Khashoggi affair and wants none. President Trump’s decisions are made in line with American interests, not Israel’s. To say otherwise is “not helpful,” in diplomat-speak.

In case anyone needs a refresher, the Jews didn’t kill Jesus, we didn’t poison wells, we didn’t start all the wars of the 19th century, we didn’t stab Germany in the back, we didn’t cause the Bolshevik Revolution, we didn’t poison Arafat, we didn’t knock down the Twin Towers, we didn’t make Bush invade Iraq, we didn’t create ISIS, the PLO is not the NAACP, we aren’t responsible for the actions of American police – and certainly not for the choices made by Donald Trump.

And Ahed Tamimi, who has publicly called for stabbings and suicide bombings (video), is decidedly no Rosa Parks.

Rav Kook's Ein Ayah

[The Gemara looks at various Aramaic words, seeing them as (informal) contractions of two words.]

Looking for a Way Out
(condensed from Ein Ayah, Shabbat 8:15)

Gemara: Dasha (gate) is made up of derech sham (the path that goes there).

Ein Ayah: When a person is in the home that is special for him, he is unified with those around him, and he forgets that he is connected to the whole big world outside the door. Indeed, he is but one link in the great chain of mankind, which fills the entire world. By means of pathways, highways, marketplaces and streets, one can be connected to other people. Then, the spirit of the individual can reach a love of the community. The gate before a person’s home reminds him of this idea, as it is used for leaving the home as much as it is for entering it. It takes him out of the limited group of people close to him and connects him to the fortune of the community, even when he is still in his house and involved in his personal matters.

Climb to the Point that Is above the House
(condensed from Ein Ayah, Shabbat 8:16)

Gemara: Darga (step) is made up of derech gag (the way to the roof).

Ein Ayah: The partnership within society brings a person, with all his goodness, to being built and improved. It also lowers him when the community is lowered by its necessary involvement in mundane matters, which abound in people’s lives. Even when a great person is with the people of his home, he is negatively impacted by the lowly matters that those people are involved in, when those people lack the complete outlook of a great person. A lofty human spirit will strive to elevate itself even further. When he has a great need to connect himself to the lives of the masses, he can sometimes elevate himself beyond them. There are paths within the home to go higher and higher. We call steps that go up dargabecause they can lead a person all the way to the roof (i.e., the highest levels) that are beyond the thoughts of the average person.

Becoming Over-Reliant on Taste Enhancers
(condensed from Ein Ayah, Shabbat 8:17)

Gemara: Mitkulata (sauce) is made up of matay tichleh dam (when will this be finished?).

Ein Ayah: Mankind lowers itself when it seeks luxuries, which start with the way a person desires his food to be. Man leaves the standard nature of animals, whose nature is to sustain themselves with the food that Hashem gives them, without looking to alter its taste with the help of spices. Man has his sense of physical enjoyment awaken him and bother him so that he wants spices and extras, which over time turn into necessities for him. This will continue until man returns to his natural, healthy state, whereby he stands on the ground like Adam did in Eden, where he enjoyed the trees of the Garden as they were, without all sorts of spices and additives.

For this reason, the term for [the utensil used for] spices spells out, “when will this be finished?” The curse and deterioration should end. Man should be happy with the bread he eats with Hashem’s blessing, as is, without being disappointed. Rather, he should experience freshness and the exuberance of a life of purity and strength.

Forgiveness

by Rabbi Mordechai Willig

I

"Please forgive the sin of your brothers...now please forgive the sin of the servants of your father's G-d" (Bereishis 50:17). Yosef responds graciously, "Do not worry...Hashem intended it for good...I will sustain you... he consoled them, and spoke to their heart (50:19-21).

Rabbeinu Bachya (17) notes that the Torah does not say that Yosef forgave them; they died without his forgiveness, and their sin was not atoned. The punishment was exacted many years later, when the Romans killed the ten martyrs, as recounted during Musaf on Yom Kippur As the piyut Eila Ezkera cites the Romans despot, "You must bear the sins of your ancestors". The second phrase in the passuk, "the sin of the servants of your father's G-d" is not a redundancy, but an allusion to the ten martyrs killed, in part as a punishment for the sale of Yosef by his ten brothers. Earlier (44:17), Rabbeinu Bachya names all ten, and cites the capital punishment of those who kidnap and sell the person they kidnapped (Shemos 21:16). He adds that the brothers themselves were also punished when the their troubles in Egypt began immediately after Yosef's death.

The Gemara (Yoma 87a) states, "One who asks forgiveness should not ask more than three times", as the word "na", found three times in 50:17, is an expression of a request (Rashi). Rav Elyashiv (Toras Ha'adam L'Adam vol. 3 p. 27) proves from here that Yosef did not forgive them. If he had forgiven them, then the gemara would have no proof regarding how one should behave when not forgiven after three times. The brothers (and later the ten martyrs) were punished even though they asked for forgiveness three times, presumably because they, as tzadikim, were held to a higher standard (See Yevamos 121b, and Tzon Kodashim Menachos 29b).

Rabbeinu Bachya (38:1) asks: only nine brothers sold Yosef, as Reuven wished to return him to Yakov (37:22), so why were ten (as opposed to only nine) martyrs killed as a result of the sale? He answers that Yosef also sinned by causing the brothers' sin when he angered them and glorified himself over them with his dreams. As such, the tenth martyr bore the sin of Yosef. Perhaps, alternatively, Yosef's sin that was borne by the tenth martyr was not forgiving the brothers for their sin against him.

II

Forgiving others is beneficial to the sinners who are forgiven, since it spares them from punishment. The formulation of forgiveness, recited by many nightly before Krias Shma Al Hamita, and annually in Tefila Zaka before Kol Nidrei, contains the phrase, "May no person be punished on my account." It seems from these two tefillos that forgiveness is effective even if the sinner does not confess and ask to be forgiven, and yet Rav attempted to have a sinner who sinned against him ask for forgiveness (Yoma 87a). Why did Rav not simply forgiven him without encountering him? The answer may be that every interpersonal sin is also a sin against Hashem. One who was wronged can only forgive the interpersonal aspect, so that no person be punished on his account. However, in order to be completely forgiven for his sin against Hashem, the sinner must repent.

Repentance requires not only regret over the sin and resolution not to repeat it, but also confession (Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva 2:2). The confession must specify the sin and articulate regret and shame over it (1:1). Rav attempted to give the sinner the opportunity for complete teshuva so that he could be forgiven completely.

The Pele Yo'etz (Teshuva) proves form the story of Rav that even though sincere forgiveness granted by one who was pained by another achieves a lot, it is not enough. The sinner must do that which is incumbent upon him, i.e. appease the victim of his sin, even if he feels shame. Shame is part of confession, achieves forgiveness (Berachos 12b), and avoids much, much greater shame in the World to Come.

III

The Mishna Berura (606:3) cites three rulings of the Mateh Efraim (2) regarding asking forgiveness: 1) one who asks forgiveness must specify the sin 2) if he knows that the victim will be shamed, he should not specify it 3) asking forgiveness from an entire group, as opposed to individually from the person he sinned against, is insufficient.

Why must the sin be specified? At first glance, the victim must know what he is forgiving. But if so, how is he forgiven when he does not specify it in order to avoid shaming the victim? And why is specifying before an entire group insufficient? The need to specify must have a different reason. It is not indispensable as a function of the ability of the victim to forgive. Rather, in the words of the Pele Yoetz, it is incumbent on the sinner as part of his obligation to appease the victim. By specifying the sin, his confession is shameful. Shame is a function of forgiveness by Hashem, and applies to all sins, as the Rambam writes.

When specifying the sin shames the victim, it is prohibited, and therefore not incumbent on the sinner. Hence, he is forgiven by Hashem, as well as by the victim who sincerely forgives whatever the sin may be. By contrast, asking forgiveness from a group, even if the sin is specified, is not as embarrassing for the sinner as a one-on-one conversation with each person he sinned against, and is therefore insufficient.

If the sinner's victim died, the sinner must bring ten men to his grave and confess "I have sinned to Hashem and to this man" (606:2). The Mishna Berura (ibid 15, again citing Mateh Efraim (5)) requires that the sin be specified. Since a dead man cannot forgive, the sinner must be seeking forgiveness from Hashem. Still, it is incumbent upon him to specify the sin, so that the confession causes him to feel shame. Here, too, if specifying the sin will bring disgrace to the dead man's memory, it must be omitted (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 131:5). In such a situation, since it is not incumbent on the sinner to specify it, Hashem forgives him completely without it being specified.

If specifying will cause the victim pain, not shame, the sinner is likewise prohibited from doing so (Mo'adim U'zmanim 1:54, citing Rav Yisrael Salanter). The Chafetz Chaim's (4:12) requirement to reveal the lashon hara he said when asking forgiveness must refer to a case that will not cause the victim pain (Dirshu fn. 10, citing Chut Shani (Yom Kippur) and Az Nidberu (7:66)). Otherwise, the Chafetz Chaim agrees that he may not specify the sin and cause the victim pain. Once again, since in such cases it is not incumbent upon him to specify the sin, he is forgiven completely. (See Minchas Asher (Vayikra pg. 269) who reaches this conclusion, seemingly against both Rav Yisrael Salatner and the Chafetz Chaim. In our analysis, they both agree with this conclusion).

IV

May one ask forgiveness more than the required three times? The Pri Chadash (606:1) cites a dispute on this matter, in which the Tur and Shulchan Aruch rule that one may, but the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 2:9) implies that one may not, rather he must leave the victim who refuses to forgive, and the one who does not forgive is now the sinner. The Pri Chadash agrees with the Rambam and adds that the sinner is forgiven if he attempts to appeases the victim (Yoma 85b), even if the victim does not forgive him. (The Tur and Rabbeinu Bachya may disagree).

While this may make asking a fourth time unnecessary, why it is forbidden? Because having refused to forgive the sinner three times, there is a presumption (chazaka) that the victim will refuse again, and one may not cause him to sin. The Rambam's source (Bamidbar Raba 19:23) calls refusal to forgive sinful and cruel, a term cited by the Rama (606:1).

The Mishna Berura (8) adds that one who forgives another is forgiven by Hashem (Rosh Hashana 17a), and vice versa. Sha'ar Hatziyun (8) explains this as follows: in Shamayim they judge mida k'neged mida. As such, if one forgives a willful sin against him, Hashem forgives his willful sins as well. Thus, forgiving is beneficial not only to the sinner, but also to the victim who forgives, as he is thereby forgiven for his own sins.

Remarkably, recent studies have shown that letting go of grudges can protect against stress and the toll it takes on mental health (Time Magazine, Oct. 2, 2017, p. 31). Happiness results when one forgives others, and oneself, and makes a person physically healthier as well (p. 30). Thus forgiving benefits the one who forgave, both in this world and in the world to come.

The sale of Yosef is the paradigmatic sin bein adam l'chaveiro (See Meshech Chochma to Vayikra 16:30). Interpersonal sins caused the churban Bayis Sheini (Yoma 9b) and the murder of millions by the Romans, including the ten martyrs. The proper balance of truth and peace, and the avoidance of sin'as chinam, are critical conditions needed to reverse the tide of history and rebuild the Bais Hamikdash (See Radak to Zecharia 8:19).

Each member of Klal Yisroel can hasten the geula by avoiding interpersonal sins, by asking forgiveness from those he wronged, and by forgiving those who have wronged him. We must all learn the lessons taught by Rabbeinu Bachya, the Gemara, the Rambam and the Mishna Berura. We must seek forgiveness, despite the shame of specifying our misdeed, unless specifying will cause the victim shame or pain. We must grant forgiveness, realizing that we may have caused the sinner to wrong us. Moreover, if we do not forgive, we are termed cruel and sinful. Finally, forgiving benefits both the sinner and the victim, in this world and the world to come. May we thereby witness the ultimate geula quickly.

Today, Asara b'Teves, may be the anniversary of mechiras Yosef (D'rashos Bais Yishaya, p. 242). The Chasam Sofer, quoting earlier sources, writes that each year, on Asara b'Teves, the Heavenly Court decides whether the Bais Hamikdash will be rebuilt during the coming year. By improving our interpersonal behavior, seeking forgiveness, and granting it, we can do our share to make this year the year of redemption. When we balance truth and peace properly, Asara b'Teves, and other fasts, will be days of joy and celebration (Zecharia 8:19).

The Shamrak Report: Uncompromising Jihad - Reality Check and more....

by Ben - Dror Yemini (Jihad forces cannot be tamed or appeased)

It is bewildering how many believe Hamas can be appeased despite Hezbollah proving that Jihad forces need no excuse for their propagation of destruction; Hezbollah is also world's largest crime organization but Obama chose a conciliatory policy ignoring their drug smuggling, money laundering.

If Israel only eliminated the blockade of the Gaza Strip, there will be neither rockets nor tunnels. The Strip will flourish. There will be no confrontations. This argument, which is prevalent in certain circles, in the world and in Israel, should be examined against the backdrop of Operation Northern Shield.

Well, Israel is not imposing any blockade on Lebanon, which is controlled by Hezbollah. There is no historical conflict with the Lebanese people...

But Lebanon has an Iranian element: Hezbollah. And they are building a network of missiles and tunnels, just like (Hamas) in the south, in the context of their profound hatred for the West, including Israel and the Jews.

Will the Gaza Strip begin to flourish once the blockade is lifted? Will Hamas change its skin?

...It is not about the blockade or a particular conflict, nor is it a border dispute. It is the abhorrent hatred that permeates the Jihad organizations, Sunni and Shiite alike.

...After all, Hezbollah could allow Lebanon to thrive and prosper. But it prefers to invest all its resources in the death industry (as Hamas in Gaza).

...The confrontation will come. And even assuming that Israel will be hit and suffer, and it will be hit, Lebanon will return to the Middle Ages. And despite the obvious outcome, Hezbollah continues.

...Hezbollah is not only an international terrorist organization, it is also an international criminal organization. Much of the organization's income comes from cocaine trade. President Obama, upon his election, adopted a conciliatory policy and declared intention to engage in dialogue and integrate Hezbollah into Lebanese politics. (It was all a deliberate act of appeasing Islamic terrorism and allowing it to flourish!)

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

Unfortunately, too many Jews are only agreed on and ready to fight anti-Semitism only, but when it comes to focusing on the future of Jewish people and Israel, or other important Jewish issues, like assimilation, they do not have much interest to be involved, at best. At the same time, many Jews, due to 'Jewish' Stockholm syndrome or PTSD or/and self-hating tendency are quite vocal and even aggressive anti-Zionists and anti-Orthodox!

"Sinai Option - Road to Permanent Peace!"

Please, read and distribute!

Is the High Court the Real Enemy Within?

The IDF and the Judea and Samaria Civil Administration sealed an opening in the protective wall near Bet El, which remained open due to a High Court ruling, through which a terrorist infiltrated and attacked, stabbing a soldier, and threw a large rock that hit his head. (The Israeli judicial system is in need of serious clean up from the anti-Zionist and self-hating Jewish idiots, who must be thrown out!)

Fake Recognition - Surrender to Islamic Presser!

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has confirmed that his government will recognise West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However, he said Australia's embassy would not move from Tel Aviv, until a peace settlement was achieved.(Does it mean never?) According to Times of Israel, the Australian government approved the move of its embassy, but it will likely be delayed due to the exorbitant price tag of the relocation, estimated at $200 million. (Too many Western countries are gutless and fearful of the 'opinion' of enemies of democracy. That is why Islamism is winning!)

Netanyahu has NO More Excuses

Seven people were wounded, including a 21-year-old pregnant woman, last week in drive-by shooting terror attack at the Ofra junction in Binyamin. Members of nationalist camp demand that Prime Minister Netanyahu, who also serves as defense minister, fight terrorism. "Another day, another attack. Mr. Prime Minister, until today you still had someone to blame for the helplessness of the security forces. This is it, there are no more excuses..." said MK Bezalel Smotrich (Jewish Home). (It is pathetic when the leader of the country is unwilling to protect its citizens!)

Terror Shift to Judea and Samaria

Sharp escalation in stoning, firebombing terror attacks in Judea & Samaria.

Last Thursday alone, there were more than two dozen terrorist attacks carried out against Israeli drivers on the roads in Judea and Samaria, not including the shooting and ramming attacks that also were perpetrated by Palestinian Authority terrorists. (After Israel agreed to another useless ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza, enemies opened 'the second front' in Judea and Samaria, killing and terrorising Jews! When will government of Israel realise that only by removal of enemy population from the Jewish land will bring ‘quiet’? As it said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”)

Duplicity of African anti-Israel Hypocrites

The vote in the UN on a resolution condemning Hamas that fell nine votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to be adopted had mixed results in Africa. Only six of Africa’s 54 countries – Rwanda, South Sudan, Malawi, Liberia, Lesotho and Cabo Verde – voted with Israel and the US in support of the resolution, while 10 abstained and another 10 did not vote. The other 28 African states voted against. Nigeria and Zambia voted against an anti-Hamas resolution at the UN, helping to ensure that it would not be adopted. Three days later, the Ghanaian and Nigerian representatives to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), joined together with representatives from Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Zambia and Burkina Faso for a seminar through the Volcani Center in Beit Dagan, Israel’s leading agricultural research organization, to explore new technologies regarding food production, increasing crop yields and food safety. (Where is Israeli government self-respect? Why were the hypocrites allowed in Israel?)

Jewish Contributions to the World

Evelyn Berezin (April 12, 1925 – December 8, 2018) The Bronx-born daughter of Jewish immigrants from Russia founded Redactron Corp in 1969. She was an American computer designer, best known for designing the first computer-driven word processor. She was also responsible for the first computer-controlled systems for airline reservations.

Abbas will Dissolve Dormant PA Parliament

PA President Mahmoud Abbas said the Palestinians will soon dissolve the PA parliament, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). Move is seen as bid to undermine Hamas, as it controls a majority of the seats in the PLC, 74 of 132 seats.

Will the Words be Meet with Deeds?

European Union nations have agreed to step up the fight against anti-Semitism and boost security to better protect Jewish communities and institutions across the continent. The 28-nation EU's interior ministers unanimously approved an 11-page declaration, recognizing a common definition of anti-Semitism and acknowledging Jewish concerns given the prevalence of attacks in recent years. (For that they must overcome 'Political Correctness' and start dealing with Islamic crime and its hate wave in Europe!)

Only 16 Terrorist Homes Demolished

IDF soldiers on Friday, Dec. 14 demolished the al-‘Amri ‘refugee camp’ four-story building ('poor Palestinians') where the family of the terrorist Islam Yusuf Abu Hamid lived. However, the homes of only 16 terrorists who murdered Israelis have been demolished. This figure is exceptionally low, given the fact that 77 Israelis were killed in terror attacks during that period. (No deportation of families of terrorists from Jewish land, allowing them to receive ‘blood money’ from the PA, which is subsidised by the international anti-Semites!)

Why are Jew-Haters Surprised?

Diplomats from European countries blasted a recent Iranian missile test as “inconsistent” with a key UN Security Council resolution, as they struggle to keep the Iran deal intact amid US pressure to get tough on the Islamic regime. Iran test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile on Saturday, which the US said had the capability to strike parts of Europe and the Middle East. (Iran is very much consistent! Germany, France and the UK have been consistently subverting both sanctions against Iran, by supplying the enemy with 'dual-purpose' equipment and material, which is used to develop and build weapons that threatens not just Israel!)

Anti-Jewish Feminist Cover Up!

Protesting Israeli feminists cover up the fact that it is mostly Arab men who murder women in Israel. A campaign of radical feminist organizations declared a strike “in protest against violence against women in Israel.” The organizers did not assign much weight to the fact that the bulk of violence against women in Israel is committed by Arabs and illegal migrants from Africa: 50% of the cases of murder of women by a close male relative involved Arabs, who are 21% of the population; 8% are foreigners, including illegal migrants; and 15% involved Ethiopians, many are not Jews, who constitute about 2% of the population; 14% are by immigrants from Russia, mainly non-Jewish. (Hate for anything Jewish and toward the Jewish state among Jewish leftists is a completely idiotic, if not pathological psychiatric syndrome!)

Germany Unwilling to Change Its True Nature!

Germany has allocated 54.4 million euros ($62 million) toward new development projects in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The money will help build up local administration, construct schools and help with vocational training. (This will help the PA and Hamas spend millions on rockets, training of terrorists, and financial reward to them and their families!)

Quote of the Week:

"Now that we can finally use this word, I’ll say what everyone in the nation thinks, Left-wing associations funded by foreign and hostile governments, left-wing politicians and the media who always side with the enemy and against the Jewish interest - who care nothing for terror victims, settlers or victims of infiltrators while showing such compassion for every Palestinian rioter hurt on the Gaza border - are traitors! - Yair Netanyahu, the son of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – Through the history, self-hating Jews always were enemies/traitors of the Jewish people. He really needs to talk to his father, who is getting closer to crossing the traitorous line! 

Short Memory of Anti-Semitic Europe

(33% of Europeans know little or nothing of the Holocaust)

Many Europeans don’t know much about the Holocaust, and anti-Semitic beliefs are still fairly widespread among residents of European countries...

More than a quarter of the people polled in Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Poland and Sweden believe Jews have too much influence in business and finance, CNN.com reported

Further, a third of the Europeans surveyed said they knew just a little or nothing at all about the Holocaust, the mass murder of some 6 million Jews by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime.

The lack of Holocaust knowledge is striking among young people in France: One out of five between the ages of 18 and 34 said they had never heard of it.

Only 54 percent believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.

In Austria, the birthplace of Hitler, 12 percent of young people said they had never heard of the Holocaust.