|
We – the Jewish people – by our actions, decide the value of Eretz Yisra’el.  Parasha Hayye Sara tells the story of the death of Sara, saying that: “Sara died in Qiryat Arba, which is in Hebron, in the land of Kena’an.” Bereshit 23:1-2. Abraham, seeking to purchase a burial site for Sara, went to the elders of Qiryat Arba and, through the elders, tendered to Efron the Hitti, an offer to purchase the Cave of Makhpela ([מערת המכפלה], literally, The Cave of Doubles). Addressing the elders of Qiryat Arba, Abraham said: If it be your mind that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me and intreat for me to Efron, the son of Zohar, that he may give me the cave of Makhpela, which he has, which is in the end of his field, for the full price; he shall give it [to] me for a possession of a burying-place amongst you. Bereshit 22:8-9. “Efron the Hitti answered Abraham . . . , saying ‘No, my lord, hear me. The field I give thee, and the cave that is in it, I give thee. . . . Bury thy dead.’” Bereshit 23:10-12. Abraham responded, “But if thou wilt give it, . . . I will give thee the price of the field. . . .” Id., 23:13. Efron then states his price: “My lord . . . , a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that between me and thee. Bury thy dead.” Id. 23:15. After Efron negotiates with Abraham by asking, “What’s a mere four hundred shekels between ‘friends,’” Abraham accepted Efron’s offer to sell the field, which included the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה] and paid Efron the purchase price. Efron then transferred title of the field and cave to Abraham. The Ramban (Moses ben Nahman, aka: Nahmanides (1194 (Spain)-1270 (Jerusalem)) explains that Abraham desired only to purchase the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה] which was at the end of the field, and that the field would be retained by Efron. But Efron, by way of good conduct or trickery [possibly hoping to receive a higher price for the larger transaction], said that he [Efron] would give [Abraham both] the field and the cave which was in it[,] since it would be unbecoming for such an honorable person to own the cave as a possession for a burial-place[,] while the field belonged to another. Abraham rejoiced at this suggestion and purchased [the field and the cave] in its entirety for the price mentioned by Efron. Ramban, Commentary on the Torah. Bereshit 23:9. Some commentators have suggested that Efron engaged in conduct which was less than honorable with respect to the sale to Abraham of the field which contains the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה]. To determine whether, as the Ramban pointed out, Efron’s conduct in this transaction was “good” or “trickery,” we must begin with the basic postulate that there are two, and only two, methods of acquiring title or ownership of property. One method is by force or fraud; the other is by voluntary agreement. Acquiring property by force or fraud may be either legal or illegal. Obtaining property by force or fraud is usually assumed to be illegal, as in the case of robbery, burglary, misrepresentation, or concealment of material facts (or, as Ramban might say, “trickery”). Legally acquiring property by force or fraud is accomplished when government, either against the will of others or through efforts to misrepresent or conceal of the truth, compels or persuades others to pay taxes or to otherwise transfer ownership something of value. Examples include the forced sale of real estate to the government (also known as “condemnation” or “the power of eminent domain”); the forced transfer of labor services to the government, such as with jury service or military conscription; or deceptive or misrepresented statements concerning tax laws. Acquiring property by voluntary agreement involves two or more people agreeing on the terms which will govern the transfer of ownership of property from one person to one or more other persons, and includes both the sale of goods and services as well as gifts. Regarding Abraham’s search for a burial site for Sara, the Talmud teaches that Abraham was unable to find a suitable location “until he purchased [the Cave of Makhpela (מערת המכפלה)] for four hundred silver shekels” T.B. Masechet Sanhedrin 111a (emphasis added). Thus, we learn that Abraham sought locations other than the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה] and failed to find any other location which he deemed suitable. Finding the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה] to be a suitable burial place, Abraham initiated negotiations for its purchase by telling the elders of Qiryat Arba that he, Abraham, was willing to pay “the full price” for the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה]. Bereshit 22:8-9. Efron responded, “saying ‘No, my lord, hear me. The field I give thee, and the cave that is in it, I give thee. . . . Bury thy dead.’” Bereshit 23:10-12. Abraham, who did not want to receive the Cave as a gift [bread of shame (לחם של בושה)], reasserted his offer to purchase both the field and the Cave, saying. “But if thou wilt give it, . . . I will give thee the price of the field. . . .” Id., 23:13. In summary, we see that Abraham offered to purchase the Cave. Efron declined to sell only the Cave, but then counter-offered to make Abraham a gift of both the Cave and the field in which it was located. Abraham declined the offer of a gift and reasserted his offer to pay “the price of the field.” Id. It was only after these negotiations that Efron named his price for both the field and the Cave, a price to which Abraham readily agreed. The question which is often raised is whether the sale price of 400 shekels of silver was “too high” or was “unreasonable.” Stated differently, the question is whether the sale price exceeded the “value” of the Cave and field in which it was located or was somehow an “unfair” price. To answer this question, we must turn to the issue of “valuation” and “fair” pricing. When attempting to determine the “value” or “fair” price of an item, a mistake which is often made is to assume that there is a connection between the current “value” or “fair” price and what the owner paid to acquire or manufacture the item. Although a seller may consider his cost of acquisition when setting the price for an item he wants to sell, such cost-basis pricing does not determine the item’s value. If a seller overpaid for an item, or the market price for the item has dropped since the seller acquired the item, no amount of wishful thinking on the part of the seller will raise the current market price (e.g., value) of the item. Rather, the real determinate of “value” in any given transaction is the subjective value of the item which is shared by both buyer and seller at the moment of the transaction. Simply stated, a sale will occur if, and only, if, the buyer prefers acquiring ownership of the item more than he values continued possession of the amount to be paid for the item and if, simultaneously, the seller prefers acquiring the amount to be paid for the item more than he prefers continued ownership of the item to be sold. This “sale price” represents the market price (e.g., “value”) of the item (or service) at the time of the transaction. In the case of the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה], the value to Abraham of that parcel of real estate equaled or exceeded 400 shekels of silver. How do we know this? We know this because Abraham, with full knowledge of what he was buying and without being compelled to make the purchase, voluntarily agreed to pay 400 shekels of silver for the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה]. Likewise, we know that Efron, valued the receipt of 400 shekels of silver more than he valued retaining ownership of the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה]; if things had been otherwise, the sale would not have occurred. Thus, contrary to our after-the-fact assessment of the value to Abraham of the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה], where we might view 400 shekels of silver to be an “unfair” or exploitive price, we see that, in fact, 400 shekels of silver represented the market price for the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה] at the time Abraham consummated the purchase. As demonstrated above, the market price for something is the price on which a willing buyer and a willing seller agree, at the time and place of the transaction. Therefore, because Abraham and Efron agreed on 400 shekels of silver for the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה] and the field that surrounds it, that was the market price at the time of that transaction. The Talmud tells us that “Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Yisra’el three precious gifts, all of which were given only by means of suffering: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-Come. [שלֹש מתנות טובות נתן הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל, וכולן לֹא נתנן אלא על ידי יסורין, אלו הן: תורה וארץ ישראל והעולם הבא]” T.B. Mesekhet Berakhot 5a. Unlike Abraham, who purchased the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה] and the field that surrounds it, HASHEM made a gift of the entirety of Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people. Thus, the question that each Jew – as well as the current government of Medinat Yisra’el (State of Israel) – must answer is: “How much do I value Eretz Yisra’el?” If the Jewish people and the Jewish state value HASHEM’S gift to them of Eretz Yisra’el, they will not sell or give the Land away to non-Jews (land for peace, two-state solution, etc.). If, on the other hand, they do not find Eretz Yisra’el to be a valuable gift from the Almighty himself, they will continue to compromise and placate an enemy who has vowed to destroy them, to literally push them into the Mediterranean Sea (from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea). Because, at least in the short-run, compromise, capitulation and, yes, even surrender, is easier than insisting on an enemy’s unconditional surrender (as is required by Tanakh), the Jewish people and Jewish state must decide whether, on the one hand, we will continue the failed policies we have implemented since 1948 or, on the other hand, whether we will do HASHEM’S will. Thus, given that Eretz Yisra’el is one of three things that can be acquired only through suffering, each Jew must ask: “How much suffering am I willing to endure to acquire (or retain) my portion in Eretz Yisra’el? שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
0 Comments
 Parasha Vayyera concludes with the story of Aqedat Yizhaq [עקידת יצחק], the Binding of Yizhaq, which begins: “And it came to pass after these things. . . . [ויהי אחר הדברים האלה]” Bereshit 22:1. The Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir [Troyes, c. 1085 – c. 1158], grandson of Rashi) wrote that “whenever we find the construction ‘after these things’ [אחר הדברים האלה] what follows is [related to that which immediately precedes it].” Rashbam to Bereshit 22:1. In other words, Aqedat Yizhaq [עקידת יצחק] is related to the treaty which Abraham made with Abimelekh, a treaty which is described immediately prior to Aqedat Yizhaq [עקידת יצחק]. Abimelekh, an enemy of the Jewish people, was a Philistine who occupied Eretz Kena’an (Eretz Yisra’el) immediately prior to Eretz Yisra’el being conquered by the descendants of Abraham. The essence of the treaty was a pact of non-aggression, a treaty which would be binding not just on the Abraham and Abimelekh, but also on their respective descendants. Abimelekh implored Abraham, “[S]wear to me here by HASHEM that you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son, but [rather], according to the kindness that I have done to you, you shall do to me. . . .” Bereshit 21:23. Abraham consented to the treaty, saying: “I will swear.” Id., 21:24. Before signing the treaty, Abraham sought to resolve with Abimelekh the issue of a disputed water well. Abimelekh denied any knowledge or wrongdoing in relation to the well. Abraham and Abimelekh then “signed” their treaty with each other and Abraham gave Abimelekh seven [שבעה] sheep, which symbolized the seven-oath [שבועה] significance of the treaty. To commemorate the treaty, the location where the treaty was signed was named Be’er Sheva [באר שבע] which, literally translated, means “Well Seven” or “Well Oath.” As previously mentioned, the story of Aqedat Yizhaq [עקידת יצחק] is introduced with the pasuk, “And it came to pass after these things. . . . [ויהי אחר הדברים האלה]” Bereshit 22:1. The pasuk continues, “that HASHEM tested Abraham [והאלהים נסה את-אברהם]. Id. The Rashbam wrote that: Whenever the root [word] נסה [“test” or “rebuke”] occurs . . . the connotation is an unpleasant one for the one being subjected to it. In this instance, HaShem, so to speak, indicated to Abraham that he [Abraham], had been foolish to think that he could guarantee the future well-being of Yizhaq and Yizhaq’s descendants, as Yizhaq might have his life terminated before he [Yizhaq] had produced any offspring who would be called upon to honor Abraham’s treaty with Abimelekh. Rashbam to Bereshit 22:1 In the case of the treaty with Abimelekh, Rashbam interprets the word נסה to mean “rebuke.” Why did HASHEM rebuke Abraham for entering into a treaty of non-aggression with Abimelekh? After all, is it not good to be at peace with one’s neighbors? The answer is that Abimelekh was a Philistine who lived in the land of Philistia. Philistia, in turn, was located in the geographic area which is also known as Eretz Yisra’el, a geographic area that HASHEM commanded the Jewish people to conquer. Thus, we see that Abraham committed the sin of entering into a treaty, of swearing – of making an oath [שבועה] – promising that neither he, nor Yizhaq and his descendants, would perform the Biblical commandment of conquering and settling in Eretz Yisra’el. The oath remained in effect until the days of Sampson, when the Philistines repudiated, and thus nullified, the treaty by attacking the Jewish people. Masekhet Sota, 10a. Fortunately, Abraham passed his next test of faith, that of Aqedat Yizhaq [עקידת יצחק]. In contemporary times, we see that Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) has, likewise, committed the sin of entering into treaties and other agreements which have had the effect of divesting the Jewish people of portions of Eretz Yisra’el. Examples include giving the Jordanians at least partial control over Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount), and giving Arabs control over a portion of Yerushalayim, as well as control over both Gaza (עזה) and portions of Samaria (שומרון) and Judea (יהודה) and other areas of Eretz Yisra’el. May we, the Jewish people, like Abraham before us, pass our next test of faith by acquiring a Jewish government and leadership in Medinat Yisra’el that will not again commit the sin of divesting the Jewish people of any portion of Eretz Yisra’el, no matter how small, and which will work vigorously to undo the damage which has been caused by prior governments of Medinat Yisra’el. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
This pasuk [פסוק] (verse) is often “cherry-picked” and taken out of context.  Every Parashat of the Torah is just as important as every other. Parashat Lekh-Lekha, however, might properly be described as “one of the first, among equals.” Parashat Lekh-Lekha begins: Go for yourself from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make you a great nation. I will bless you and make your name great, and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you I will curse; and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you. Bereshit 12:1-3. As an initial matter, it is important to the understanding of a text to view the text as a whole, and to not merely “cherry-pick” portions of the text and then attempt to understand the text through the “lens” of the “cherry-picked” phrase or section. It is from this perspective of Lekh-Lekha that we begin our analysis. In the first words of the first sentence of Parasha Lekh-Lekha, HASHEM tells Abram, whose name HASHEM will later change to “Abraham,” to “Go for yourself” to Eretz Yisra’el. From time immemorial, Jews living in galut [גלות] (exile) have been subjected to pogroms and expulsions. When HASHEM told Abram to “Go for yourself” to Eretz Yisra’el, he was telling not just Abram, but the whole of the Jewish people for all generations, that Eretz Yisra’el is the eternal home of not just the Jewish people, but also of the Jewish nation. In other words, “Go for yourself” to the home HASHEM has selected and given to the Jewish people and to what will become the Jewish nation. This understanding leads to the next idea which is expressed in the opening lines of Parashat Lekh-Lekha, that the benefits of Jews living in the Jewish Homeland accrue not only to the Jewish people, but also to the other nations of the world. The second half of this first paragraph of Parsha Lekh-Lekha starts with the pasuk [פסוק] (verse) “And I will make you [the Jewish people] a great nation.” This, of course, requires us to define what it is to be “a nation,” as well as what it means to be “a great nation.” A “nation” is defined as a people who are, first and foremost, “sovereign,” that is, who have the legal right and ability to make and enforce laws, and who are not subject to the law of any other nation. A “great nation” is often defined as a nation which possesses such things as “wealth,” “military power and strength,” and the like. These characteristics, however, are merely attributes of greatness, but do not, standing alone, made a nation “great.” What makes a nation “great” is having influence over other nations and peoples. Turning to Medinat Yisra’el (the modern-day state of Israel), we see that although the Medinat is a sovereign nation, it is not yet a “great nation.” Although the Medinat has extraordinary potential, it currently falls far short of achieving that potential. Geographically, Medinat Yisra’el is a tiny country, which is “treading water” in the middle of a “sea” of hostile Arab countries. Not only is the Medinat surrounded by hostile Arab countries, the Medinat itself is populated by a large Arab population which is hostile to its very existence. The Medinat does, however, have a large and strong benefactor, which is the United States. Although the United States professes a commitment to the security of the Medinat, that commitment is often contingent, implicitly, if not explicitly, on the Medinat doing, or refraining from doing, what Uncle Sam tells it to do or not do. This, of course, is hardly an example of Jewish national greatness. In the words of Tanakh, none other than HASHEM himself intends that Medinat Yisra’el become “a light unto the nations; to open blind eyes. . . .” Yesha’yahu 42:6. So, the question remains: How can Medinat Yisra’el become a “great nation,” as opposed to merely being another “nation” among the many nations? That is, what must Medinat Yisra’el do to become a nation which influences other nations”? Before we answer this question, let us look at what HASHEM promises if, collectively, the Jewish people, as commanded, do in fact: “Go for [themselves]” to Eretz Yisra’el. The opening paragraph of Parashat Lekh-Lekha continues: “And I will make you a great nation . I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you I will curse.” The first word “And” in this part of the pasuk [פסוק] (verse) connects the Jewish people going to Eretz Yisra’el with HASHAM making them a “great nation” and cursing their enemies. Unfortunately, this pasuk is commonly “cherry-picked” and recited in isolation from the other pasukim [פסוקים] (verses) which surround it, with the resulting implication being that HASHEM will bless the Jewish people and curse their enemies without regard to where, geographically, the Jewish people may happen to be found at any given point in time. However, taken in its proper context, the pasuk [פסוק] (verse) means that the stated blessing and curse is contingent upon the Jewish people going “for yourself from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to [Eretz Yisra’el, where HASHEM] will make [the Jewish people] a great nation.” The opening paragraph of Parashat Lekh-Lekha concludes: “and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you.” In other words, if the Jewish people “Go for [themselves] to Eretz Yisra’el, HASHEM will bless them, make them a great nation who will be a blessing, and protect them. Then, as a consequence of all this, “all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by [the Jewish people]. Ever since its founding in 1948, Medinat Yisra’el, rather than being a safe-haven to which any Jew in galut [גלות] (exile) could flee to for safety, has been – and continues to be to this day – the country where, each year, more Jews are assaulted and/or killed, simply because they are Jewish, both per capita and in absolute numbers, as compared with any other country in the world. It's bad enough to be the country with the highest rate of antisemitism in the world; it’s even worse when that country is the only “Jewish state” in the world. Clearly, then, despite Jews being in control of the only “Jewish state” in the world and notwithstanding significant numbers of Jews who, since 1948, have made Aliyah [עליה] (immigrated to Israel), the Medinat is not yet, as HASHEM promised, a “great nation.” However, the failure of Medinat Yisra’el to become a “great nation” is not attributable to HASHEM; rather, as difficult as this may be for some to accept, the fault lies solely with us, with the Jewish people. Medinat Yisra’el was established, in 1948, out of the ashes of the Shoah [שואה] (Holocaust). When the Medinat’s enemies attacked – on numerous occasions – HASHEM repeatedly blessed the Medinat not merely with survival, but with military success that was beyond almost everyone’s wildest dreams. HASHEM has – and continues – to do His part. We, the Jewish people, however, are coming up short. To be the “great nation” that is envisioned by the Torah, in general, and by Parashat Lekh-Lekha, in particular, means to be a “Jewish state.” One might object that Medinat Yisra’el is – and has, since its inception in 1948, been – a Jewish state. After all, Israel’s “Basic Law” declares the Medinat to be a “Jewish state.” However, when the Torah speaks of Medinat Yisra’el being a “great nation,” that is, a great Jewish state, it does not mean a state which is governed by non-Jewish law, a state which is governed by “secular” Jews, or worse, a state which is governed by non-Jews. It is only when the Jewish people – as a nation – are living in, and in control of, their land – Eretz Yisra’el – and living a Torah-observant life therein, that the Jewish nation will be a blessing – a light unto – the other nations of the world. It is only then that HASHEM will “bless those who bless [the Jewish people], and he who curses [the Jewish people, HASHEM] will curse; and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by [the Jewish people].” As we learn from the plain language of the pasuk [פסוק] (verse) – as well as from history – the command that Abraham and Sarah – and their descendants – go “to the land that [HASHEM] will show you. . . .” (Eretz Yisra’el) was not intended solely for the benefit of the other nations of the world. Rather, HASHEM’S command that Jews make Aliyah [עליה] was to “Go for yourself” [לך לך] (Lekh-Lekha) – to make Aliyah “for yourself,” not for the benefit of others. In other words, HASHEM is telling each and every Jew that it is in his or her best interest to make Aliyah [עליה] – that is, to not remain in the lands outside of Eretz Yisra’el [חוץ לארץ]. In other words, it is by doing what is in the best interest of every Jew – Going for yourself to Eretz Yisra’el – that you can secure all the blessings promised by HASHEM. And, in doing so, you will be able to live a religious life and influence the direction of the Medinat, and thereby contribute to Medinat Yisra’el becoming a “great nation,” a “Light unto the nations.” May you, dear Jew, be blessed to “Go for Yourself,” to make Aliyah, to go up to Eretz Yisra’el, the Land HASHEM gave you as an inheritance. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
This is the connection between Noah and “Palestine.”  Jewish tradition teaches that the world, as we know it, will exist for no more than 6,000 years. “The world is destined to exist for six thousand years. The first two thousand years were of nothingness; the second two thousand years were of Torah; the third two thousand years are the days of Mashiach.” T.B., Masekhet Sanhedrin 97a. The first 2,000 years (1-2000 [3761 B.C.E. to approximately 1761 B.C.E.]), the years of “nothingness,” were the years before the Torah. The second 2,000 years, the years of Torah, were the years in which Torah flourished, a period which closed with the ending of the Tannaic era (2001-4,000 [1762 B.C.E. to approximately 238 C.E.]). The third 2,000 years are the years (4001-6000) during which it is possible for Mashiach to come. (Dates on the Christian/Gregorian calendar are inaccurate, and thus unreliable, due to internal discrepancies in that system of calendaring.) On 9 Av 3831 (approximately 0071 C.E.), Roman emperor Hadrian destroyed the Second Temple; banished Jews from Yerushalayim; destroyed the city, and, on top of the rubble, built a pagan city which he named Aelia Capitolina, in honor of himself (“Aelia” was Hadrian’s middle name) and in honor of the “god” Jupiter, whose temple was located on Capitolene Hill, in Rome. Hadrian also renamed the land “Philistia” (Palestine), after the extinct Philistines, an enemy of the Jews who once occupied the area. The name “Palestine” was revived by the British in 1917, when they conquered the Ottoman Empire. Lands west of the Jordan river, as well as the country of Jordan, which the British later created in 1923, were renamed “The British Mandate for Palestine.” Thus began a long history of Jewish galut ([גלות] exile). During galut, Jews have settled in many countries and, to varying degrees, have been persecuted in, or expelled from, each of those countries. Parashat Noah contains an allusion not only to the exile, but also to the fact that a Jew can never find permanent safety and security in the lands of galut. Regarding the pasuk: Then he [Noah] sent out the dove from him to see whether the waters had subsided from the face of the earth. But the dove could not find a resting place for the sole of its foot, and it returned to him to the Ark, for water was upon the surface of all the earth. So he put forth his hand and took it, and brought it to him in the Ark. Bereshit 8:8-9. The Midrash teaches: He sent out the dove. . . , but the dove could not find a resting place. . . . Yehudah bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, “Had it found a place to rest, it would not have returned [to the Ark]. Similarly, [Yisra’el] dwelled among the nations; but found no rest. [Ekha 1:3.] Had Yisra’el found rest, they would not have returned [to Eretz Yisra’el]. Bereshit, Midrash Rabbah 3:6. The lesson is that, in order to ensure that the Jewish people return to Eretz Yisra’el, HASHEM has decreed that Jews will never find “rest,” that is, safety and security, in galut ([גלות] exile). Although there are many historical examples of this truth, perhaps the two most glaring are the Exodus from Egypt and the Shoah (Holocaust). In both of these examples, a large number of Jews chose to remain in galut, instead of at least trying to make their way to Eretz Yisra’el, a decision which, unfortunately, ended in tragedy. One need only read the news to know that antisemitism is alive and well in the countries of galut ([גלות] exile). Come home, dear Jew; come home to the land that HASHEM has given you as an inheritance, an inheritance which Medinat Yisra’el protects with its Right of Return law. The year 6000 is rapidly approaching, which means that Mashiach could come at any time. Come home, dear Jew, before it is too late. You need Eretz Yisra’el and Eretz Yisra’el needs you. שבת שלום Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
This is a timeless message of Parashat Bereshit  The Torah is a book that is intended to introduce Jews to the various laws which HASHEM established for the conduct of both the Jewish people and the Jewish nation, as well as moral laws which HASHEM established for all of mankind. The scope of this article is limited to the laws which HASHEM established for the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. Laws for the Jewish people include, for example, laws relating to Shabbat, the holidays, and religious ritual practices. Laws for the Jewish nation include, for example, laws relating to kings and wars and the administration of criminal and civil justice. Therefore, one might reasonably ask, why does the Torah begin with the story of creation: “In the beginning, HASHEM created the heaven and the earth [בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ],” rather than with the first misva in the Torah, Rosh Hodesh, the establishment by the Sanhedrin (the Jewish “Supreme Court”) of the New Month and, by extension, the establishment of the Jewish calendar which, in turn, establishes the day on which the various holidays will be observed in a given year? Rashi, a renowned commentator on Torah, in what is perhaps his most well-known elucidation of a pasuk in the Torah, asks “[w]hat is the reason that HASHEM began [the Torah] with Sefer Bereshit?” Rashi, quoting the Midrash, then answers, saying the reason is: so that [the gentile nations] will not embitter Yisra’el and say to them, “Are you not a nation of thieves?” And Yisra’el would reply to them, saying, “Aren’t your own lands stolen? Didn’t the Caphtorim emerge from Caphtor and destroy [the Aviyim] and settle in their stead? [Furthermore,] the entire world belongs to HASHEM; thus, when it pleased Him, He gave it to you, and when it pleased Him, He took it from you and gave it to us.” As it is written, “The power of His works He told to His people [Yisra’el], to give them the heritage of the nations [כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים].” Tehillim 111:6; see also Tanchuma Yashan 11. He told all of the generations of [Yisra’el]. Rashi, Bereshit 1:1. Thus, we see that the message of Sefer Bereshit – is that HASHEM gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people and that HASHEM declared – “[t]he strength of His deeds He declared to His people. . . .” – is addressed not to the gentile nations, but, rather, to the Jewish people! The obvious question is, “since HASHEM gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Kena’anite nations and then took it away from them and gave it to the Jewish people as an inheritance, in other words, forever, why did HASHEM direct His message to the Jewish people (“[t]he strength of His deeds He declared to His people. . . .”) and not to the gentile nations? The answer is that HASHEM knew that the Jewish people might feel guilty about having acquired Eretz Yisra’el by conquest. Thus, the Torah begins with telling the story of the creation of the world to prove – not to the gentile nations, but to the Jewish people – that Eretz Yisra’el belongs to whomever HASHEM chooses to give the Land, and that HASHEM chose to give Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people. Bereshit Rabba 1:2. Applying this concept to contemporary times, the reason many gentile nations do not accept that Medinat Yisra’el and the Jewish people are the rightful owners of geographic areas such as Judea, Samaria, Golan, and Gaza, is because of the failure of Medinat Yisra’el to assert sovereignty over those areas. The stated reason Medinat Yisra’el has given for not exercising sovereignty over the entirety of Medinat Yisra’el is that if it were to do so, the change in demographics would result in Arabs constituting an unacceptably large percentage of the country’s population. This objection, however, is easily resolved. The secular legal documents relating to the political nature of Medinat Yisra’el provide that the country is both a “Jewish state” and a “democracy.” The only way a Jewish state can be a democracy is if Jews, and only Jews, possess political rights (e.g., the right to vote, to hold public office, etc.). If it were any other way, the country would not be a “Jewish state.” An American-style “melting pot” composed of Jews and non-Jews does not a Jewish state make, especially if non-Jews can, through the democratic process, change the character of the country by voting to make the country a non-Jewish state (e.g., “Palestinian,” Muslim, or secular state). Furthermore, continuing a failed policy of refusing to exercise sovereignty over geographic areas in which large numbers of non-Jews reside, in an effort to prevent Jews from becoming a minority, only “kicks the can down the road,” leaving the problem to be solved for the future. Such a policy, of course, whether in one’s personal life or on a national scale, always makes a problem harder, more difficult, and more expensive to solve, assuming that when the problem finally is addressed “head-on,” the problem is still capable of being solved. Jewish law clearly provides that non-Jews, in general, and non-Jews who seek to annihilate the Jewish people, in particular, may not be citizens of Medinat Yisra’el, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim u’Milchamoteihem 1:1.b, 5:4, 5:5, 6:1, 6:4 and that non-Jews may not vote or hold public office in Medinat Yisra’el. Id. 1:4, 6:1, 6:4. Thus, the Halakhic answer is clear. Medinat Yisra’el, if it is to survive, must change its present course to one of Torah and Halakha. Specifically, Medinat Yisra’el must begin to save itself by discontinuing its current practice of allowing non-Jews to become citizens, to vote, and to hold any public office or government employment. May HASHEM help the Jewish people, both in Medinat Yisra’el and throughout the Diaspora, to not only understand, but to accept in their hearts, that HASHEM, the Creator of the Universe, gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people. May HASHEM bless Jews in the Diaspora to make Aliyah en-masse and to then vote for changes that will result in Medinat Yisra’el being a reliable, permanent, and truly Jewish state. And last, but not least, may HASHEM bless the Jewish people and their political leaders to be assertive in proclaiming, rather than apologizing for, the fact that HASHEM gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an inheritance. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
This is the timeless message of Sukkot  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. The Torah commands the observance of Sukkot, as follows: “And the LORD spoke to Moshe, saying, speak to the children of Yisra’el, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month [15 Tishrei] shall be the feast of booths for seven days to the LORD.” Vayyiqra 23:33-34. “You shall dwell in booths [for] seven days.” Id., at 23:42. The Torah explains that the requirement to observe Sukkot “shall be a statute forever in your generations,” Vayyiqra 23:41, and that the reason for observing Sukkot is so “that your generations may know that I made the children of Yisra’el dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Mizrayim [Egypt].” Id., at 23:43. The purpose of dwelling in booths – in Sukkot (pl.) [סוכות] (sukkah (singular) [סוכה]) – is to remind the Jewish people of their dependence on the will of HASHEM. It was HASHEM who took the Jewish people out of Mizrayim; it was HASHEM who provided for the Jewish people during their travels in the desert; it was HASHEM who gave the Jewish people the Torah and made them a nation; it was HASHEM who took the Jewish people to Eretz Yisra’el (the Land of Israel); and it was HASHEM who gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people. As we discussed in our writings on Parashat Ha’azinu, man cannot thwart the will of HASHEM. See, The Short Road to Geulah. Geulah [גאולה] (Redemption) will come; however, the Torah has given us the choice of whether it will come quickly and easily, or slowly and with great difficulty. As things now stand, the Jewish people are on the “slow and with great difficulty” road to Geulah [גאולה]. Since 1948, when HASHEM returned the Jewish people to their homeland, the Jewish people have continually been plagued by terrorist acts committed by resident Arabs. The result is that there are more anti-Semitic attacks committed against Jews in Eretz Yisra’el (Land of Israel) than there are in any other country. It should, although apparently does not, go without saying that something is seriously wrong when Jews, who are legally sovereign in their own land, and who have enacted a “Law of Return” which allows Jews from anywhere in the world to immigrate to Eretz Yisra’el, are injured and killed in Eretz Yisra’el – solely because they are Jewish – in greater numbers and at a higher rate per capita, than Jews in any other country in the world. The Torah warned the Jewish people this would happen. From Parasha Ki Tissa, we learn that HASHEM warned the Jewish people at Har Sinai, during the giving of the Torah, against entering into treaties which would allow those from whom the Land has been captured to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Rather, you shall break apart their alters, smash their pillars, and cut down their sacred trees. Shemot 34:11-17. In Parashat Mas’e, we learn that “HASHEM spoke to Moshe in the plains of Moab, by the Yarden, near Yereho, saying, “Speak to the Children of Yisra’el and say to them: When you cross the Yarden [river and enter] into Eretz Kena’an, you shall drive out all of the inhabitants of the Land before you. . . .” Bamidbar 33:50-52. Likewise, in Parashat Shofetim, we are told that “But from the cities of these peoples that HASHEM, you G-d gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any person to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them. . . .” Debarim 20:16-17. The Or HaHayyim wrote that: Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Kena’anite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Kena’anite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Kena’anite] nations. Or HaHayyim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HASHEM is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HASHEM driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HASHEM’S Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. The solution to the problem is simple. Implementation of that solution, however, will be very difficult. The solution is that Medinat Yisra’el must abandon its non-Torah agenda and policies and begin following the Torah. Implementation of this solution will require, among other things, that Medinat Yisra’el convene a constitutional convention (or its equivalent) for the purpose of dissolving the Medinat’s current, non-Torah government and forming a new government through the adoption of a constitution (which the Medinat committed to doing in its 1948 declaration of independence, but has never quite gotten around to doing). A comment made in 2007 by the esteemed American jurist Richard A. Poser, a comment which is as valid now as it was then, states that: “Israel is an immature democracy, poorly governed; its political class is mediocre and corrupt; it floats precariously in a lethally hostile Muslim sea; and it really could use a constitution.” Richard A. Posner, “Enlightened Despot (reviewing Aharon Barak, The Judge in a Democracy (2006)),” New Republic, April 2007, at p.53. A Torah-based Constitution for Medinat Yisra’el would contain provisions such as: 1. Torah law would be the law of the Land; 2. Citizenship would be limited to Jewish persons; 3. Non-citizens would be ineligible to: a. Vote, b. Hold public office, c. Hold public employment, d. Own real property, e. Lease or rent real property for a period which exceeds one year, and f. Receive government benefits. 4. Non-citizens would be required to: a. Acknowledge and affirm that the Jewish People are the rightful and sole owners of Eretz Yisra’el (the Land of Israel), and b. Pay special taxes, over and above taxes that Jewish residents pay, for the privilege of continued residence in Eretz Yisra’el. Those who might erroneously believe that the above provisions are somehow arbitrary, capricious, or even racist, need only study and learn the appropriate provisions of Tanakh (Jewish Bible) and Halakha (Jewish law) to discover that these provisions are not only permitted, but are required by the Torah and relevant Halakhot. This proposed course of action would, of course, guarantee outrage from the other nations of the world, friend and foe alike. Many arguments can be made against this proposed course of action. The problem with each such argument, however, is that HASHEM has commanded that the Jewish people govern themselves in accordance with Torah and not adopt to ways of the other nations. Thus, we see that the timeless message of Sukkot, and the reason for dwelling in a Sukkah for seven days each year, is to continually impress upon the Jewish people that they must – at all times and in all places – rely only on HASHEM, and not on other nations or other peoples, for their safety and security. חג סוכות שמח Hag Sukkot Sameah! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
This is the Easy Way to Geulah  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. There are two paths to Geulah [גאולה] (Redemption): the short route and the long route; the easy way and the hard way. Parashat Ha’azinu ([האזינו] “listen”) contains the roadmap for the short route. Parasha Ha’azinu concludes with HASHEM’S last command to Moshe Rabbeinu. And HaShem spoke to Moshe, on that selfsame day [בעצם היום הזה (which, literally translated, means “actually this day”)], saying, Ascend to the mount of Abarim, to Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Mo’ab, that is facing Yereho, and see the land of Kena’an, that I give to the children of Yisra’el as an inheritance, and die on the mountain. . . . Debarim 32:48-50. One method of determining the meaning of a word in Tanakh is to look to other instances where the same word is used. Ideally, one should look to the first instance in Tanakh where the word is used. The Torah uses the phrase “selfsame day” [בעצם היום הזה] in two other places. One was when Noah, over the objections of the masses, entered the Ark, Bereshit 7:13; the other was when Moshe, over the objections of the Egyptians, took the Israelites out of Egypt. Shemot 12:51. When HASHEM ordered Moshe to ascend Mount Nebo, it was over the objections of the Israelites, who believed they could prevent Moshe’s death by persuading Moshe to not ascend the mountain. According to Rashi, in each case, use of the phrase “selfsame day” [בעצם היום הזה] recounts an event where HASHEM compelled an act “on the brightest part of the day, for all to see and over the objections of a large number of people,” to demonstrate that no one can thwart the will of HASHEM. Rashi, on Debarim 32:48-50. In Parasha Beshallah, we learn that: Amalek came and battled Yisra’el in Refidim. Moshe said to Yehoshua, “Choose people for us and go do battle with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of HaShem in my hand.” Yehoshua did as Moshe said to him . . . and Moshe, Aharon, and Hur ascended to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, that when Moshe raised his hands, that Yisra’el prevailed, [but] when he lowered his hands, Amalek prevailed. Moshe’s hands grew heavy, so they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aharon and Hur supported his hands, one on this side and one on that side, and his hands were steady until the setting of the sun. Yehoshua weakened Amalek and its people with the blade of the sword. Shemot 17:8-13. We learn from Parasha Ha’azinu that man cannot thwart the will of HaShem. From Parasha Beshallah we learn that success against the enemies of the Jewish people requires both competent and determined military leadership and action, combined with prayer. Medinat Yisra’el – the State of Israel – was established in 1948, after World War II and the Holocaust. Immediately after coming into existence, Medinat Yisra’el was attacked by each and every of its contiguous neighboring countries – all of which happen to be Arab. In a fashion similar to that of the Israelites, whose fight against the Amalekites is told in Parasha Beshallah, Medinat Yisra’el, with substantial and indispensable assistance from the Almighty, won its 1948 war for independence or, more accurately, it’s first war of survival. As a result, Medinat Yisra’el was able to establish sovereignty over a very small geographic area. During 1967, Medinat Yisra’el was again attacked by each and every of its contiguous Arab neighbors. Again, with substantial and indispensable assistance from the Almighty, Medinat Yisra’el prevailed. Not only did Medinat Yisra’el win the 1967 war, she managed to substantially expand her 1948 borders. Medinat Yisra’el’s post-1967 borders encompassed more of the Biblical areas of Eretz Yisra’el, including Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount), and Judea and Samaria. However, in direct contravention of the Torah, Medinat Yisra’el, since winning the 1967 war, has relinquished control of Har HaBayit to the Jordanians and has failed to exercise sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. We learn from the Torah, in Parashat Lekh-Lekha, that “HaShem said to Abram, ‘Go for yourself [לך-לך] from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make you a great nation. . . .’” Bereshit 12:1-2. The commentator Maimonides (the Rambam) wrote: We were commanded to occupy the Land that HASHEM gave our ancestors, Abraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqob. We must not abandon it to any other nation, or leave it desolate. HASHEM said, “Clear out the Land and live in it, since it is to you that I am giving the Land to occupy.” Bamidbar 33:53-54. . . . Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvah 4. Thus, we see that HASHEM gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an “inheritance” and that the Jewish people “for all time” and “even during the exile” are to reside in the Land. Implicit in this command is, of course, a prohibition against relinquishing Eretz Yisra’el, or any part thereof, to any non-Jew. From Parasha Ki Tissa, we learn that HASHEM warned the Jewish people at Har Sinai, during the giving of the Torah, against entering into treaties which would allow those from whom the Land has been captured to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Rather, you shall break apart their alters, smash their pillars, and cut down their sacred trees. Shemot 34:11-17. In Parashat Mas’e, we learn that “HASHEM spoke to Moshe in the plains of Moab, by the Yarden, near Yereho, saying, ‘Speak to the Children of Yisra’el and say to them: When you cross the Yarden [river and enter] into Eretz Kena’an, you shall drive out all of the inhabitants of the Land before you. . . .” Bamidbar 33:50-52. Likewise, in Parashat Shofetim, we are told that “But from the cities of these peoples that HASHEM, you G-d gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any person to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them. . . .” Debarim 20:16-17. The Or HaHayyim wrote that: Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Kena’anite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Kena’anite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Kena’anite] nations. Or HaHayyim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HASHEM is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HASHEM driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HASHEM’S Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. Just as the Torah promised, the Arab nations, in cooperation with each other, have collectively fought against Medinat Yisra’el, while the Arabs who live in Medinat Yisrael are today a “snare among” the Jewish people because the Jewish people have “seal[ed] a covenant with” them simply by allowing them to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. Considering the current state of affairs in Medinat Yisra’el, in the light of the lesson from Parasha Ha’azinu that man cannot thwart the will of HASHEM; the lesson from Parasha Beshallah is that success against the enemies of the Jewish people requires both competent and determined military action and prayer. The lesson from Parasha Ki Tissa, the Or HaHayyim, and Abarbanel, is that treaties should not be made which would allow Arabs to remain in Eretz Yisra’el after their claim to the Land has been extinguished through military defeat. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that the current Jewish political leaders of Medinat Yisra’el have failed to apply the lessons of the Torah, including those of Parasha Ha’azinu and Parasha Beshallah. An obvious question is: “Why has the political leadership of Medinat Yisra’el not governed assertively, in accordance with the Torah, and in the best interests of the Jewish people? One answer, sadly, is fear and lack of “bitahon” [ביטחון] (trust in G-d). They fear Arab retaliation; they fear how the nations, including the United States, will react; and, perhaps most, they fear loss of their political power. If, however, they had “bitahon” [ביטחון], they would take to heart the Torah command that: When you go out against your enemy, and you see a horse and chariot – a people more numerous that you – you shall not fear them, for HASHEM, your G-d, is with you. . . . Debarim 20:1-4. There are at least two important messages in these pesukim. The first is that if the Jewish people have “bitahon” [ביטחון], and if they perform “hishtadlut” [השתדלות] (exertion of human effort), HASHEM will go “with [the Jewish people], to fight for [the Jewish people] with [their] enemies, to save [the Jewish people].” The second is that the Jewish people should treat their enemies as enemies. The pesuk commands: “when you go out against your enemy” to emphasize that war is being fought against an enemy, not a friend. The Midrash teaches that the Jewish people should, “Go against them as enemies! Just as they do not have mercy upon you, do not have mercy on them.” Tanchuma, Shofetim 15. In other words, when fighting a war, the Jewish people should fight to win, should not show weakness, and should avoid taking half-measures in the mistaken belief that doing so is somehow compassionate, righteous, or effective. We know from the Talmud that Mashiach can come at one of two possible times: at either a fixed point in time or earlier, if the Jewish people merit redemption. Masechet Sanhedrin 97a-b. May the Jewish people, especially its Jewish political leaders in Medinat Yisra’el, do complete Teshuvah [תשובה] (repentance), have “bitahon” [ביטחון] (trust in G-d), and perform “hishtadlut” [השתדלות] (exertion of human effort) in order to get Medinat Yisra’el on the right path and to merit immediate Geulah [גאולה] (redemption). שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
This is what’s required for National Teshuvah.  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. In our Yom Kippur prayers, we say: And so, too, may Your name be sanctified, O HASHEM, our G-d, upon Yisra’el, Your people; upon Yerushalayim, Your city; upon Zion, the resting place of your glory; upon the kinship of the House of David, Your anointed; and upon Your Dwelling and Your Sanctuary. וּבְכֵן יִתְקַדֵּשׁ שִׁמְךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַמֶּךָ וְעַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם עִירֶךָ. וְעַל צִיּוֹן מִשְׁכַּן כְּבוֹדֶךָ. וְעַל מַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד מְשִׁיחֶךָ. וְעַל מְכוֹנָךְ וְהֵיכָלָךְ And so, too, O HaShem, grant honor to Your people, praise to those who revere You, good hope to those seek You, and eloquent speech to those who hope to You; gladness to Your land [Eretz Yisra’el] and joy to Your city [Yerushalayim]; flourishing pride to David, Your servant, and preparation of a lamp for the son of Jesse, your anointed – speedily, in our days. וּבְכֵן תֵּן כָּבוֹד יְהֹוָה לְעַמֶּךָ תְּהִלָּה לִירֵאֶיךָ וְתִקְוָה טוֹבָה לְדוֹרְשֶׁיךָ וּפִתְחוֹן פֶּה לַמְיַחֲלִים לָךְ. שִׂמְחָה לְאַרְצֶךָ. וְשָׂשׂוֹן לְעִירֶךָ. וּצְמִיחַת קֶרֶן לְדָוִד עַבְדֶּךָ. וַעֲרִיכַת נֵר לְבֶן יִשַׁי מְשִׁיחֶךָ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ Then You – who is HaShem, our G-d – will reign speedily alone over all Your works, on Mount Zion, resting place of Your glory; and in Yerushalayim, Your holy city; as it is written in Your holy writings: HaShem shall reign forever – your G-d, O Zion – from generation to generation, Halleluyah. וְתִמְלֹךְ אַתָּה הוּא יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מְהֵרָה לְבַדֶּךָ עַל כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ. בְּהַר צִיּוֹן מִשְׁכַּן כְּבוֹדֶךָ. וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ. כַּכָּתוּב בְּדִבְרֵי קָדְשֶׁךָ. יִמְלֹךְ יְהֹוָה לְעוֹלָם אֱלֹהַיִךְ צִיּוֹן לְדֹר וָדֹר הַלְלוּיָהּ And as we say on all days: Be favorable, HaShem, our G-d, toward Your people Yisra’el, turn to their prayer and restore the service to the Holy of Holies of Your Temple. Speedily accept the fore-offerings of Yisra’el and their prayer with love and favor, and may the service of Your people Yisra’el always be favorable to You. רְצֵה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלִתְפִלָּתָם שְׁעֵה. וְהָשֵׁב אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה לִדְבִיר בֵּיתֶךָ וְאִשֵּׁי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּתְפִלָּתָם מְהֵרָה בְּאַהֲבָה תְקַבֵּל בְּרָצוֹן וּתְהִי לְרָצוֹן תָּמִיד עֲבוֹדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַמֶּךָ ¶ May it be Your will, HaShem our G-d and the G-d of our forefathers, that the Holy Temple be rebuilt, speedily in our days. . . . יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ The theme which runs through the above prayers is our desire that the will of HASHEM be done, through a return of the Jewish people to Eretz Yisra’el and a rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple). In order to receive atonement [כפרה] for our sins which have resulted in Jews not returning to Eretz Yisra’el, as well as our failure to have rebuilt the Beit HaMikdash, we must do Teshuvah, that is, we must repent. Teshuvah consists of four elements: (1) ceasing the commission of the particular sin; (2) removing the particular sin from one’s thoughts; (3) resolving in one’s heart to never again commit the particular sin; and (4) verbally confessing commission of the sin. “The confession should be made ‘before G-d,’ and not in public.” Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 2:1, n.9; 2:2. Doing Teshuvah for the sins which have prevented Jews from returning to Eretz Yisra’el, and the sin involving the Jewish failure to have rebuilt the Beit HaMikdash, requires more than just a mere cessation of certain conduct; it requires the affirmative taking of a new and different course of action. Assuming the Jewish people have resolved to do Teshuvah for the national sins which have prevented Jews from returning to Eretz Yisra’el, as well as the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash, our Yom Kippur prayers raise certain questions: What can be done to encourage more Jews to return to Eretz Yisra’el, that is, to make Aliyah (immigrate to Eretz Yisra’el)? What must be done in order to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash? How to Encourage Jews to Return to Eretz Yisra’el If there is an overriding theme that runs through Torah, it is that HASHEM separated the Jewish people from the other peoples of the world; that He designated Eretz Yisra’el as the one and only homeland for this separate people to “dwell alone;” and that to secure the blessings that HASHEM has promised, the Jewish people must obey His commands. One of these commands is, of course, to Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el, that is, for Jews to make Aliyah (immigrate to Eretz Yisra’el) and settle the Land. The important statistic, however, is not how many Jews make Aliyah each year, but rather, the net increase in the number of Jews who make Aliyah each year. That is, the important statistic is the number of Jews who make Aliyah each year, reduced by the number of Jews who, after making Aliyah, leave Israel each year and return to their country of origin. According to some reports, as many as 40% of Olim from the United States return to America within two years of making Aliyah, while 60% return within five years. Although this statistic is, due to a lack of transparency by the Israeli government, difficult to confirm, it is an interesting statistic, especially in light of the fact that the Israeli government, on a monthly basis, provides new Olim with unearned cash (welfare) payments for the first five years after they immigrate, and that the monthly amount of those cash payments peak during year 2. Through discussions with prospective Olim in the U.S., as well as Olim in Medinat Yisra’el (“the State of Israel” or, simply, the “Medinat”), several things become apparent. First, many U.S. rabbinical leaders discourage Aliyah. Second, notwithstanding U.S. rabbinical opposition to Aliyah, there are many religious Jews in the U.S. who make Aliyah, or who plan to make Aliyah. Third, and most important to a discussion on maximizing the numbers of net Olim, is that the primary obstacle encountered by most Jews who are considering Aliyah is that of achieving and maintaining financial self-sufficiency post-Aliyah. For the purpose of analyzing their financial situation, Olim can be classified as being either: 1. Medical or High-Tech professionals, 2. Persons with a foreign source of income (e.g., retirees, remote workers, etc.), or 3. Other (not falling in category 1 or 2). Due to a market demand for employees, Olim who are medical or high-tech professionals appear likely to have the least difficulty integrating into the Israeli job market. Persons with a foreign source of income are also less likely to experience significant post-Aliyah economic difficulties. Although Olim in Categories 1 and 2 may leave the Medinat as a result of post-Aliyah financial difficulties, the subset of Category 3 Olim which consist of Olim who made Aliyah from a comparatively affluent (e.g., Western) country, appear to be the group of Olim who are most likely to return to their country of origin due to post-Aliyah financial hardship. Thus, the Aliyah failure rate for Category 1 and Category 2 Olim might be lower than the 40% and 60% rates mentioned above, while the Aliyah failure rate for the subset of Category 3 Olim from Western countries may be significantly higher than the 40% and 60% rates mentioned above. In order best assist all Olim in overcoming the challenge which is likely responsible for the highest rate of post-Aliyah departures to a Western country of origin, that is, to assist Olim in overcoming the challenge of achieving – and maintaining – economic self-sufficiency post-Aliyah, it is necessary to examine a little economic history. The economies of the Medinat and the U.S. are practically mirror opposites. The U.S. was officially founded almost 250 years ago, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. However, in the year 1620, more than 400 years ago, the Pilgrims, the predecessors of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, arrived in, and began settling portions of, what is now the United States of America. The Pilgrims were a very religious group of Christians who analogized their voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to the Jews’ trek through the wilderness while en-route from Har Sinai to Eretz Yisra’el. The Pilgrims also analogized their conquest of the “New World,” that is, to what would become the United States, to the Jews’ conquest of Eretz Yisra’el. When the Pilgrims first sighted land from their ship, the Mayflower, they joined together in a communal recitation of Tehillim 100. As an indication of how important Tanakh was to the founding generations of Americans, some early courses at Harvard University were taught in Hebrew and, as late as 1817, an annual speech was given in Hebrew at Harvard. Tanakh also had an influence at Yale University. Yale’s coat of arms contained Hebrew letters which spelled the words “Urim and Thummim,” which the university translated as “Light and Truth.” Being Christian students of Tanakh, the Pilgrims modeled the constitutions and laws of their “Promised Land,” of the original 13 Colonies or “states,” on Biblical principles. Unfortunately, however, the Pilgrims’ understanding of Tanakh left quite a bit to be desired. On July 1, 1620, the Pilgrims, prior to departing Plymouth, England, signed a seven-year contract in which they agreed to pool “all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons. . . .” The contract further provided “that at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided. . . .” In other words, the Pilgrims brought socialism to America. However, instead of lasting seven years, the Pilgrims’ experiment with socialism failed after a mere two years. Shortages and starvation abounded, and about fifty-percent of the colonists died of starvation and related illnesses. Under the leadership of their Governor, William Bradford, the Pilgrims scuttled their socialist experiment and adopted a free-market economy. The effects of a free-market economy were both immediate and dramatic. When the Pilgrims were allowed to retain the fruits of their labor, productivity – and prosperity – increased almost overnight. Since abandoning its extremely short, but disastrous, experiment with socialism in favor of the free-market, America – and its economy – has grown from a handful of fledgling colonies to become the greatest economy the world has ever known. The only thing that is now harming America, the only thing which has ever harmed America, is its rejection and distancing of itself from Torah values. Medinat Yisra’el, on the other hand, is not 400 years old; rather, it is a mere 74 years old. The Medinat, unlike the United States, was founded by socialists, who implemented socialist policies. A “guiding principle” of socialism is that nothing – including HaShem – can be more authoritative or powerful than the State. One very important method that socialism employs to ensure that its monopoly on power is not threatened is the collective ownership of property, that is, the abrogation of the free-market and private property rights. The Torah, however, rejects socialism. This rejection can be seen as early as parashat Noah, with the story of the Tower of Babel, which is in Sefer Bereshit, right after the Flood. One need not look too far from the Tower of Babel to see other Divine endorsements of the free-market and the private ownership of property. The Ten Statements (“Commandments”) explicitly proscribe theft; a very large percentage of the 613 misvot deal, in one way or another, with free-market commercial transactions and property rights; and there are tractates of the Gemara which likewise focus on the private ownership of property and voluntary commerce. The Medinat, like the United States, also suffered through a failure of socialism. During the years 1978-1979, inflation in the Medinat, caused by government manipulation of the money supply, averaged 77 percent. By 1984-1985, the annual rate of inflation peaked at a staggering 450 percent! U.S. president Ronald Reagan offered the Medinat a $1.5 billion grant if the Medinat would abandon socialism and adopt free-market economic principles. The Histadrut, the Medinat’s labor union, objected. U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz responded with the threat that if the Medinat did not start implementing free-market economic policies, the United States would freeze all monetary transfers to the Medinat. The threat worked and the Medinat, although being “dragged kicking and screaming,” started to implement the free-market “recommendations” that were made by the Reagan Administration. As a part of its economic restructuring, the Medinat, on January 1, 1986, introduced, the New Israeli Shekel (NIS), which replaced the hyper-inflated Shekel at a rate of 1000:1. Like the impact of free-market principles on the Pilgrims’ colony under William Bradford, the impact on the Israeli economy which resulted from the implementation of free-market principles was both immediate and dramatic. Within one year, Israeli’s annual rate of inflation fell from an astounding 450% to 20%. Unfortunately, however, the Medinat’s mid-1980s forced move away from some socialist policies is not the end of its story of economic failure. Unlike America’s Pilgrims, Israel did not fully repudiate socialism. Rather, many of Israel’s socialist policies persist to this day, causing an unnecessary and significant burden on the Medinat’s economy. As the Pilgrims learned under the leadership of William Bradford, and as Israelis should have learned from the Medinat’s 1980s economic reform, socialism destroys an economy, while free-markets allow an economy to grow and flourish. Accordingly, the Medinat could best assist Olim by implementing economic policies that will not only benefit Olim, but policies that will benefit all Israelis. Those policies include: 1. Significantly lowering tax (personal, business, VAT/sales) rates. 2. Eliminating import and export taxes. 3. Eliminating wage and price controls. 4. Repealing labor and employment laws that hinder or otherwise interfere with at-will employment. 5. Repeal laws which create private-sector monopolies. 6. Privatize businesses which are currently operated by the government. 7. Repeal laws which disincentivize investment in Israeli businesses, including laws which discourage entrepreneurs from opening new businesses. Admittedly, these recommended policies cannot, and even should not, be implemented “overnight.” However, efforts should be made to strategically implement free-market economic policies over the long-term. Such long-term implementation should also include a refusal to extend or expand current policies, or to adopt new policies, which are incompatible with a free-market. Free-market reforms, such as those mentioned above, will work. Other, “more-of-the-same” reforms, such as increased welfare payments to Olim, while perhaps well-intentioned, can only result in “more-of-the-same” failed results that are currently being experienced. Medinat Yisra’el has tried the secular, socialist approach, which has failed. The Jewish State should now try the Jewish approach, that is, HaShem’s approach, the approach which is set forth in His Holy Torah and which G-d Himself has promised will succeed, if only it is tried. If the Medinat were to switch to the Torah approach for Jewish governance, not just with respect to economic policies, but as to all policies, the Medinat will have become the Light Unto the Nations that HaShem wants the Jewish people to be. Actions Required to Rebuild the Beit HaMikdash The Torah, in Parashat Teruma, sets forth the commandment that the Jewish people construct the Mikdash (Sanctuary) in the desert, so that offerings can be brought to Hashem. “And the Lord said to Moshe, saying, speak to the Children of Yisra’el that they may bring Me an offering. . . . And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” Shemot 25:1-8. Parashat Teruma, then goes into painstaking detail to describe how the Mishkan (temporary Sanctuary) is to be constructed. Parashat Teruma, however, is not the only place where we find a command to build a Mikdash. These are the statutes and judgments which you shall observe and do in the land which the Lord God of thy fathers gives thee to possess it, all the days that you live upon the earth. . . . But to the place which the Lord your God shall choose [Beit HaMikdash] out of all your tribes to put His name there, there shall you seek Him, at His dwelling, and there shalt thou come, and there you shall bring your [offerings]. . . . Debarim 12:1-7. Thus, we see that the counterpart to the Mishkan (temporary Sanctury) in the desert is the Beit HaMikdash (permanent Sanctuary) in Yerushalayim. Further, we learn that building and maintaining a Sanctuary is a timeless obligation. In Parashat Teruma, the Jewish people were commanded to build a Mikdash in the desert. Later, in Sefer Debarim, the Jewish people were commanded to build a Mikdash “in the land which the Lord God of thy fathers gives thee to possess it, all the days that you live upon the earth. . . .” In other words, as the Ohr HaHayim (Hayyim ben Moshe ibn Attar, 1696-1743) held, it is a positive commandment for the Jewish people to build and maintain a Beit HaMikdash whenever the Jewish people reside in Eretz Israel. That is, when the Jewish people are in possession of the Eretz Israel, they are subject to a positive Biblical commandment to build and maintain a Mikdash “all the days that [the Jewish people] live upon the earth.” The Rambam (Moses ben Maimon, a.k.a Maimonides, 1138-1204) held that, upon entering Eretz Israel, the Jewish people became obligated to appoint a king, “erase the memory of Amalek,” and build a Beit HaMikdash. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 1:1. The Rambam also held that the appointment of a king should precede the war against Amalek, and that the seed of Amalek should be annihilated prior to the construction of the Beit HaMikdash. Id., 1:2. An obvious difficulty with building a Mikdash only after a king has been appointed over Israel and after the king has “annihilated” the seed of Amalek, is the fact King Solomon built the first Beit HaMikdash, notwithstanding that the seed of Amalek has never been “annihilated.” The Talmud, on the other hand, states that “[e]very generation which did not witness the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash, is considered as if it was destroyed in that generation.” Talmud Yerushalayim, Maseket Yoma 1:1. The Sfat Emet (Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter, 1847-1905) explained that the Talmud should not be taken literally, but rather, should be understood to mean that each generation must do its part to facilitate the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash. Today, the Jewish people have, after having been dispossessed of sovereignty over Eretz Israel for some 2000 years, once again possess political sovereignty over Yerushalayim and Medinat Israel (the State of Israel). What, as a practical matter, can we, the Jewish people, do in this generation to facilitate the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash? In order to construct any building, one must first prepare the construction site by removing anything and everything that is unnecessary or detrimental to the construction of the intended new building. Thus, the first step in rebuilding the Beit HaMikdash must be to remove all the mosques that currently occupy the Temple Mount and its surrounding areas. Preparing the Temple Mount for the Third Beit HaMikdash won’t be easy, but it is necessary. As most of us know from experience, the longer one delays in doing something that must be done, the harder it usually is to complete the task. Our purpose in this World is to work, so let us — without further delay — get down to the business of working to build the Third Beit HaMikdash, before that task becomes even more difficult that it already is. Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
The Torah perspective on Separation of Religion and State is. . . .  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. The concept of “separation of religion [church] and state” is a product of Western culture and is primarily of American origin. The concept, generally stated, holds that government and religion should be completely separated; that government should be secular and not involve itself in matters of religion, and that religion should not involve itself in matters of government. Although this concept is prominent throughout American legal jurisprudence and popular culture, the words “separation of religion [church] and state,” or their equivalent, are not contained in any of the founding documents of the United States. The constitutional provision which comes closest to the subject is the 1st Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” U.S. Const., amend I. After setting forth the constitutional protections for religion, the 1st Amendment continues by setting forth a general constitutional protection for speech: “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Id. Based on the structure of the 1st Amendment, the drafters of the U.S. constitution presumably perceived a connection between religious worship and free speech. Prior to ratifying its constitution, the United States, in a formal written document, declared its independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence (“Declaration”) contains numerous references to G-d. For example, the Declaration refers to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God,” “all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge. . . .” Declaration of Independence (US 1776). Furthermore, John Adams, one of America’s Founding Fathers, and the first vice president and second President of the United States, wrote that the U.S. “Constitution was made only, for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, letter to the Massachusetts Militia (Oct. 11, 1798). The “moral and religious people” to whom Adams was referring were the Christians, of various denominations, who founded America on biblical principles derived from the Torah. In an inconsistent and illogical application of a rule relating to the interpretation of legal texts, American courts have held that, when interpreting a provision in the Constitution, it is inappropriate to refer to the Declaration as a means of ascertaining the intent of the Founders who wrote the U.S. constitution, but it is somehow perfectly acceptable to refer to legislative history when attempting to ascertain the intent of lawmakers who wrote a particular statute. Israel’s 1948 “declaration of independence” provides that Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) shall be a “Jewish state” and that establishing a Jewish state is a “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.” Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel (1948). The Knessett (Israeli legislature), in 2018, passed a “Basic Law” reaffirming that Medinat Yisra’el is a “Jewish state.” In ruling on a challenge to the law, the Israel Supreme Court, without engaging in any meaningful legal analysis, said that the law merely declares the obvious – that Israel is a Jewish state. Israel’s 1948 declaration also states that Medinat Yisra’el would be a democracy, in that it “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion. . . .” Id. It apparently didn’t matter that the definition of “democracy” is quite different from the definition used in Israel’s declaration. Both the United States and Israel have adopted positions on religion and state which are internally inconsistent. The U.S., although not formally adopting a religion, declared its independence from Great Britain and ratified a constitution based on freedom and principals founded in democracy, but while also acknowledging, at least implicitly, that such a system of government could succeed if, and only if, its citizens were a “moral and religious people” who are guided by Torah principles. The U.S., through both legislative policy choices and separately, through its judiciary, has rejected the “moral and religious” values which John Adams recognized as necessary for the success of a free society and has replaced those moral and religious values with a separation between religion and state. The results are not hard to see: a significant and ever-increasing decline in the prevalence of the “traditional,” Biblically-based family, which in turn is responsible for ever-increasing rampant crime and civil unrest, abortion-on-demand, homosexual “marriage,” and a litany of other societal ills. Medinat Yisra’el has a somewhat opposite problem. Israel, although founded by socialists (e.g., atheists), declares itself to be a “Jewish state.” The defining attribute of “Jewishness,” of course, is the Torah. The Torah (the Jewish “constitution”), along with Halakha (Jewish statutory law) defines who is Jewish and prescribes rules for every conceivable aspect of national and individual life and conduct. Therefore, it is not possible for a country to be more than merely a “Jewish state in name only” if it does not govern itself in accordance with Torah and Halakha, a point which was – and still is – lost on the vast majority of Medinat Yisra’el’s political “leaders.” Compounding the problem, Medinat Yisra’el’s schizophrenic attempt to “ensure complete equality of . . . political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion. . . .” (e.g., Arab “citizens” of Israel) creates the irreconcilable situation where Israeli-Arabs, through a combination of a high birth rate and voting, could become the majority, instead of the minority, in Medinat Yisra’el and then use the democratic process to change Medinat Yisra’el from a Jewish state in name only to an Arab state. To prevent this all but inevitable outcome, Medinat Yisra’el could continue its current efforts to maintain a Jewish majority, efforts such as: declining to exercise sovereignty over the liberated lands (e.g., Judea and Samaria) and pandering to Israeli-Arabs through various government programs such as education, housing, and subsistence grants, all paid for, of course, with taxes collected from Jewish-Israelis. Just as the United States is disintegrating due to an abandonment of Torah values, so too, Medinat Yisra’el is placing its continued existence in serious jeopardy by failing to govern itself according to Torah, as HASHEM intended. In Parasha Vayyelekh, we read of the Jewish people’s obligation to assemble at the Beit HaMikdash (the Temple in Yerushalayim) once every seven years, on Hol HaMoed (the intermediate days of) Sukkot, following the Sabbatical year, and listen to the King read publicly from Sefer Debarim. The pesukim to be read start at the beginning of Sefer Debarim, continue through the end of Shema (6:9), the second paragraph of Shema (11:13-21), and pesukim 14:22-28:69, all of which relate to allegiance to HASHEM, the covenant between HASHEM and the Jewish people, and reward and punishment. The purpose of this obligation, of course, is to reinforce the idea that Torah is the defining attribute of a Jew – and of the Jewish state. May we all merit to see through the fog which often obscures reality and, through Aliyah and subsequent involvement in the Israeli political process, help to make Medinat Yisra’el the Jewish state that it professes to be, but currently is not, as well as the Jewish state which HASHEM desires. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
In Memoriam: Charles James Kirk (1993 – 2025) How One Man Fought for a Moral and Religious People9/22/2025  The United States of America was founded predominantly by Christians, based on Judeo-Christian principles. From the Pilgrams to the Founding Fathers and beyond, almost all Americans (and ancestors of future Americans) believed in the Story of Creation, the Ten Commandments, the Splitting of the Sea, and the Jewish people having traveled through the wilderness, on their way to the Promised Land. Like the Jews who journeyed to the Promised Land, America’s early settlers viewed their journey from Europe, across the Atlantic Ocean to North America, as their personal journey, of sorts, to their promised land. From the Thanksgiving story of the early American settlers, through at least the presidency of John Adams, the second president of the United States of America, the overwhelming majority of Americans were a god-fearing and religious people. Regarding what became the United States’ primary and guiding document, it was said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams (1798). Applying the moral teachings of the Jewish Bible to their lives and to the governance of their communities, later generations of Americans settled the United States, while continuing to use Biblical principles to grow and make the United States the most prosperous, powerful, and arguably the most just, nation the world has ever known. But, like many prosperous and powerful nations before it, the United States, somewhere along its national journey, stumbled, faltered, and has largely lost its way. The United States went from being a country of “moral and religious People” to being a country of morally and religiously challenged people. It went from being a country where almost everyone believed in a Creator; from a country where men married women and raised families; from a country where people worked hard and didn’t expect handouts, especially from government; from a country where theft and other crimes were swiftly and effectively punished; to a country which is now largely the opposite of the one which was, at its founding, inhabited by a “moral and religious People.” Many people have witnessed this change. But unlike most, Charles James Kirk, aka: Charlie Kirk, who was an exceptional and gifted man, made it his business, until his life was cut short by an assassin’s bullet on September 10, 2025, to try and slow, and ultimately reverse, America’s “moral and religious” decline and ultimate future destruction. The strategy that Charlie used to advance his agenda – a strategy which will now be carried forward by his widow Erika and by his team at Turning Point USA – was, at the same time, both simple and brilliant. It is a strategy that Charlie “borrowed” from atheists, Socialists, Marxists, and Communists; and it’s a strategy that he turned against them. Charlie’s strategy has its origins in none other than the Communist Manifesto itself. Quite simply, it is the strategy of teaching and persuading younger generations, with the goal being not just to persuade the current generation, but, more importantly, to lay the foundation for influencing future generations. The simplicity and brilliance of Charlie’s strategy is that it “borrows” a strategy which U.S. schools and teachers’ unions have been using for many decades, for the purpose of corrupting young minds, and using that strategy to achieve exactly the opposite result: to teach young people the details and merits of being a “moral and religious People.” Charlie’s “borrowed” strategy is working; more and more American youth are not only being exposed to conservative and religious beliefs and ideas; more and more American youth are embracing those beliefs and ideas. Everyone who knew Charlie, whether personally or merely through his work, will miss him. Not only will Charlie’s impact on those who knew him, on the lives that he touched, never be forgotten; his influence on the “moral and religious People” that is, on Americans, will be, and is, greater than anyone – including his assassin – could have imagined. However, all of the good that Charlie did during his short life was not without cost, the brunt of which will, at least in this world, undoubtedly be borne by his wife Erika and their two children. They alone will continue to feel the loss of Charlie in ways that others might only imagine. May the Master of the Universe –רבונו של עולם – grant them peace – שלום. Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. I. The Nature of Teshuvah Rosh HaShanah [ראש השנה], literally translated, means “head of the year.” It is, in other words, the holiday which celebrates the Jewish new year. However, unlike its non-Jewish counterparts, Rosh HaShanah is not observed with raucous parties and fireworks. Rather, it is a somber day of reflection and prayer. Tanakh refers to the holiday not as Rosh HaShanah, but rather, as Yom Teruah [יום תרועה], which, literally translated, means “day of ‘blast’ (of shofar), ‘trumpet call,’ ‘cry,’ or ‘alarm.’” “[T]here shall be a day of rest for you, a remembrance with shofar blasts [תרועה], a holy convocation.” Vayyiqra 23:23. Rosh HaShanah is the first of the two Jewish “High Holidays,” the Yamim Nora’im [ימים נוראים], the “Days of Awe.” The second of the two High Holidays is Yom Kippur [יום כיפור], the Day of Atonement. The ten days between Rosh HaShanah [ראש השנה] and Yom Kippur [יום כיפור] are known as the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah [עשרת ימי תשובה], the Ten Days of Repentance. The misva of Rosh HaShanah [ראש השנה] is to hear the blowing of the shofar, Vayyiqra 23:23, which is intended to motivate individuals to do teshuvah [תשובה], that is, to repent for one’s sins, during the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah [עשרת ימי תשובה]. Teshuvah atones for all sins. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 1:3. Teshuvah, in turn, consists of four elements: (1) ceasing the commission of the particular sin; (2) removing the particular sin from one’s thoughts; (3) resolving in one’s heart to never again commit the particular sin; and (4) verbally confessing commission of the sin. Id., 2:2. “The confession should be made ‘before G-d,’ and not in public.” Id. 2:1, n.9. II. The Misva to Conquer Eretz Yisra’el HaShem commanded the Jewish people to expel the gentile inhabitants of the Land (Eretz Yisra’el) and to not enter into an agreement with those inhabitants that would allow them to remain in the land. Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Shemot 34:11-17. Halakha – Jewish statutory law – relating to gentiles living in Eretz Yisra’el recognizes two classes of people: those who claim an ownership or similar interest in Eretz Yisra’el and those who do not claim any such interest. Regarding those who claim an ownership interest in the Land, the Torah is not referring merely to ancient civilizations who just happened to be occupying Eretz Yisra’el at the time the Jewish people crossed the Yardan (Jordan river) to enter and conquer Eretz Yisra’el. Rather, the Torah is referring to any people – for all time – who claim a legal right to Eretz Yisra’el which is superior to that of the Jewish people. According to the Or HaHayyim, the pesuk which states that: “You are to drive out all of the inhabitants of the land. . . .” means that: Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Canaanite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Canaanite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Canaanite] nations. Or HaHayyim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HaShem is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HaShem driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HaShem’s Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. III. The Misva to Reside in Eretz Yisra’el The Talmud states: [T]he Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Israel, even in a city that is mostly populated by idolaters [gentiles], and he should not reside outside of Eretz Israel, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Israel is considered as one who has a G-d, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Israel is considered as one who does not have a G-d. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.” Maseket Ketuvot, 110b. Halakha states that the misva of living in Eretz Israel is timeless; it is still the law today. The Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 75:4, states that: “If [a husband] proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and [the wife] does not want to [go], [the husband] must divorce her. . . . [And if the wife] proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisrael] and [the husband] does not want to [go], he must divorce her.” IV. The “Palestinians” The Roman emperor Hadrian conquered Judea in the year 135 C.E. The Jewish warrior Bar Kokhba was killed and the Judeans (the Jewish residents of Judea) were exiled to the four corners of the earth. Hadrian enacted laws, punishable by death, which made it illegal for any Jew who remained in Judea to keep Shabbat, study Torah, or circumcise their children. Yerushalayim was bulldozed and renamed “Aelia Capitolina.” Hadrian also changed the name of “Judea” to “Palestine.” Notwithstanding that Hadrian changed the name of Judea to “Palestine,” there has never been a Palestinian people separate and apart from the Jewish people, nor has there ever been a State of Palestine. The modern-day Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians” are nothing more than a people who lost any contemporary legal right to Eretz Yisra’el that they might arguably have had – including Judea and Samaria – during the wars of 1948 and 1967. V. The Jewish Sins Which Require National Teshuvah The first Jewish sin which requires national teshuvah is the failure of the Jewish people, through their elected government officials in Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), to have immediately asserted sovereignty over the entirety of Medinat Yisra’el following the conclusion of the 1967 war. When a person reacquires a lost object, his natural inclination is to immediately claim ownership of the object. If he does not immediately do so, he “opens the door” to competing claims. So too, it is with Medinat Yisra’el and the liberated territories of Judea and Samaria. The reason Medinat Yisra’el did not – and has not yet – asserted sovereignty over the liberated territories has to do with separate, but interrelated issues of demographics and an erroneous application of certain provisions of Medinat Yisra’el’s founding documents. Regarding demographics, Medinat Yisra’el is concerned, as it has continually been since its founding in 1948, that Israeli-Arabs will someday become a majority, rather than a minority. Were that demographic shift to occur, Medinat Yisra’el, through its democratic elections, would cease to be the nominally Jewish state that it is today. Medinat Yisra’el’s founding documents provide that Medinat Yisra’el is both a Jewish state and a democracy. Since its founding in 1948, Medinat Yisra’el has assumed that Israeli-Arabs must be granted the same political rights (e.g., the right to participate in the political process through voting and the ability to hold public office) as Jewish-Israeli citizens. This irrational, indeed schizophrenic, assumption has led to the present situation wherein the Jewish government is literally afraid to do what is in the best interest of the Jewish state and the Jewish people, for fear of antagonizing its Arab residents. The only way Medinat Yisra’el can hope to be both a Jewish state and a democracy is for citizenship, and the democratic rights relating to citizenship, to be reserved solely and exclusively for its Jewish citizens, to the exclusion of all others. To some, this idea might sound outrageous. The question that should be posed to these individuals is, simply: Which Arab state(s) allows Jews to vote? There is no historical precedent where two peoples, both of whom claim a legal right to a particular geographic area, have lived together peaceably on that land for any prolonged period of time. Medinat Yisra’el is no different. The second Jewish sin which requires national teshuvah is the failure of the Jewish people, through their elected government officials in Medinat Yisra’el, to adopt a legal system based on the Torah and to encourage non-Jews who claim a right to the lands of Medinat Yisra’el, through financial and political incentives, to emigrate from Medinat Yisra’el to other countries. May we, the Jewish people, do full and complete teshuvah for our national sins; receive atonement for those national sins; and thereby be written and sealed in the Book of Life. שנה טובה ומתוקה Shana Tova u’Metuka! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. Many have asked: “How could G-d have allowed the Holocaust?” It’s a fair question. HASHEM is a loving G-d; so how could HASHEM have allowed something as terrible as the Holocaust to have occurred? After all, many good and righteous people, and many innocent children, were murdered at the hands of the Nazis and their coconspirators. In last week’s Parasha, we read about the blessings HASHEM will bestow on the Jewish people if they observe the Torah and keep its commandments. We also read the admonitions [תוכחה], which warn of the curses which will befall the Jewish people if they fail to observe the Torah and its commandments. Parasha Nizzavim, which relates events which occurred on the last day of Moshe Rabbeinu’s life and which was given in the context of the Jewish people’s imminent entry into Eretz Yisra’el, continues the theme of last week’s Parasha through a renewal of the covenant between HASHEM and the Jewish people: You stand this day, all of you, before the L-rd you G-d . . . that you enter into the covenant of the L-rd your G-d, and into His oath, which the L-rd your G-d makes with you this day, that He seals with you today, in order to establish you today as a people to Him and that He be a G-d to you, as He spoke to you and as He swore to your forefathers, to Abraham, to Yizhaq, and to Ya’aqov. Not only with you alone do I seal this covenant and this oath, but with him who stands here this day . . . and also with him who is not here this day. . . . Debarim 29:9-14. Two important aspects of these pesukim are that: (1) the renewed covenant is binding not only on the Jews who were physically present at the time the covenant was renewed, but also on all future generations of Jews (“Not only with you alone . . . and also with him who is not here this day. . . .”) and (2) Jews are responsible not just for themselves as individuals, but also for each other. This second aspect of the pesukim introduces for the first time the concept of collective responsibility ([ערבות], literally “guarantee”), which obligates every Jew to assist other Jews in observing the Torah and not violating its commands. The great commentator Or HaHayyim wrote: Each Jew has to see to it that his fellow Jew does not stumble and commit sins. The proof that this is what Moshe Rabbeinu intended is to be found in pasuk 28, where the Israelites were relieved of their [collective] responsibility [for the sins of other Jews] when the nature of the sin is one which is committed in private. The Torah emphasizes that “publicly committed sins” [הנגלות] (literally “the revealed” sins) must be dealt with by ourselves. It is clear that the pasuk speaks of the mutual responsibility of one Jew for the conduct of another. Or HaHayyim, Debarim 29:12. Parasha Nizzavim continues: It will be that when all these things come upon you – the blessing and the curse that I have presented before you – then you will take it to your heart among all the nations where HASHEM, your G-d, has dispersed you and you will return unto HASHEM, your G-d, and listen to His voice. . . . Then HASHEM, your G-d, will bring back your captivity and have mercy upon you, and He will return and gather you in from all the peoples to which HASHEM, your G-d, has scattered you. If your dispersed will be at the ends of heaven, from there HASHEM, your G-d, will gather you in and from there He will take you. HASHEM, your G-d, will bring you to the Land that your forefathers possessed and you shall possess it. . . . Debarim 30:1-5. Parasha Nizzavim concludes: See, I have placed before you today the life and the good, and the death and the evil, that which I command you today; to love HASHEM, your G-d, and to walk in His ways, to observe His commandments and His ordinances, then you will live and you will multiply; and HASHEM, your G-d, will bless you in the Land to which you come, to possess it. But if your heart will stray and you will not listen, and you are led astray, and you prostrate yourself to the gods of others and serve them, I tell you today that you will surely be lost; you will not lengthen your days upon the Land that you cross the Yarden to come there, to possess it. I call heaven and earth today to bear witness against you. I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse. You shall choose life, so that you will live, you and your offspring – to love HASHEM, to listen to His voice and to cleave to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days, to dwell upon the Land that HASHEM swore you your forefathers, to Abraham, to Yizhaq, and to Ya’aqov, to give them. Debarim 30:15-20. In discussing the Holocaust [שואה], many people have asked, “How could a loving G-d have allowed that to happen?” Many say there is no answer to this question. Others, having not found a satisfactory answer, have abandoned religion altogether. The Torah, however, is quite clear. “[Y]ou will take it to your heart among all the nations where HASHEM, your G-d, has dispersed you and you will return unto HASHEM, your G-d, and listen to His voice. . . .” Debarim 30:1. “I have placed before you . . . life . . . and . . . death. . . . [If you will keep the Torah], then you will live. . . . But if . . . you will not listen . . . you will surely be lost. . . .” Debarim 30:1-5. During the latter half of the 1800s, the Jews of eastern Europe were, indeed, religiously observant. They lived mostly in Jewish communities (the “shtetl”) which were separated from their gentile neighbors. Under such conditions, they had to be religiously observant; there was no other practical alternative. Things changed toward the end of the 19th century, with the coming of The Enlightenment. The Jews of eastern Europe suddenly had a choice. Almost overnight, many Eastern European Jews abandoned their religious lifestyles and communities and joined the ranks of communists and socialists. They assimilated into gentile culture. Reform Judaism was “born.” Some might – correctly – point out that it cannot be that every Jew who met his fate during the Holocaust was a Jew who, through his own conduct, deserved to endure such terrible atrocities. There is no question that there were many righteous individuals – both adults and children – who perished in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, as we learn from our Parasha, each Jew is responsible for the conduct of his fellow Jew. Furthermore, the Talmud teaches that: “[W]hen there are righteous in a generation, the righteous are punished for the sins of the generation. When there are no righteous in a generation, the children are punished for the sins of the generation.” Masekhet Shabbat 33b. Thus, when we read in this week’s Parasha that HASHEM has “placed life and death before you, blessing and curse. You shall choose life. . . .” we should not be surprised to learn that there are real-life consequences for choosing curse over blessing, and for not choosing life. Although Parasha Nizzavim repeats the blessing and curse from last week’s Parasha, and adds the element of collective responsibility for Torah observance, our Parasha does not stop there. HASHEM, of course, knew in advance of the Holocaust that not all Jews would choose blessing over curse. Nevertheless, the Master of the Universe, in all of His kindness, also promised that, after the Holocaust was over, He would gather the Jewish people and return them to Eretz Yisra’el. “He will return and gather you in from all the peoples to which HASHEM, your G-d, has scattered you. . . . . [He] will bring you to the Land that your forefathers possessed and you shall possess it. . . .” Debarim 30:3-5. Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) was established after World War II, restoring sovereignty over Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people, for the first time in almost 2,000 years. Reestablishment of the Medinat has not, however, been easy. The Medinat has had to fight for its very survival, sometimes fighting day-by-day, sometimes hour-by-hour, minute-by minute, or even second-by-second. With the help of HASHEM, the Medinat has, so far, managed – against all odds – to retain some semblance of the sovereignty over Eretz Yisra’el that HASHEM so graciously restored to the Jewish people in 1948. The Holocaust, like Parashat Nizzavim, taught that: (1) there are real-world consequences to choosing the ways of Torah over the ways of the gentile nations, that is, choosing blessing over curse, life over death; and (2) Jews, all Jews everywhere, are collectively responsible for all other Jews. When the 19th century religious Jews of eastern Europe chose to abandon their religious lifestyles and communities, when they voluntarily joined the ranks of communists and socialists, and when they assimilated into gentile culture, they did exactly the opposite of what the Torah commands: They chose curse over blessing, death over life. Likewise, when the Jews who constitute the political class of Medinat Yisra’el (as well as those who vote for these individuals and their political parties) continue to choose Western-style “democracy” and “equality” over the commands of the Torah to establish a Jewish state in Eretz Yisra’el (as opposed to sharing de facto sovereignty with those who seek the destruction of the Jewish people), the Jewish people are choosing curse over blessing, and, literally, death over life. Similarly, when the Jews of Medinat Yisra’el (politicians and voters) continue to choose socialism over the Torah’s commands to establish and maintain a free-market economy, they are choosing curse over blessing, death over life. As is explained in detail in our other articles on the weekly Parashat, the choice of blessing over curse, life over death, is nothing less than the choice of: (1) full and complete Jewish sovereignty in Medinat Yisra’el, as opposed to the current system of gentile, Western-style, “democracy” and “equality,” and (2) a free-market economy, as opposed to the current socialist economy, both of which have been commanded by our Holy Torah. May the Jewish people choose Torah over the ways of the gentile nations, that is, may the Jewish people choose blessing over curse, life over death. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. Parashat Ki Tavo restates that the Jewish people are a nation, separate and apart, and, above all of the other nations, not because the Jewish people are somehow “better” or “superior” to gentiles, but solely because the Jewish people accepted the Torah. Thou has avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in His ways, and to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and to hearken to His voice; and the Lord has avouched thee this day to be a people for His own possession as He has promised thee, and that thou shouldst keep all His commandments, and to make thee high above all nations which He has made, in praise, and in name, and in honour, and that thou mayst be a holy people to the Lord thy God, as He has spoken. Debarim 26:17-19. In other words, the Torah is reminding us that the Jewish people exist solely because their ancestors, the Israelites, accepted the Torah. The Torah is also telling us that, by extension, the Jewish nation likewise exists solely because the Jewish people accepted the Torah. Parashat Ki Tavo then relates the second “Admonition” (“reproof,” “rebuke”) [תוכחה], which was given to the Jewish people by Moshe Rabbeinu shortly before the people crossed the Jordan river [נהר הירדן] to conquer Eretz Yisra’el. The first “Admonition” was given to the Jewish people by HASHEM. Vayyiqra 26. Although the text of the two sets of Admonitions differ, the message of both is the same: If the Jewish people keep the Torah, they will be blessed; if not, they will be cursed. The first Admonition provides: “If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them, then I will give you [blessings]. . . .” Vayyiqra 26:3. “But if you will not harken to Me, and will not do all these commandments [you will be cursed].” Vayyiqra 26:14. The second Admonition states: And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt harken diligently to the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all His commandments which I [Moshe Rabbeinu] command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all the nations of the earth, and all these blessings shall come on thee. . . . Debarim 28:1. But it shall come to pass, if thou will not harken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee. Cursed shalt thou be. . . . Debarim 28:15, et seq. Often overlooked is the fact that both sets of Admonitions warn against not performing the misvot in Eretz Yisra’el. The first set of Admonitions warn, “And you shall do My statutes, and keep My judgments, and do them; and you shall dwell in the land in safety.” Vayyiqra 25:18. The second set of Admonitions, as mentioned earlier, was given shortly before the Jewish people entered and conquered Eretz Yisra’el. Viewed in this context, it’s clear that the misvot are to be performed in Eretz Yisra’el. Religious Jews the world over are known for scrupulous adherence to keeping personal misvot. They keep Shabbat, pray three times a day, lay tefillin, keep Kosher, etc. The observance of national misvot, however, is much less scrupulous. Only a small number of Jews make Aliyah and, of those Jews who do reside in Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), few seek the implementation of political reforms that would result in the Medinat being governed as a Jewish State, instead of its current, Westernized, Hellenized, and distinctly non-Jewish mode of governance. In this month of Elul, as we approach the High Holidays, may the Jewish nation endeavor to avoid the curses that the Torah describes in Parashat Ki Tavo, and elsewhere, by engaging in true Teshuvah (repentance) [תשובה] for its collective failure to keep all of the misvot of the Torah, including, and especially, the national misvot. As a part of its process of Teshuvah, may the Jewish nation undertake to reform Medinat Yisra’el so that the Medinat becomes a true Jewish state, as envisioned by the Torah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. There are a number of laws distributed throughout Parasha Ki Teza which, on their face, may not seem to have any readily apparent connection. Those laws include: 1. The inheritance right of the firstborn. “If a man will have two wives, one beloved and one hated, and they bear him sons . . . he [may not change the order of inheritance to disinherit the son of the hated wife]. Rather, he must recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated [wife].” Debarim 21:15-17. 2. Returning lost property. “You shall . . . surely return [lost property] to your brother. . . . So shall you do for his donkey, . . . his garment, and . . . for any lost article of your brother that . . . you find. . . .” Debarim 22:1-3. 3. Dangerous conditions on real property. “If you build a new house, you shall make a fence on the roof [to prevent people from falling off the roof]” Debarim 22:8. 4. Farming operations. “You shall not sow your vineyard with a mixture. . . .” Debarim 22:9. 5. Collateral for loans. “One shall not take a lower or upper millstone as a pledge, for he would be taking a life as a pledge.” Debarim 24:6. 6. Collection of loans. “When you shall claim a debt of any amount from your fellow, you shall not enter his home to take security for it. . . . Debarim 24:10-13. 7. Payment of wages. “You shall not cheat a poor or destitute [employee]. . . . On that day, you shall pay his [wages.]” Debarim 24:14-15. 8. Charity. “When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forgot a bundle in the field, you shall not turn back to take it; it shall be [charity] for the convert, the orphan, and the widow. . . .” Debarim 24:19-22. 9. Weights and measures. “You shall not have in your pouch a weight and a weight – a large one and a small one. . . . A perfect and honest weight shall you have, a perfect and honest measure shall you have. . . . .” Debarim 25:13-16. The unifying theme that can be discerned from these pesukim is that the Torah has a preference for – and indeed presumes – the private ownership of property. The next logical question is: What is implied by the Torah’s preference for the private ownership of property? Ownership of property, by definition, means the legal right of an individual, without interference from others, to use or to dispose of property which is owned by that individual, provided that such use or disposition does not infringe on another person’s legal rights with respect to the other person’s property. This definition, of course, is consistent with the command “Thou shalt not steal” [לא תגנב]. Shemot 20:13. The Torah prohibition against stealing is absolute; it is not limited to individuals who commit theft, but rather, applies to both individuals and to groups consisting of more than one individual. The fact that the Torah prohibits stealing leads, logically, to the question: How may property be acquired without violating the prohibition against theft? There are two, and only two, methods in which property may be acquired in the first instance. One is through a voluntary act – a sale or a gift. The other is through the use of force or through the threat of force. There is no material difference whether the force needed to acquire property is applied by a common street criminal or by the State, under an illusion of legitimacy which the State attempts to create through the enactment of laws. When a State takes property from a person by force or by the threat of force, that taking constitutes theft, if the property which is taken is used for any purpose other than to achieve the legitimate ends of government. Although reasonable minds might differ as to what constitutes “a legitimate end of government,” it must be remembered that any and all property acquired by the State is acquired through the use, or threatened use, of force. Thus, the definition of what constitutes a legitimate end of government should be as narrow as circumstances permit. Just as there are two, and only two, methods in which property may be acquired, there are two, and only two types of economic systems: the free market, the foundation of which is the private ownership of property and voluntary exchange, and Socialism, the foundation of which is the use, or threatened use, force. Thus, we see that just as the acquisition of property by way of voluntary transactions or by force are polar opposites, so too, the free market and Socialism are polar opposites. Rabbi Akiva Tatz wrote that “[f]ree will defines the human being. The human is a reflection of the Divine; just as [HASHEM] acts autonomously, we are free to express ourselves autonomously. That is not true of other created beings. . . . Only humans are free to choose what they do.” Akiva Tatz, Will, Freedom and Destiny: Free Will in Judaism, p. 15. In other words, an economic system which is based on free will – voluntary exchange – is a system which is consistent with Torah, and any system which is based on force or the threat of force, is a system which is inconsistent with Torah. Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) was founded in 1948 by Socialists. One of the fundamental tenants of Socialism is a rejection of G-d. According to Socialist doctrine, everything, including G-d and religion, must be subordinate to the State. Not surprisingly, Medinat Yisra’el, in its early years, was an openly Socialist state. Consistent with Socialist principles, the State regulated almost every aspect of the economy, including the monetary system. During the years 1978-1979, inflation, caused by the Israeli government’s manipulation of the money supply, averaged 77 percent. By 1984-1985, inflation peaked at 450 percent! U.S. president Ronald Reagan offered Medinat Yisra’el a $1.5 billon grant if Medinat Yisra’el would abandon Socialism and adopt free-market economic principles. The Histadrut, Medinat Yisra’el’s labor union, objected. U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz responded with the threat that if Medinat Yisra’el did not start implementing free-market economic policies, the United States would freeze all monetary transfers to Medinat Yisra’el. The threat worked. Medinat Yisra’el started to implement the Reagan administration’s free-market “recommendations.” The impact on the Israeli economy was both immediate and dramatic. Within one year, inflation fell from 450 percent to 20 percent. Although the economy in Medinat Yisra’el is much better now than it was in the 1980s, there is still much work to be done. Problems which still exist in the Israeli economy include: 1. Income and Sales Taxes. Income and sales (VAT) taxes are exorbitantly high, which in turn contribute to unnecessarily high rates of Jewish poverty. 2. Price controls, import taxes, and government-created monopolies. Price controls, import taxes, and government-created monopolies lead not only to prices which are above the market rate, they also cause shortages as well as the total absence and unavailability of some products. Many Jews from the former Soviet Union have personal experience with this aspect of Socialism. As with high taxes, price controls, import taxes, and government-created monopolies contribute to unnecessarily high rates of Jewish poverty. 3. Health care. State control of the health care system not only results in a loss of medical privacy, it is also causes waiting times to obtain treatment which are longer than those in a free market. State control of health care also results in a quality or level of care which is lower than that which would exist without State interference. 4. Employment. State regulation of employment contracts between private employers and their employees result in higher prices to consumers, as well as levels of customer service which are significantly lower than what would exist in a free market. 5. Regulation of Business. Businesses of all kinds are heavily and excessively regulated by the State, which result in higher prices and a reduced or complete unavailability of certain products and services. 6. Real Estate. The State owns more than 90% of all the land in Medinat Yisra’el. Title to those lands should be transferred to Jews, so the lands could be put to productive use in order to, among other things, make housing for Jews more affordable. 7. Fiscal and Monetary Policy. The fiscal and monetary policies which have been implemented by Medinat Yisra’el are the root-cause of a multitude of economic problems which continue to plague the Medinat, and thus should be reformed consistent with free market principles. The change from a non-Torah (Socialist) economy to an economy which is consistent with Torah began in the late 1980s, with a little help from the Reagan Administration. Much, however, still needs to be done to change the secular, Socialist government of Medinat Yisra’el to one which is based on, and follows, Torah principles, including the free-market principles which we find in Parasha Ki Teza. One way to effect a change from a State which is not based on Torah principles to one which is based on those principles is through the mass Aliyah of religious Jews who not only understand, but who also embrace, the free-market principles which we find in Tanakh and Talmud. May we all merit to being a part of the process of importing Torah into the government of our beloved Eretz Yisra’el. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. The Torah commands: When you go out against your enemy, and you see a horse and chariot – a people more numerous that you – you shall not fear them, for HaShem, your G-d, is with you. . . . Debarim 20:1-4. There are at least two important messages in these pesukim. The first is that if the Jewish people have “bitahon” [ביטחון] (trust in G-d) and if they perform “hishtadlut” [השתדלות] (exertion of human effort), HASHEM will go “with [the Jewish people], to fight for [the Jewish people] with [their] enemies, to save [the Jewish people].” We saw, in 1948 (War of Independence) and 1967 (Six-Day War) how, when the Jewish people do their part, HASHEM responds in kind, just as promised in the Torah. The second is that the Jewish people should treat their enemies as enemies. The pesuk commands: “when you go out against your enemy” (italics added) to emphasize that war is being fought against an enemy, not a friend. The Midrash teaches that the Jewish people should, “Go against them as enemies! Just as they do not have mercy upon you, do not have mercy on them.” Tanchuma, Shofetim 15. In other words, when fighting a war, the Jewish people should fight to win, not show weakness, and should avoid taking half-measures in the mistaken belief that doing so is somehow righteous, effective, or compassionate. The Torah then lists three categories of people who are exempt from the obligation to serve in the military, which are: a man who has built, but not yet resided in, a new house; a man who has planted a vineyard and not yet redeemed it (in the fourth year, when fruit must be taken to Yerushalayim, or is redeemed and may be eaten for the first time); and a man who has betrothed a woman, but not yet married her. Debarim 20:5-7. Furthermore, as can be inferred from the structure and text of the exemptions, only men have an obligation to serve in the military; women are entirely exempt from military service. The Torah continues: When you draw near a city to wage war against it, you shall call out to it for peace. It shall be that if it responds to you in peace and opens for you [surrenders unconditionally], then the entire people found within it shall be as tribute for you, and they shall serve you. But if it does not make peace with you, but makes war with you, you shall besiege it. HASHEM shall deliver it into your hand and you shall smite [kill] all its males. . . . So shall you do to all the cities that are very distant from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. But from the cities of these peoples that HASHEM, your G-d, gives you as an inheritance, you must not allow any person to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them. . . . Debarim 20:10-17. We learn from these pesukim that there are two types of wars. The Torah distinguishes between wars against “all the cities that are very distant from you” and wars against “the cities of these people that HASHEM gives” to the Jewish people as an inheritance. The latter category of war is known as a “milhemet misva” [מלחמת מצוה] (a mandatory war, or literally a “misva war” or a war which is a misva to wage). Wars which are included in this category include wars against “the cities of these people that HASHEM gives” to the Jewish people, that is, wars against those who occupy Eretz Yisra’el and who claim, or seek to assert, that their legal right to Eretz Yisra’el is superior to that of the Jewish people, and wars against Amalek (defined as people who endeavor to exterminate the Jewish people). Mishneh Torah, Hilhot Melahim u’Milhamotem 5:1. The former category of war is known as “milhemet hareshut [מלחמת הרשות] (literally, a war for which HASHEM has given “permission”, such as a war which is fought for the purpose of expanding the borders of Eretz Yisra’el or to magnify its greatness and reputation. Id., 5:2. Given that the Torah commands that the Jewish people dispossess, by force of arms, if necessary, those who seek to assert a claim to Erertz Yisra’al which is superior to that of the Jewish people, it follows that the Jewish people should not allow those same people to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. By logical extension, the Torah also forbids allowing those whom it requires be dispossessed of the Land from becoming citizens in the Land, and then potentially becoming a majority instead of a minority, voting to change the character of the government from that of a Jewish state to that of a non-Jewish state, and then subjecting Jews to being ruled in Eretz Yisra’el by the very non-Jews who should have been dispossessed of the Land. Parasha Shofetim concludes with the command regarding an unsolved murder of a Jew: If a corpse will be found in the Land that HASHEM, your G-d, gives you to possess, fallen in the field, and it is not known who smote him, your elders and judges shall go out and measure toward the cities that are around the corpse. It shall be the city nearest the corpse, the elders of that city shall take a heifer, with which no work has been done, which has not pulled a yoke. The elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a harsh valley which cannot be worked and cannot be sown, and they shall axe the back of the heifer’s neck in the valley. . . . Debarim 21:1-7. There is not, of course, even the slightest reason to suspect that any of the elders were personally involved in the murder of the innocent Jew whose dead body was found in a field. Nevertheless, the Torah commands the elders to publicly proclaim that they have not spilled the blood of the innocent Jew who was murdered. Why, then, does the Torah require the elders to make a public proclamation denying any involvement in the murder of the innocent Jew? It is because the elders, in their role as political leaders, are responsible for governing Jewish society in accordance with the Torah, so that when, Heaven forbid, an innocent Jew is murdered, the elders, that is, the political leaders, can publicly – and truthfully – proclaim that they did everything within their power to prevent the shedding of innocent Jewish blood. Masekhet Sotah 38b. Today, we see the Israeli government failing, among other things, to exercise sovereignty over the entirety of Medinat Yisra’el (lands within the borders of the State of Israel), to incentivize non-Jewish Arabs to relocate outside of Medinat Yisra’el, and to take meaningful and timely action against Arab terrorists who murder innocent Jews. May HASHEM bless the Jewish people to merit the acquisition of political leaders who possess “Yirat Shamayim” [יראת שמים] (fear of Heaven) and “bitahon” [ביטחון] (trust in G-d) and who will govern Medinat Yisra’el in accordance with the Torah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. It is not surprising that the Torah often places related concepts in close proximity to each other. Parasha Re’e exemplifies this concept. Parasha Re’e opens with a blessing and a curse. “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing if you obey the commandments of the LORD your G-d, which I command you this day; and a curse if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD you G-d.” Debarim 11:26-28. The Torah continues, a few short pesukim later, “For you shall pass over the Yarden to go to possess the land which the LORD you G-d gives you, and you shall possess[וירשתם] it and dwell [וישבתם] in it. And you shall observe and do all the statutes and judgments which I set before you this day.” Debarim 11:31-32. The Jewish people were then commanded to “take possession [of the land] from them, before you, and you will take possession [ירשת] from them and settle in their land. . . .” Debarim 12:29. The Hebrew word which is used for the second command to “take possession” of the Land is [ירשת] means “inheritance.” Thus, the implication is that not only are the Jewish people commanded to take “possession” of the Land from its inhabitants, they are commanded to take legal title to the Land, by force, if necessary, so that they can pass the Land down to their descendants. Commenting on this pasuk, the Sages said that “The misva [for Jews] of [all generations to live] in Eretz Yisra’el is equal to all of the other commandments of the Torah.” Sifre, Re’e 80. The Torah, simply stated, is here telling the Jewish people that if they obey the commandments, they will be blessed; if not they will be cursed. The Torah then continues with the command to enter Eretz Yisra’el; to “possess,” that is conquer, and dwell in the Land; and to “observe and do all the statutes and judgments” in the Land. The Talmud states: [T]he Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Israel, even in a city that is mostly populated by idolaters [gentiles], and he should not reside outside of Eretz Israel, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Israel is considered as one who has a G-d, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Israel is considered as one who does not have a G-d. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.” Masechet Ketuvot, 110b. The misva of living in Eretz Israel is timeless; it is still the Halakha (Jewish law) today. The Code of Jewish Law, states that: “If [a husband] proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and [the wife] does not want to [go], [the husband] must divorce her. . . . [And if the wife] proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisrael] and [the husband] does not want to [go], he must divorce her.” Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 75:4. In Parasha Bereshit, HASHEM tells Abram (before HASHEM changed Abram’s name to “Abraham”) “I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojourns – the whole of the land of Canaan – as an everlasting possession; and I will be a G-d unto them.” [ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגריך את כל ארץ כנען לאחזת עולם והייתי להם לאלקים] Bereshit 17:8. As the great commentator Rashi explained, the phrase “and I will be a G-d unto them” means that, in Eretz Yisra’el, HASHEM will be a G-d to the Jewish people, but any Jew who voluntarily resides outside of Eretz Yisra’el ) is as if he is without HASHEM [ושם אהיה לכם לאלקים – אבל בן ישראל ה’הדר בחוצה לארץ כמו שאין לו אלוה]. Note: A person who was born outside of Eretz Yisra’el and who does not possess the ability, financial or otherwise, to provide for his family should he move to Eretz Yisra’el, is not considered to be “voluntarily” residing outside of Eretz Yisra’el. Furthermore, we find in Midrash Halakha the statement “Even though I exile you, continue to be marked with [perform] the misvot so that when you return to Eretz Yisra’el they [the misvot] will not be new to you.” Sifre, Eqeb 43. In other words, the reason a Jew performs misvot while outside of Eretz Yisra’el is not because he is commanded or obligated to do so, but rather, only so that he will know how to perform the misvot when he returns to Eretz Yisra’el! Statements, such as the following, can be found in many places in the Torah: “Behold, I [Moshe Rabbeinu] have taught you statutes and judgments . . . that you should act accordingly in the land. . . .” Debarim 4:5 (italics added). The Ibn Ezra explains the reason why the misvot can be performed only in Eretz Yisra’el. “For the L-ord knew that [the Jewish people] could not properly keep the misvot as long as they were in the land of others who ruled over them.” Ibn Ezra, Debarim 4:10. The Torah informs us that the Jewish people “are a people that shall dwell alone.” Bamidbar 22:9. Thus, we learn that the reason the Jewish people are to dwell alone – in Eretz Yisra’el – and why the misvot can properly be performed only in Eretz Yisra’el, is because the Jew, living as a minority in a majority gentile culture cannot help but be corrupted by that culture. “Dwelling alone” in Eretz Yisra’el contains two components: Aliyah and “driving out” the Arabs and any other people who claim to possess a right to Eretz Yisra’el which is greater than that of the Jewish people. One, without the other, is insufficient and, thus, will be ineffective. Lastly, there is the issue of the Jew who would rather not be “chosen,” that is, who wants to live outside of Eretz Yisra’el, who wants to live a so-called “normal” life, who does not want to be Jewish. The Torah is clear. “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing if you obey the commandments of the L-RD your G-d, which I command you this day; and a curse if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD you G-d.” Debarim 11:26-28. There is no third option. There is no opting-out. For a Jew, there is only “blessing” or “curse.” That’s it. “Jewishness,” just as certain other personal characteristics, is immutable: it cannot be changed. May every Jew rise to the challenge presented by the Torah and choose to be blessed. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. A question which is often asked is: “Who is a Jew?” The usual answer is, “A person who was born to a Jewish mother or a person who converted to Judaism in accordance with Halakha.” A related, but different, question which could be asked, is: “What is the defining attribute of a Jew?” The answer to this question can only be: “The Torah.” We know this answer is correct because without the Torah, there could be no Halakha. Without Halakha, there could be no legitimate or authoritative answer to the question, “Who is a Jew?” In other words, without the Torah, there would be no Jews, no Judaism, and, of course, no Jewish people. The term “Zionism” means a “national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.” Thus, because the purpose of “Zionism” is to benefit “the Jewish people,” and because, without Torah, there could be no “Jewish people,” it follows that the term “secular Zionism,” that is, non-religious Zionism, is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. There is not, and by definition cannot be, any such thing as “secular Zionism.” Parasha Eqev begins: This shall be the reward when you harken to these ordinances, and you shall observe and perform them; HASHEM, your G-d, will safeguard for you the covenant and the kindness that HE swore to your forefathers. He will love you, bless you, and multiply you . . . in the land which He swore to your fathers to give to you. Debarim 7:12-13 (italics added). Parasha Eqev continues: Perhaps you will say in your heart, “These nations are more numerous than I; how will I be able to drive them out?” Debarim 7:17-19. In other words, HASHEM is saying that if the Jewish people keep the Torah, including but not limited to, driving out the inhabitants from whom the Land is being taken, HASHEM will bless the Jewish people “in the land,” that is, in Eretz Yisra’el, not in Brooklyn, Beverly Hills, Barcelona, or Bombay. Why is HASHEM’S blessing for Torah observance limited to “in the land,” as opposed to other places in the world? Parasha Eqev continues – and repeats itself: “The entire commandment that I command you today you shall observe to perform, so that you may live and increase, and come to possess the Land that HASHEM swore to your forefathers.” Debarim 8:1. One implication which can be derived from the portion of this pasuk which states, “you shall observe and perform, so that you may live and increase. . . .” suggests that a Jew might not live and might not increase outside of the Land. In other words, this pasuk is suggesting that the only true defense against anti-Semitism is for a Jew to make Aliyah, that is, to immigrate to, and reside in, Eretz Yisra’el. One question that might reasonably be asked is: What right do I, as a Jew, and the whole of the Jewish people, have to “drive out” the Arabs who once were a majority of the population in Eretz Yisra’el? Parasha Eqev answers: Do not say in your heart, when HASHEM pushes them away from before you, saying, “Because of my righteousness HASHEM brings me to possess this Land and because of the wickedness of these nations did HASHEM drive them away from before you.” Not because of your righteousness and the uprightness of your heart are you coming to possess their Land, but because of the wickedness of these nations does HASHEM, your G-d, drive them away from before you, and in order to establish the word that HASHEM swore to your forefathers, to Abraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqov. And you should know that not because of your righteousness does HASHEM, your G-d, give you this good Land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people. Debarim 9:4-5. Thus, we see that the Jewish right to possession of Eretz Yisra’el is superior to that of the Arabs simply because HASHEM gave the Land to the Jewish people, because HASHEM swore to our forefathers that the Jewish people would inherit the Land, and, lastly, “because of the wickedness of these [other] nations,” not because of any merit on our part. Additionally, recent history cements the Jewish right to Eretz Yisra’el in international law. In 1947, the United Nations, through a “Partition Plan,” created separate Jewish and Arab states in so-called “Palestine.” The Arabs, both within and without Eretz Yisra’el, rejected the Partition Plan and called for what an Arab League official referred to as “a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” The Arabs believed that they, with the British troops leaving, could exterminate the Jews and create an all-Arab state. The Arab plan failed miserably. Not only did the Arabs lose the war against the Jews, the failed Arab plan led directly to the creation of the modern State of Israel – Medinat Yisra’el. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs – mostly the educated and elite – fled to neighboring Arab countries. All the land that the Arabs could have had, if only they had accepted the U.N. Partition Plan, was now lost. After the 1948 war, entire cities and villages that were formerly Arab came under the control of the newly-created Jewish state. Not only did the Arabs in Eretz Yisra’el lose land in the 1948 war, they also transitioned from being a majority, to being a minority, of the population. Indeed, HASHEM, in spectacular fashion, kept his promise to the Jewish people. A similar miracle occurred in 1967, during the 6-Day War. HASHEM has given Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people. All we need to do is accept this gift by keeping the Torah and misvot. One issue which concerns many Jews who contemplate Aliyah is how to earn a living in Medinat Yisra’el. Unless these new immigrants – Olim Hadashim [עולים חדשים] – are retired and are receiving (foreign) retirement income, they will need to be able to continue earning a livelihood after making Aliyah. Although the particulars of the answer to this question will be different for different people, the Torah provides reassurance: HASHEM “afflicted you [for forty years, in the wilderness] and let you hunger, then HE fed you the manna [המן] . . . in order to make you know that not by bread alone does man live, [but] rather, by everything that emanates from the mouth of HASHEM does man live.” Debarim 8:3, 8:6-10. Some potential Olim Hadashim [עולים חדשים] might wonder if it is safe to live in Medinat Yisra’el. Parasha Eqev answers this question as well: Hear O Yisra’el [שמע ישראל], today you cross the Yarden, to come and drive out the nations that are greater and mightier than you. . . . But you know today that HASHEM, your G-d, . . . HE will destroy them and HE will subjugate them before you; you will drive them out and cause them to perish quickly, as HASHEM spoke to you. Debarim 9:1-3. This, however, is not a promise of individual safety. Rather, it is a promise of collective safety. If the Jewish people follow the Torah and “drive . . . out” from Eretz Yisra’el those who refuse to accept Jewish sovereignty over the Land, HASHEM will protect the Jewish people, as HE has done many times before. We are living in momentous times. No longer do we stand on the threshold of the Messianic era. With the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty through the formation of Medinat Yisra’el, we have entered the Messianic era. The establishment of Medinat Yisra’el after the Holocaust; the return of the Jewish sovereignty after 2,000 years of exile; the revival of the Hebrew language, a language that heretofore had been not, for centuries, been widely used as a spoken language; the beginning of the ingathering of Jewish exiles from all parts of the globe; is not a coincidence. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. Tanakh is, at one and the same time, the most popular book in history (more copies of Tanakh have been sold than of any other book), as well as the most politically-incorrect book in history. How can this be? The answer, although simple, is not easy for many of us mere mortals to accept. Many people, including, and perhaps especially, Jews who consider themselves to be religiously observant, have difficulty reconciling what Tanakh actually says and what they personally consider to be the “Jewish” or the “G-dly” way of doing things. In short, these individuals are trying to remake G-d in their image, rather accepting the Yoke of Heaven and thus conducting their affairs in accordance with the dictates of Tanakh. These individuals, although tragically in error, at least deserve to be understood; after all, they are in good company. HASHEM did not allow Moshe Rabbeinu to enter Eretz Yisra’el, or even to be buried in Eretz Yisra’el, because Moshe considered himself to be an Egyptian-Jew, rather than a Jew whose home was in Eretz Yisra’el, but who just happened to have been born and raised in Egypt. In the opening paragraph of Parasha Va’ethannan, Moshe, talking to HASHEM, said “I pray Thee, let me go over and see the good land that is beyond the Yarden. . . .” Debarim 3:25. HASHEM responded, “Speak no more to Me of this matter. Go up to the top of the Pisga and lift up thy eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, and behold with thy eyes, for thou shalt not go over this Yarden.” Id., 26-27. The Midrash explains that HASHEM said to Moshe, “Whoever acknowledges his homeland is buried in his homeland, but whoever does not acknowledge his homeland is not buried in his homeland.” Debarim Rabba 2:8. The Midrash further explains that when the daughters of Yitro said “An Egyptian man saved us from the shepherds, Shemot 2:19, “Moshe heard them and remained silent.” Id. But, one might say, acknowledging one’s peoplehood or acknowledging one’s national identity is equivalent to acknowledging one’s homeland. After all, Moshe killed an Egyptian who was attacking a Jew. That incident, among others, proved Moshe’s loyalty to the Jewish people. Surely that should constitute a sufficient acknowledgment by Moshe of his homeland. However, acknowledging one’s people is not the same as acknowledging one’s homeland. Moshe, like many Jews who today live outside of Eretz Yisra’el [חוץ לארץ], might have believed that his country of birth – rather than Eretz Yisra’el – was his homeland. When Yitro’s daughters said that “an Egyptian man saved us,” Moshe remained silent, not because he did not want to identify himself as a Jew, but perhaps because Moshe considered Egypt – not Eretz Yisra’el – to be his homeland. Instead of remaining silent, Moshe, when described as being an “Egyptian,” should have objected by saying, “Although I happen to have been born in Egypt, my homeland is Eretz Yisrael, even though I have never been there. The same politically-correct mistake persists in modern times. In 2019, Democrat Muslim U.S. congresswoman Ilhan Omar, in a social media post, implied that some Jews who were born, raised, and live in the United States have “dual-loyalty” to the United States and to Israel. Omar’s social media post was widely denounced as “antisemitic.” However, contrary to popular belief, Omar’s social media post was not antisemitic. It was merely a statement which, hopefully, at a minimum, is at least partially true. As we see from the incident involving Moshe Rabbeinu and Yitro’s daughters, Moshe’s sin, like the sin of many Jews who were born in America (and other diaspora countries) is that they believe their country of birth – rather than Eretz Yisra’el – is their home, even if, like Moshe Rabbeinu, they have never been to Eretz Yisra’el. Then there was King Sha’ul, who was commanded by HASHEM to kill “Amaleq and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” I Shemu’el 15:3. However, “Sha’ul . . . had pity on Agog,” id., at 15:9, and substituted his “wisdom” for that of HASHEM’S by failing to kill Agog, king of Amaleq, as well as some of Amaleq’s choicest animals. King Sha’ul’s attempt at political correctness, that is, at not doing as HASHEM had commanded but, instead, substituting his value system for the value system of Tanakh, led to Jewish tragedies such as Haman, whom we read about on Purim, as well as Adolf Hitler, who was a spiritual descendant of Agog and Haman. In modern times, we see Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) shunning the requirements of Torah/Tanakh and, instead, engaging in political correctness by failing to exercise sovereignty over the entirety of Medinat Yisra’el and by attempting to pacify Arabs who currently reside in Israel. If Medinat Yisra’el were to reject political correctness and comply with the requirements of Torah/Tanakh, it would deny Israeli citizenship to Arabs who live in Medinat Yisra’el and, simultaneously, implement financial incentives which would encourage them to emigrate to the Arab country of their choice. Parashat Va’ethannan also repeats the Ten Commandments [עשרת הדברות], or, more accurately translated, the Ten Statements. A comprehensive discussion of how contemporary societies in general, and Medinat Yisra’el in particular, engage in political correctness through a rejection of various Torah commandments is beyond the scope of this article. However, we will briefly discuss one commandment. “You shall not steal [לא תגנב].” Debarim 5:17. This commandment seems fairly straightforward. Simply stated, it means one is forbidden to take property which does not belong to him. The implications of this commandment, however, are many. First, a commandment which forbids stealing property necessarily implies the existence of private property ownership. Thus, by this simple statement, the Torah forbids political or economic systems which seek to abolish, or even to limit or restrict beyond what is needed for the orderly operation of society, the private ownership of property. Next, the Torah does not qualify the prohibition against stealing by limiting it to stealing which is committed by a single individual. Rather, the prohibition applies to both individuals and to groups consisting of more than one individual. Thus, since it is a Torah violation to abolish or needlessly restrict the ownership of private property, as well as a Torah violation for both individuals or groups of individuals to steal, it follows that laws such as taxation which exceeds what is needed for the legitimate functions of government (e.g., military, police, and the like), or laws which impose restraints on trade (import/export taxes, grants of monopoly privilege, employment laws which interfere with the ability of employers and employees to freely bargain for labor services, and central banking systems which allow the money supply to be inflated through fractional-reserve banking) all violate the Torah. Medinat Yisra’el expends significant resources to promote Aliyah, the immigration of diaspora Jews to Israel. However, the Aliyah “coin” has two sides: one side consists of encouraging diaspora Jews to immigrate to Israel. The other side consists of creating both a Torah and economic environment that encourages Jews to remain in Israel. Medinat Yisra’el, a nation-state which was founded by socialists, is a country that is still recovering from socialism. During the years 1978-1979, Israeli inflation, caused by government expansion of the money supply, averaged 77 percent. By 1984-1985, inflation peaked at 450 percent! U.S. president Ronald Reagan offered Israel a $1.5 billion grant if Israel would abandon socialism and adopt free-market economic principles. The Histadrut, Israel’s labor union, objected. U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz responded with the threat that if Israel did not start implementing free-market economic policies, the United States would freeze all monetary transfers to Israel. The threat worked and the Medinat, although being “dragged kicking and screaming,” started to implement the free-market “recommendations” that were suggested by the Reagan Administration. As a part of its economic restructuring, the Medinat, on January 1, 1986, introduced, the New Israeli Shekel (NIS), which replaced the hyper-inflated Shekel at a rate of 1,000:1. The impact on the Israeli economy which resulted from the implementation of free-market principles was immediate and dramatic. Within one year, Israeli inflation fell from 450 percent to 20 percent. Although the economy in Medinat Yisra’el is much better now than it was in the 1980s, there is still much work to be done. Each year, significant numbers of Jews who made Aliyah return to their diaspora countries because of economic conditions in Medinat Yisra’el. Additionally, a good number of Israeli-born Jews, many of whom are young men in their 20s, move to diaspora countries where they can better earn a livelihood. Sadly, they sometimes resort to marrying non-Jewish women in order to be able to legally remain in those foreign countries. These Jewish tragedies, which are caused in large part by the non-Jewish government of Israel (a government which happens to populated mostly by Jews), are completely avoidable. May Medinat Yisra’el be blessed to learn and apply the lessons of Tanakh, the most politically-incorrect book in history, and thereby become a Jewish nation, and to not continue being a nation, like any other, which just happens to (currently) be administered by a majority of Jews. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. The “Torah,” which, broadly defined, consists of the Written Law and the Oral Law, is the most politically-incorrect “book” (Hebrew: “sefer” [ספר]; plural “sefarim” [ספרים]) that now exists, or which has ever existed. Written Torah is composed of the Five Books of Moshe: Sefarim Bereshit [בראשית], Shemot [שמות], Vayyiqra [ויקרא], Bamidbar [במדבר], and Debarim [דברים]. The names of these sefarim are often mistranslated as “Genesis,” “Exodus,” Leviticus,” “Numbers,” and “Deuteronomy,” respectively. Of the Five Books of Moshe, all of which are politically-incorrect to some extent or another, Sefer Debarim [דברים] is the most politically-incorrect of all. In Biblical Hebrew, Sefer Debarim [ספר דברים] is referred to as “Mishneh Torah” [משנה תורה], meaning “repetition of the Torah.” However, Moshe Rabbeinu (Moshe our teacher [משה רבינו]) “did not merely repeat everything that HASHEM had commanded, but reiterated how HASHEM had commanded” performance of the misvot (commandments [מצוות]). Hirsch, Rav Samson Raphael, The Hirsch Chumash, 2 (italics original). “However, the repetition of the Torah and the explanation of the Torah do not constitute the [entire] content of the book of Debarim.” Id., at 2-3 (italics original). We know this because “of the more than one hundred misvot [which] are contained in the book of Debarim, more than seventy are new [and not] contained in the preceding books.” Id., at 3 (italics original). In chapter 16 (vv. 1-17), the Torah reiterates the misvot of the festivals. In this reiteration, only פסח [“Pesah,” aka: “Passover”], שבועות [“Shavout,” aka: Festival of Weeks], and סוכות [“Sukkot,” aka: Festival of Booths (or Tabernacles)] are mentioned. When we compare this section to the section on the festivals in Vayyiqra 23, we immediately notice that Scripture here [in Sefer Debarim] does not repeat שבת [“Shabbat,” aka: Sabbath], ראש השנה [lit. “head of the year,” aka: יום תרועה (lit. “Day or Rejoicing” or Day of Shofar Blowing], יום כיפור [lit. Day of Atonement], [or] שמיני עצרת [lit. “Eighth [Day of] Assembly;” Festival which occurs on the day immediately following the seventh day of Sukkot)]. Id., at 4. In other words, Moshe Rabbeinu, in his Mishneh Torah, his repetition of the Torah which we refer to simply as “Sefer Debarim,” was communicating to the Israelites that they were about to enter a new a new phase, a new era, of Jewish history, that era being national existence and independence. After entering Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people would no longer have HASHEM’S Divine Presence, or miracles, to guide them. The Jewish people would now have to establish a national government and govern themselves, hopefully, in accordance with the Torah. Consistent with this transition away from the wilderness, when HASHEM’S Devine Presence was always with the Jewish people, to an independent national existence in Eretz Yisrael, the words of Sefer Debarim, unlike the words contained in the other Four Books of the Torah, are not the direct words of HASHEM, but rather, are the words of Moshe Rabbeinu, who was telling over to the Jewish people what HASHEM had told him. What we are “witnessing” through the progression from the first Four Books of the Torah, to Sefer Debarim, and then through the rest of Tanakh, is nothing less than HASHEM, our Father in Heaven, “raising” his Children, the Jewish people, from infants in Egypt, to teenagers in the Wilderness, to adults in Eretz Yisrael; that is, to adults who are expected to implement and live by the lessons taught to them by their Father, during their childhood. Just as many other young adults, the “young adults” who consisted of the Jewish people who crossed the River Yarden [נהר הירדן] and entered Eretz Yisra’el, either did not fully learn, or more likely, did not fully internalize or appreciate, the lessons that were given over to them by their Father. The Torah in general, and Sefer Debarim in particular, articulates values and a Code of Conduct for living which contradicts almost all of the concepts which are held dear by Western “civilization.” On a personal level, the Torah prescribes rules for marriage and family life; rules for the preservation of life, from young to old; rules for personal self-defense; and, among many others; rules relating to grooming, appearance, and mutilation of one’s body. On a national level, which is our current focus, we see that Moshe Rabbeinu – our teacher – taught us, the Jewish people, our Father’s rules for national Jewish governance. Like our Father’s rules for the governance of our individual lives, our Father’s rules for national governance likewise run counter to concepts which are held dear by Western “civilization.” Take, for example, “conquest.” The Torah commands the Jewish people to conquer Eretz Yisra’el. Then there is “democracy” and “equal rights.” The Torah both forbids the Jewish people to grant gentiles citizenship in Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) and commands the Jewish people to expel from Eretz Yisra’el those gentiles who claim a right to the Land. Despite clear warnings in the Torah and our Sages of what will happen if we, the Jewish people, do not heed these laws of national Jewish governance, Medinat Yisra’el, through its politicians and electorate, have failed to implement our Father’s lessons. For example, at Har Sinai, when the Torah was given to the Jewish people, HASHEM said, Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Rather, you shall break apart their alters, smash their pillars, and cut down its sacred trees. Shemot 34:11-17. The commentator Maimonides (the Rambam) wrote: We were commanded to occupy the Land that HaShem gave our ancestors, Abraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqov. We must not abandon it to any other nation, or leave it desolate. HaShem said, “Clear out the Land and live in it, since it is to you that I am giving the Land to occupy.” Bamidbar 33:53-54. . . . Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvah 4. In Parashat Mas’e, we learn that “HASHEM spoke to Moshe in the plains of Moab, by the Yarden, , near Yereho, saying, ‘Speak to the Children of Yisra’el and say to them: When you cross the Yarden [river] into Eretz Kena’an [Eretz Yisra’el], you shall drive out all of the inhabitants of the Land before you. . . .” Bamidbar 33:50-52. Likewise, in Parashat Shofetim, we are told that “But from the cities of these peoples that HASHEM, your G-d gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any person to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them. . . .” Debarim 20:16-17. The Or HaChaim wrote that: Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Kena’anite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Kena’anite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Kena’anite] nations. Or HaChaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HASHEM is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HASHEM driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HASHEM’S Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. Just as the Torah promised, the Arabs are today a “snare among” the Jewish people because we have “seal[ed] a covenant with” them simply by allowing them to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. The reason which is often given for the failure to govern Medinat Yisra’el in accordance with the commands of the Torah is that to do so, that is, to limit citizenship to Jews and, among other things, to expel gentiles who claim a right to the Land, would somehow be “immoral.” This answer, however, is simply illogical and absurd, as it is our Father in Heaven, none other than HASHEM Himself, who determines what is moral and what is immoral and it is HASHEM himself who commanded the Jewish People to expel from Eretz Yisra’el all who contest Jewish ownership of, or sovereignty over, the Land. As human beings, we can, and should, try to understand HASHEM’S decrees. However, our obligation is to abide by those decrees, regardless of whether we understand them. May we, the Jewish people, learn, accept, and implement HASHEM’S will, just as it is written in The Most Politically-Incorrect Book Ever. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. Parasha Mattot begins: And Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Yisra’el, saying, This is the thing which the Lord has commanded. If a man vow a vow to the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break from his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. Bamidbar 30:2-3. In Parasha Mas’e, we find a command that the Jewish people “shall take possession of the land [of Yisra’el] and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to possess.” Bamidbar 33:53. In contravention of the plain language of Parasha Mas’e, some claim that the “Three Oaths” require that the Jewish people not form a sovereign state in Eretz Yisra’el (the Land of Israel) prior to the coming of the Messiah. According to aggadahic legend, the Three Oaths are oaths that were compelled by HASHEM. They are found in Shir ha-Shirim (Song of Songs), which is found in a portion of Ketuvim (Writings), which, in turn, is found in Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). The Three Oaths are expounded upon in Midrashic aggadah and later discussed in the Talmud, in Masechet Ketubot, 110b, 111a. The Three Oaths consist of two oaths for Yisra’el and one oath for the other nations. The two oaths which, according to Shir ha-Shirim, are applicable to the Jewish people are: (1) The Jewish people shall not go up to the Eretz Yisra’el en-masse. Rashi, an 11th century Jewish commentator, interpreted this “oath” as meaning that the Jewish people would not take Eretz Yisra’el by force. (2) The Jewish people will not rebel against the nations. The oath that HASHEM made the nations swear was that they would not oppress Yisra’el “too much.” There are at least three reasons why the Three Oaths do not prohibit the Jewish people from forming (or maintaining) a sovereign state in Eretz Yisra’el. I. The Written Law Trumps Aggadah The Written Torah, divinely conveyed by HASHEM commands that: the Jewish people “shall take possession of the land of [Yisra’el] and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to possess.” Bamidbar 33:53. The Writings (Ketuvim), written by mere human beings, are simply ineffective to contradict the Written Torah. The Three Oaths, which are aggadah, do not form any part of Jewish Law (Halakha). The Three Oaths are not found in the Shulhan Arukh (the Code of Jewish Law) or in any other authoritative source of Jewish Law. On the contrary, Maimonides, a 12th century Jewish commentator, held that the Three Oaths are merely “metaphorical” and wrote that “[i]t is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora at all times except: to study Torah; to marry; or to save [one’s property] from the gentiles. [After accomplishing these objectives,] one must return to Eretz Yisrael.” Mishneh Torah, Melachim 5:9. II. The Three Oaths Are Not Binding Because the Nations Oppressed Israel “Too Much” The oaths allegedly sworn by Yisra’el and the oath allegedly sworn by the nations are interdependent. That is, the violation of an oath by one relieves the other of its obligations. The nations violated their oath by oppressing Yisra’el “too much” during the Shoah (Holocaust), which resulted in the nullification of any obligation on the part of the Jewish people. Following World War II, the United Nations passed Resolution 181, which resulted in the formation of Medinat Yisa’el, the modern-day state of Israel. III. The Jewish People Did Not Violate the Oaths by Establishing the State of Israel Regardless of whether the nations oppressed Yisra’el “too much,” the Jewish people did not violate their “oaths.” The Three Oaths do not enjoin the Jewish people from having a sovereign state. Rather, they simply purport to enjoin the Jewish people from forming a state by force of arms or through rebellion. The Jewish people did not conquer Eretz Yisra’el by force, nor did the Jewish people rebel against the nations. As mentioned above, Medinat Yisra’el was established as a result of international consensus, which did not involve any use of force or rebellion on the part of the Jewish people. The fact that Medinat Yisra’el, immediately after its formation, successfully defended itself from attack by all surrounding Arab countries is, in the context of this analysis, irrelevant. The Three Oaths only proscribe conquering the Land by force or rebelling against the nations; they do not proscribe self-defense. Thus, we see that the Three Oaths do not, in any way, bear upon the legitimacy of the existence of the modern-day State of Israel. May all nations and peoples, Jew and Gentile alike, come to understand and accept that HASHEM gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an inheritance and that the Jewish people are – for all time – the rightful owners of the entirety of Eretz Yisrael. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. Peace. Almost everyone wants peace. Pacifist antiwar “doves” want peace. Members of the military – soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen – the very individuals who have the most to lose in the event of war, want peace. Most pro war “hawks,” those who believe that being prepared for war leads to peace, want peace. Perhaps the only influential portion of the population that may not actually want peace are those who will realize significant financial profits from war. “Peace” is a very important and central concept of Judaism. The Hebrew word for “peace” is “Shalom” [שלום], which is also a common greeting which means “hello.” Regarding the Hebrew language, Rabbi Benjamin Bleck explains: Hebrew is a holy language. Benjamin Blech, Preface, The Secrets of Hebrew Words (1991). In addition to being a holy language, Hebrew is a fascinating language. Like other languages, Hebrew words consist of letters. The name of the Hebrew alphabet is derived from its first two letters, “aleph” [א] and “bet” [ב], and thus is known simply as the “Aleph-Bet.” Not surprisingly, the English language word “alphabet” is derived from the Hebrew word “Aleph-Bet.” One amazing feature of the Hebrew language is that “root words” [שורש] [pl. שורשים], which often consist of three letters, function as “building blocks” for other words. Thus, it is not surprising that Hebrew words which share a common “root word” [שורש] also share a related concept or meaning. So too, it is with the Hebrew word “shalom,” which is spelled “ם-ו-ל- ש” (Hebrew is read from “right-to-left,” not from “left-to-right”). The root of the word “Shalom [שלום] is Shalem, which is spelled “ם-ל- ש” and which means “whole,” “complete,” “perfect,” “total.” Thus, we see that implicit in the concept of “peace” is the concept of “wholeness,” “completeness,” “perfection,” and “totality.” To understand the Torah’s meaning of “peace,” we now turn to Parasha Pinehas. The Jewish people were still in the wilderness, in a place called Shittim. Bil’am, having failed in his attempts to curse the Jewish people, devised a plot which was calculated to persuade Jewish men to engage in immoral acts with Moabite and Midianite women. The plot was successful. The resulting immorality brought a plague upon the Jewish people. According to the great Torah commentator Rashi, the women would ply the men with food and drink. When a man became inebriated and sought to cohabit with a woman, the woman would pull her Baal-peor idol from underneath her robe and insist that the man bow to it. One of the Jewish men who succumbed was Zimri, a leader of the tribe of Shimon. Zimri, in a shocking act of brazenness, brought his paramour to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and sinned with her in public and in the presence of Moshe and the elders. Moshe and the elders were so taken-aback by this public display of immorality that all they could do was weep. Pinehas, however, recalled the law that “a zealous one may slay” [קנאים פוגעין בו] a person who publicly violates the Torah prohibition against cohabiting with a gentile. Pinehas then killed both Zimri and Zimri’s paramour. And when Pinehas, the son of El’azar, the son of Aharon the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation and took a spear in his hand. He went after the man of Yisra’el, into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Yisra’el, and the woman through her belly. The plague was stayed from the children of Yisra’el. Those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand. Bamidbar 25:7-8. For this act of zealousness, Pinehas became the recipient of the first-ever “peace prize.” And the LORD spoke to Moshe, saying, Pinehas, the son of El’azar, the son of Aharon the priest, has turned My wrath away from the children of Yisra’el in that he was zealous for My sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Yisra’el in my jealousy. Wherefore, say, behold, I give to him [Pinehas] My covenant of peace. Bamidbar 25:10-13. Not only did Pinehas kill Zimri to achieve peace, he received HASHEM’S covenant of peace for doing so! Once again, we see that contemporary, Western philosophy, what might be called “conventional wisdom,” is at odds with the Torah. In modern times, the definition of “peace” is to compromise with evil, to make a deal with one’s enemy and hope that he doesn’t persist in his efforts to kill you. It means the Oslo Accords; it means not asserting full sovereignty over the entirety of Yerushalayim, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. It means not expelling the Arabs from Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), as commanded by the Torah. And it means trading terrorists for innocent civilian hostages, instead of dealing with terrorists in a manner consistent Pinehas’ treatment of Zimri and Zimri’s paramour. “Peace,” as we know from the Hebrew word “Shalom” [שלום], and its root “Shalem” [שלם], which as we recall means “whole,” “complete,” “perfect,” “total,” is a not a mixture of good and evil. Rather, compromising and making treaties with people who want to exterminate and annihilate you constitutes the exact opposite of peace. The Master of the Universe not merely expects but requires, that the righteous purge evil from this world. As the Rabbis taught, killing the wicked is analogous to offering sacrifices on the altar, which is a symbol of peace, “to teach that when the blood of the wicked is spilled, it is as if a sacrifice was offered.” Tanchuma, Pinehas 1. The only way to achieve true peace, that is, to achieve wholeness, completeness, perfection, is to eliminate evil from this world by totally defeating one’s enemies. Pinehas totally defeated an enemy who sought, through immorality, the spiritual destruction of the Jewish people, which explains why he received HASHEM’S covenant of peace. Thus, we see that our task is to totally defeat the enemies of our time who seek the physical destruction of the Jewish people. May Medinat Yisra’el, as well as all of the Jewish people be blessed with Jewish leaders who will, like Pinehas, be worthy of HASHEM’S covenant of peace. And may your Shabbat be both peaceful, as well as whole and complete. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. HASHEM, in His infinite wisdom, decreed that the 70 gentile nations should have a prophet, so that they would not be able to assert that if only they, like the Jewish people, could have communicated with HASHEM through a prophet, they, like the Jewish people, would have been righteous. Bil’am, although lower in stature than Moshe, was that prophet. Parashat Balaq opens with Biblical Medinat Yisra’el (the Biblical State of Israel) advancing on the Kingdom of Moab, after it had defeated the Amorite kings Sihon and Og. Balaq, the King of Moab, fearing a military defeat because Moab was weaker than the Amorites, enlisted Bil’am to curse the Jewish people. King Balaq reasoned that Bil’am’s curse would assist Moab in defeating Biblical Medinat Yisra’el militarily. The Parasha then chronicles Bil’am’s repeated attempts to curse the Jewish people, attempts which were thwarted by HASHEM’S insistence that Bil’am bless the Jewish people. The Torah is not merely a collection of nice stories. The word “Torah” [תורה], literally translated, means “to instruct.” As we learn from the Midrash, “The deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children.” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9. What the Midrash is teaching is that the purpose of the Torah is to teach us what we should do and what we should not do. Thus, our task is to ascertain how the lessons of Parashat Balaq apply to contemporary times. First, we see that Bil’am wanted to curse, but was instead forced by HASHEM to bless, the Jewish people. From this, we can learn the very valuable lesson of taking at face-value the statements of someone who says they want to curse you, that is, the statements of someone who says they want to harm you. Although our Parasha, referring to the Jewish people, states that, “Blessed is he that blesses thee and cursed is he who curses thee,” Bamidbar 24:9, it is nevertheless incumbent upon us to not rely on miracles and thus to take those actions which are necessary to defend Medinat Yisra’el. Not only do Arab-Israelis repeatedly and continually say that they would like to abolish Medinat Yisra’el as a Jewish state and convert Eretz Yisra’el into Arab-Muslim state, they continually take actions which are calculated to achieve exactly that result. Thus, the only cogent course of action is to deny them Israeli citizenship and to incentivize them to emigrate to an Arab country. Second, our Parasha relates that Bil’am said the Jewish people are “a nation that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations.” Bamidbar 23:9. A nation that dwells alone cannot, by definition, dwell among other nations. In other words, Medinat Yisra’el, the only Jewish state in the world, cannot dwell alone if it continues to allow non-Jewish Arabs to dwell among the Jewish people in Medinat Yisra’el. As a corollary, it follows that the Jewish people cannot fully be a nation that dwells alone as long as a significant number of its members – Jews – reside in foreign lands. As we have previously discussed, it is incumbent upon all Jews, wherever they may reside, to make Aliyah (immigrate to Medinat Yisra’el), if it is possible for them to do so. Third, one might ask, “If Jews the world over were to make Aliyah, how would it be possible for Jews with different Minhagim (customs) to coexist in a geographic area as small as Medinat Yisra’el?” When speaking of the Jewish people, none other than Bil’am himself said, “How goodly are your tents, O Ya’aqov, and your dwelling places, O Yisra’el!” [מה-טבו אהליך יעקב משכנתיך ישראל]. Bamidbar 24:5. In its simplest meaning, this pasuk refers to the different tribes of Yisra’el all dwelling together, while at the same time maintaining their separate identities. According to the great commentator Rashi, this means the tents were arranged so that their entrances did not face each other, thereby maintaining the privacy of each family. Thus, we see, that Jews with different Minhagim, that is, different “tribes” of Jews can surely live together in the small geographic area that is Medinat Yisra’el. Furthermore, once non-Jewish Arabs who are currently living in Medinat Yisra’el emigrate to Arab lands, there will be all the more real estate available in Medinat Yisra’el for Jews who make Aliyah! שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. The Hebrew word “Huqqat [חקת], after which our Parasha is named, means “decree.” Indeed, the Parasha opens with, “And HASHEM spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying, “This is the decree of the Torah [חקת התורה] which HASHEM has commanded. . . .” Bamidbar 19:1-2. The Torah is not here speaking about just any decree, but rather, is speaking about a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה]. The quintessential example of a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה] is the Red Cow [פרה אדמה], which the Torah discusses immediately after introducing the concept of a “decree from the Torah” [חקת התורה]. The nature of the Red Cow [פרה אדמה] is puzzling, because it purifies those who, through contact with a corpse, became impure, while simultaneously rendering impure those who prepared its ashes. From this, the Sages derive that the meaning of a “decree from the Torah” [חקת התורה] is a decree that is beyond the ability of humans to logically understand. We often believe that we understand certain decrees from the Torah, because some decrees seem logical to us. However, an extremely important point to remember is that, as religious Jews, we do not do as the Torah commands, or refrain from doing that which the Torah forbids, simply because the Torah make logical sense to us. Rather, we obey Torah commands, first and foremost, because that is what HASHEM has commanded us to do. Recall that when the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Har Sinai, we responded, “We will do and then we will hear (understand) [נעשה ונשמע],” Shemot 24:7, meaning that we will first obey the commandments of the Torah and then we will study the Torah to gain an understanding of those commandments. Do the decrees [חוקים] of the Torah regarding Eretz Yisra’el have anything in common with the decree [חוק] concerning the Red Cow? If so, what can we learn from Parashat Huqqat, about the concept of a “Two-State Solution,” or “Land for Peace,” both of which appear to make logical sense to a large number of Jews and Gentiles alike? First, we need to understand and accept that the Torah is not merely a collection of nice stories. The word “Torah” [תורה], literally translated, means “to instruct.” As we learn from the Midrash, “The deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children.” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9. What the Midrash is trying to teach is that we should learn from the events that are described in Tanakh and apply those lessons to our lives. The term “Two-State Solution,” simply put, means that Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) would allow Arabs who currently reside in Medinat Yisra’el to establish their own sovereign state on Jewish land. Why might Medinat Yisra’el agree to such a proposal? In a word, “peace,” or in a phrase, “Land for Peace.” Israeli-Arabs, however, are not interested is a sovereign state carved out of, and located next to, the Jewish state of Medinat Yisra’el. Rather, they desire the entirety of the lands controlled by Medinat Yisra’el. Consider the statement of an Arab-Israeli teacher on the subject of using Medinat Yisra’el’s democratic political system against the Jewish state in order to transform it into another, of many, Arab states: Today, I am in the minority. The state is democratic. Who says that in the year 2000 we Arabs will still be the minority. Today I accept the fact that this is a Jewish state with an Arab minority. But when we are the majority, I will not accept the fact of a Jewish state with an Arab majority. Na’ama Saud, a teacher from the Israeli Arab village of Araba; May 28, 1976. Fast-forward almost a half century. A Deputy Israeli Religious Affairs Minister publicly mused that, if it were possible, he “would send all of the [Israeli-]Arabs . . . to Switzerland where they could live wonderful lives.” Deputy Minister Matan Kahana, June 14, 2022. The deputy minister then dismissed the idea, stating “I guess they [Arab-Israelis] are meant to live on this land, in some way or another.” Deputy Minister Kahana’s desire to expel Arabs from Medinat Yisra’el is, however, much more than just a pie-in-the-sky wish. It’s actually a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה] – no different than the Red Cow [פרה אדמה]. Regarding non-Jews who live in Eretz Yisra’el, the Halakha – Jewish law – recognizes two classes of people: those who claim an ownership or similar interest in Eretz Yisra’el and those who do not claim any such interest. Regarding the former, the Torah is not merely referring to ancient civilizations who just happened to be occupying Eretz Yisra’el prior to the arrival of the Jewish people; rather, the Torah is referring to any people – for all time – who claim a legal right to Eretz Yisra’el. Both the Torah and Halakha require that all Gentiles who claim a right to Eretz Yisra’el which is superior to that of the Jewish people must be expelled from the Land. Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Shemot 34:11-17. According to the Or HaChaim: “You are to drive out all of the inhabitants of the land. . . .” Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Canaanite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Canaanite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Canaanite] nations. Or HaChaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HaShem is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HaShem driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HaShem’s Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. Ibrahim Sarsur, who is an Arab former member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) of the supposedly Jewish state of Israel, a former leader of the Islamic Movement's Southern Branch and, a member of the Shura Council, responded to Deputy Minister Kahana, stating: Matan Kahana’s pitiful words, in addition to being fascist and disgusting, prove two important things: One, there is still a very high percentage of Zionists who believe that ethnic cleansing is the solution to the Jewish problem. Two, his recognition of the fact that the Palestinian nation is a fact, and that it will continue to exist in its homeland forever. Ibrahim Sarsur, June 15, 2022. Sarsur has also been quoted as being supportive of “redeeming” Jerusalem and creating a “Palestinian” state in preparation for the creation of an Islamic caliphate in all of “Palestine” and beyond. Id. Not only did Deputy Minister Kahana, albeit likely inadvertently, reject the Torah’s command to expel the Arabs from Medinat Yisra’el, he also provided Sarsur and his ilk with an opening to claim that, contrary to Tanakh, HASHEM did not give Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an eternal inheritance. Also noteworthy is the hypocrisy which is displayed by Saesur when he accuses Kahana of being “fascist and disgusting” and of supporting “ethnic cleansing” for wanting to expel Arabs from Eretz Yisra’el, and then, practically in the next breath, stating that he supports the creation of a Palestinian state, in preparation for the creation of an Islamic caliphate in all of “Palestine” and beyond. As an aside, expelling Arabs from Eretz Yisra’el would neither be “fascist,” or “disgusting,” nor would it constitute “ethnic cleansing.” That discussion, however, is for another day. Returning to the subject of the Two-State “Solution,” since we know that “[t]he deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children,” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9, and because we know we are supposed to learn from Jewish history as recorded in Tanakh, it would be appropriate for us to see if there is any precedent in Tanakh where a nation that was defeated by Yisra’el sought to reacquire land through a Two-State “Solution.” After receiving the Torah at Har Sinai, the Jewish People, who had become the Nation of Israel – the Biblical form of the modern-day Medinat Yisra’el – set off on their journey to Eretz Yisra’el, the land that HASHEM had promised them. In order to arrive at their destination, Biblical Medinat Yisra’el needed to pass through several kingdoms (countries). The most direct route was through the Kingdom of Edom. Toward the end of Parasha Huqqat, we learn that the King of Edom denied a request by Biblical Medinat Yisra’el to peaceably pass through his country. Although disappointed, Biblical Medinat Yisra’el accepted Edom’s refusal to grant their request for passage and looked for an alternative route. An alternative route was found through the Kingdoms of Ammon and Bashan. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el asked the King of Ammon for permission to peaceably pass through his country. The King of Ammon, like the King of Edom, denied Biblical Medinat Yisra’el’s request for passage. But unlike the King of Edom, the King of Ammon used his military forces to attack Biblical Medinat Yisra’el. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el defended by going on the offensive and, in so doing, conquered the territory, including the cities and towns, which then constituted the Kingdom of Ammon. The King of Bashan also attacked Biblical Medinat Yisra’el and was likewise defeated. After the war, the former lands of Ammon and Bashan became part of Biblical Medinat Eretz Yisra’el. There was no immediate request that, in exchange for “peace,” Biblical Medinat Yisra’el would return to Ammon and to Bashan the land which Biblical Medinat Yisra’el had captured during the war. However, some 300 years later, Ammon proposed “Land for Peace,” stating that it would once again wage war against Biblical Medinat Yisra’el if Biblical Medinat Yisra’el did not “return” to Ammon the land which Biblical Medinat Yisra’el had captured in battle. Shoftim 11:13, 23-24. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el refused; Ammon attacked Biblical Medinat Yisra’el and was once again defeated in battle. Thus, we see that Tanakh rejects the idea of “Land for Peace.” Exercising full and complete sovereignty over the entirety of Eretz Yisra’el, including over lands which Medinat Yisra’el has captured in wars which were waged to secure Eretz Yisra’el, is nothing more than the logical extension of a full and complete rejection of the idea of “Land for Peace.” It is no coincidence that the decree [חקת] of the Red Cow [פרה אדמה] is discussed at the beginning of Parasha Huqqat and that the foundation is laid toward the end of Parasha Huqqat for Yisra’el’s rejection of the Two-State Solution and the concept of “Land for Peace.” Although some may contend that there is no obvious, logical reason or purpose for rejecting offers of “Land for Peace,” Tanakh clearly teaches otherwise. May all of Yisra’el, and especially the political leaders of Medinat Yisra’el, have the strength, wisdom, and good judgment to truly trust HASHEM and His Torah, and to apply Jewish sovereignty to, and expel Arabs from, the entirety of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and any other lands with which HASHEM may bless the Jewish people. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. In last week’s Parashah, we discussed, among other things, the twelve spies [מרגלים], whom the Torah refers to as “great men” [אנשים]. These great men [אנשים] had studied Torah at the foot of Moshe Rabbeinu and were Rabbis, leaders of their respective tribes. After having reconnoitered Eretz Yisra’el in preparation for the military invasion that was to follow, ten of these great Rabbis issued a joint psak Halakha [פסק הלכה] (ruling on Jewish law) which held that because a military invasion of Eretz Yisra’el would likely result in the loss of life, the doctrine of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש], a doctrine that permits (and, in some situations requires,) one to violate a Torah commandment (misva [מצוה]) in order to save life, allowed the Jewish people to decline to perform the misva [מצוה] of Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל] (the Torah commandment to settle the Land of Eretz Yisra’el). This psak Halakha [פסק הלכה] of the spies, the great men [אנשים] who reconnoitered Eretz Yisra’el, was erroneous for at least two reasons. First, prosecuting a war to Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל] is a milchemet misva [מלחמת מצווה], a war mandated by the Torah. So that the exception does not “swallow the rule,” the doctrine of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש], which allows a person to violate a Torah commandment in order to save life, may not properly be applied in a manner which would have the effect of completely excusing compliance with a Torah commandment, such as the obligation to make war, which, by its very nature, involves danger to human life. Second, there are three situations in which the doctrine of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש] may not be applied to permit violation of a Torah commandment. One of those situations is idolatry. The Talmud states: [T]he Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisra’el, even in a city that is mostly populated by idolaters [gentiles], and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisra’el, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisra’el is considered as one who has a G-d, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisra’el is considered as one who does not have a G-d. As it is stated: “[The purpose of the Exodus was] to give to you the land of Kena’an, to be your G-d.” T.B. Masechet Ketuvot, 110b, quoting Vayyiqra 25:38. Because the purpose of the Exodus was to give the Jewish people Eretz Yisra’el and because “anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisra’el is considered as one who does not have a G-d,” it follows that a refusal to Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל] by one who has the opportunity to do so, is a rejection of the Torah, a rejection of G-d himself, and, thus, constitutes a form of idolatry. Therefore, because idolatry is one of the sins that a person may not commit to save a life, it follows that the doctrine of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש] may not be applied to excuse a failure to Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל]. Thus, we see that the psak Halackha [פסק הלכה] of the spies, the anashim [אנשים] who reconnoitered Eretz Yisra’el, was erroneous. In Parashat Qorah, we find three additional Halakhic disputes: First, Qorah, a very accomplished and learned man, alleged that he, not Aharon, should have been appointed Kohen Gadol. Qorah reasoned that because leadership of the nation had gone to Moshe, as the son of Levi’s firstborn, Amram, he, Qorah, as the son of Levi’s second-born, Yitzhar, should have been appointed Kohen Gadol. Second, the first-born of all the tribes collectively challenged the tribe of Levi, alleging that they, not the Levites, should have the privilege of serving in the Mishkan. Third, the tribe of Reuven, as represented by Datan, Aviram, and On, claimed that the privilege of royalty should be belong to them, as offspring of Ya’akov’s firstborn, and not to the tribe of Yehudah. As with the spies, we see from our Parashat that the claims of Qorah, the first-born, and the tribe of Reuven, all lacked merit. Because prophecy existed during the time of Moshe, the spies, Qorah, and the tribes, it is not too difficult for us to determine what HASHEM wanted from the Jewish people. Now, without the benefit of prophecy, it is often much harder to ascertain what HASHEM wants from the Jewish people. Not surprisingly, then, there still remain many factions within the Jewish people and many disagree with others on matters of Halakha. The question, then, is: What criteria should a person use when selecting a Rabbi who will rule for him on Halakhic issues? There can, of course, be no “one size fits all” answer to this question. However, a few guidelines might be helpful. 1. Basic qualifications. Be sure the person whom you are considering for the position of “your rabbi” has sufficient education, knowledge, and wisdom to function as “your rabbi.” 2. Connection to HASHEM. Because we no longer have prophecy, be very skeptical of any rabbi or movement that claims to have any special connection to HASHEM. 3. Ability to teach. The word “rabbi” means “teacher.” Be sure that any candidate for the position of “your rabbi” can, and will, help you learn and grow. Be very careful to not select a rabbi merely for his oratory skills or charisma. Common-sense. Don’t “check your common-sense” at the door of the Beit Midrash. In other words, don’t accept anything that doesn’t make sense. It’s true that a particular pasuk, Halakha, or piece of Gemara may not make sense when first studied. When this occurs, study more; ask your rabbi to teach you. When you choose someone to be “your rabbi,” make sure this person can – and will – take the time, not only to help you learn, but also to help you understand, Torah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current wars against both our Arab and Persian enemies. May Israel achieve a quick and decisive victory over its enemies, as well as a return -- in good health -- of all Jewish hostages. In the year 5781 (2021), Parashat Shelah was read shortly after a cease-fire agreement was signed, which suspended open hostilities between Gazan-Arabs and Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), in the 5781 (2021) Gaza Battle. In Parashat Shelah, we learn about the “spies” whom Moshe sent to reconnoiter Eretz Yisra’el, in preparation of Yehoshua leading the Jewish invasion and military conquest the Yarden river and into the Land. And Moshe sent them to spy out Eretz Kena’an, [Eretz Yisra’el] and he said to them, “Go up this way by the south, and go up into the high land and see the country, what it is; and the people who dwell in it, whether they are strong or weak, few or many; and what the land is that they dwell in, whether it is good or bad; and what cities they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strongholds; and what the land is, whether fat or lean, whether there are trees in it, or not. . . . Bamidbar 13:17-20. Is there a connection between the Spies of Parashat Shelah and the 5781 (2021) Gaza Battle? To answer this question, a brief review of the situation relating to Gaza is in order. In response to the wishes of Gazan-Arabs, Medinat Yisra’el “disengaged” from Gaza during the year 5765 (2005), by removing all Jews from Gaza and by withdrawing all direct governmental controls over Gaza. Medinat Yisra’el, however, retained control over the air and maritime space of Gaza and has reserved the legal right to reenter Gaza with its military. Although Gaza is not a nation-state, and is not recognized by Medinat Yisra’el or the international community as a nation-state, the Gazan-Arabs have established a de facto government in Gaza, which in turn has adopted its own flag and raised its own military. Today, Gazan-Arabs strongly assert a claim to that section of real estate which is commonly known as Gaza, while Medinat Yisra’el half-heartedly asserts minimal rights over Gaza, mainly for the purpose of defending itself against Gazan-Arab missile and other attacks. This situation raises many questions, including: 1. Whether the right of Medinat Yisra’el to possession and sovereignty over Gaza is superior to that of the Gazan-Arabs; 2. Whether it is possible for Medinat Yisra’el and Gazan-Arabs to peaceably live side-by-side; and 3. Whether, if peaceful coexistence is not possible, Medinat Yisra’el should reverse its 5765 (2005) “disengagement” and once again assert sovereignty over Gaza. I. Right of Possession & Sovereignty over Gaza A. Rights Created by Biblical Law In Parashat Lekh-Lekha, “HASHEM said to Abram (prior to Abram’s name being changed to “Avraham”), ‘Go for yourself [לך-לך] from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make you a great nation. . . .’” Bereshit 12:1-2. The commentator Maimonides (the Rambam) wrote: We were commanded to occupy the Land that Hashem gave our ancestors, Abraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqov. We must not abandon it to any other nation, or leave it desolate. HaShem said, “Clear out the Land and live in it, since it is to you that I am giving the Land to occupy.” Bamidbar 33:53-54. . . . Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvah 4. Thus, we see that HASHEM gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an “inheritance” and that the Jewish people “for all time” and “even during the exile” are commanded to reside in the Land. B. Rights Existing under International Law The Arabs in general, and the Gazan-Arabs in particular, do not readily accept this Halakha (Jewish law). However, as with many things, there is more than one route to the correct answer. International law also holds, albeit for vastly different reasons, that the Jewish claim to Gaza (as well as the rest of Medinat Yisra’el) is superior to that of the Arabs. Prior to 5678 (1918), the year when World War I ended, the geographic area which today is known as Medinat Yisra’el, including Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, was ruled by the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. From the year 5678 (1918) through the year 5708 (1948), the geographic area in question was a British “Protectorate.” Medinat Yisra’el came into existence in the year 5708 (1948). Following the Israeli war of independence, which was started by a coordinated invasion of Medinat Yisra’el immediately after its founding, Egypt occupied Gaza and Gazan-Arabs declared Gaza to be an Arab state. However, no one, except for Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, recognized the so-called new Arab state. During the 5727 (1967) Six-Day War, Medinat Yisra’el captured Gaza, the Old City (Temple Mount), Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. As a result of the Oslo Accords, Medinat Yisra’el, in the year 5765 (2005), “disengaged” from Gaza, but did not relinquish the right to exercise sovereignty over Gaza. On 28 Iyyar 5781 (May 10, 2021), Gazan-Arab military forces, who often concealed themselves among Gazan-Arabs who, ostensibly, were “civilians,” began launching rockets at civilian targets in Medinat Yisra’el. When the cease-fire agreement went into effect eleven days later, Gazan-Arabs had fired some 4,360 rockets and mortar shells at the southern and central areas of Medinat Yisra’el, an average of about 400 per day. Thus, we see that, because Medinat Yisra’el never relinquished its right to exercise sovereignty over Gaza and because Gazan-Arabs have committed acts of war against Medinat Yisra’el, the right of Medinat Yisra’el under international law to exercise sovereignty over Gaza is superior to any right claimed by Gazan-Arabs. II. Two-State “Solution” Some in the international community have, for decades, advanced the idea that Jews, on the one hand, and Israeli-Arabs and Gazan-Arabs, on the other, can live in peace, side-by-side, if each had its own independent, sovereign state. It is a fact that Israeli-Arabs in general, and the Gazan-Arabs in particular, have never had their own sovereign state. However, Gazan-Arabs have had a de facto sovereign state in Gaza since the year 5765 (2005), complete with their own flag and military. Furthermore, Ziad Al-Nahala, leader of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization, is reported to have said in a “victory” speech following the Gaza Battle of 5781 (2021), that his organization is committed to continuing the fight against what he calls the “Zionist entity” until it [Medinat Yisra’el] is eliminated, regardless of the number of victims. Thus, we see that the Gaza Battle of 5781 (2021), along with many other Gazan-Arab aggressions over the years, has conclusively demonstrated that a Two-State “Solution” simply will not work. Accordingly, the idea of a Two-State “Solution” should be abandoned. III. The Exercise of Jewish Sovereignty over Gaza Not only has a Two-State “Solution” been rejected by both Gazan-Arabs and Israeli-Arabs, Fatah Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi has been quoted as saying, Our Palestinian land is from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea. I dare any Palestinian . . . to reduce the Palestinian map to the West Bank and Gaza! He would not be able to walk one meter in the streets of our Palestinian cities among our people . . . the people that live on land that is all holy and that is all Waqf land” – land that is held by an Islamic trust and which cannot be transferred into the control of the “infidel.” Posting to the Facebook page of Tawfiq Tirawi (February 2020). In other words, not only do Israeli-Arabs and Gazan-Arabs not want to live in peace with Jews, they want to eliminate Medinat Yisra’el and either expel or kill all of the Jews who are physically present in Eretz Yisra’el. HASHEM warned us this would happen. At Har Sinai, when the Torah was given to the Jewish people, HASHEM said, Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Rather, you shall break apart their alters, smash their pillars, and cut down its sacred trees. Shemot 34:11-17. In Parashat Mas’e, we learn that HaShem spoke to Moshe in the plains of Moab, by the Yarden, near Yereho, saying, ‘Speak to the Children of Yisra’el and say to them: When you cross the Yarden [river] into Eretz Kena’an [Eretz Yisra’el], you shall drive out all of the inhabitants of the Land before you. . . .” Bamidbar 33:50-52. Likewise, in Parashat Shofetim, we are told that “But from the cities of these peoples that HaShem, your G-d gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any person to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them. . . .” Debarim 20:16-17. The Or HaChaim wrote that: Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Kena’anite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Kena’anite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Kena’anite] nations. Or HaChaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HASHEM is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HASHEM driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HASHEM’S Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. Just as the Torah promised, the Arabs are today a “snare among” the Jewish people because we have “seal[ed] a covenant with” them simply by allowing them to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. We learn from Maimonides that Jewish law recognizes two types of wars: a milchemet misva [מלחמת מצווה], a war which is commanded by the Torah and for which no authorization from the Sanhedrin is required to wage, and a milchemet harashut [מלחמת הרשות], a discretionary war, which may not be waged without first being authorized by the Sanhedrin. The conquest of Eretz Yisra’el is a milchemet misva [מלחמת מצווה]. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 6:1. Thus, as we see there is no Biblical, legal, or practical impediment to Medinat Yisra’el reasserting and exercising full sovereignty over Gaza. IV. Lessons on Gaza from Parashat Shelah The Torah is not merely a collection of nice stories. The word “Torah” [תורה], literally translated, means “to instruct.” As we learn from the Midrash, “The deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children.” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9. What the Midrash is teaching is that the purpose of the Torah is to teach us what we should do and what we should not do. The Hebrew word “shelah” [שלח] means to “send,” or to “send forth” as in “HASHEM spoke to Moshe, saying ‘Send forth for yourself men [אנשים], and let them spy out Eretz Kena’an [Eretz Yisra’el], which I give to the Children of Yisra’el. . . .’” Bamidbar 13:1-2. The commentator Rashi noted that the pasuk says “send forth for yourself” [שלח לך], which means that HASHEM did not command the sending forth of spies, but rather, that HE allowed the Jewish people, in their discretion, to do so. Moshe understood that, although HASHEM had promised the Jewish people victory over the occupants of Eretz Kena’an, one must not rely on miracles. In other words, we must put forth our best-efforts, we must do our own hishtadlut [השתדלות]. Just days before the Jewish people were to enter Eretz Yisra’el, the Jewish “Spies,” the 12 men [אנשים], reconnoitered Eretz Yisra’el and came back with a truthful report: We came to the land where thou didst send us, and indeed it flows with milk and honey. . . . But the people are strong that dwell in the land and the cities are fortified and very great; and moreover, we saw the children of Anaq [the giant] there. Ameleq dwells in the land of the Negev; and the Hitti, and the Yevusi, and the Emori dwell in the mountain; and the Kena’ani dwell by the sea and by the side of the Yarden [river].” Bamidbar 13:27-29. As mentioned above, the Torah refers to the twelve spies as the twelve “anashim” [אנשים], which in Hebrew means the twelve “people.” Rashi, however, taught that when the Torah refers to men as “anashim” [אנשים], it is referring not to regular men, but to men of distinction, men of importance. Thus, we learn that the twelve spies were not just ordinary men, they were great, learned men, leaders of their respective tribes, rabbis who had learned at the foot of Moshe Rabbeinu. Could it be that the spies – the anashim [אנשים] – would rebel against HASHEM, Heaven forbid, by attempting to dissuade the Jewish people from entering the Land? Hardly. What the anashim [אנשים] did perceive, however, was danger. They saw that a military battle against the inhabitants of Eretz Yisra’el might result in Jewish casualties; that many Jews might lose their lives fighting for Eretz Yisra’el. But what were the spies – the anashim [אנשים] – to do? In the name of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש], saving lives, the anashim [אנשים], the great, learned men – the rabbis – made a Halakhic ruling: The protection of life from the dangers of war, they said, takes precedence over conquering Eretz Yisra’el. The concept of pikuah nefesh is derived from the pasuk, “You shall observe My decrees and My law, which man shall carry out and by which he shall live – I am HASHEM.” Vayyirqa 15:5. The Sages have interpreted the clause “by which he shall live” to mean that almost all Torah commandments may be violated in order to protect or save human life. The Talmud lists three exceptions to this rule. A person may not engage in acts of idolatry, sexual immorality, or murder, regardless of the circumstances. T.B. Masekhet Sanhedrin 74a-b. Thus, in the name of pikuah nefesh, the people then sought to replace Moshe, appoint a new leader, and return to the land of their enslavement. “Let us appoint a chief and let us return to Misrayim.” Bamidbar 14:4. Was it the people’s intention to assimilate into Misrayim society? Likely not. They probably thought they could build great Jewish communities in Misrayim, complete with Beitai Knesset [בתי כנסת] (synagogues), mikva’ot [מקואות] (ritual baths), and kosher food. The people wept that night. HASHEM responded that because the people had wept, HE would establish that night as a time of weeping throughout the generations. That night, according to Rashi, was the night of Tisha B’Av [תשעה באב], the 9th of the Hebrew month of Av, the day on which both Temples were destroyed and on which many other tragedies occurred in Jewish history. Rashi to Tehillim 106:27. Responding to the people’s plan to replace Moshe as their leader and return to Misrayim, HASHEM said to Moshe, “How long will this people provoke ME, and how long will they not have faith in ME, despite all the signs that I have performed in their midst?” Bamidbar 14:11. As punishment for this great sin, the Jewish people were sent to wander in the desert for forty years. Thus, we see that the first lesson to be learned from Parashat Shelah is that the Rabbis are not infallible; they, just like everyone else, make mistakes. The anashim [אנשים] that are referred to in Parashat Shelah were, of course, closer to Har Sinai [הר סיני] and, having learned Torah from Moshe Rabbeinu, himself, were, without a doubt, more learned than our contemporary rabbanim [רבנים]. Next, we learn that, not only is it a misva for all time to conquer Eretz Yisra’el, going to war in order to conquer Eretz Yisra’el (when necessary to do so) is a milchemet misva [מלחמת מצווה], a mandatory war which is commanded by the Torah itself. We also learn that pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש], the saving of human life, as important as that is, does not take precedence over the command to conquer Eretz Yisra’el. It could not, of course, be otherwise. One exception to the rule of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש] is that one may not engage in public acts of idolatry in order to save his life. Indeed, the Torah itself tells us that one of the purposes of conquering Eretz Yisra’el is to eliminate idolatry in the Land. “Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Rather, you shall break apart their alters, smash their pillars, and cut down its sacred trees.” Shemot 34:11-13. Therefore, given that there is a Torah obligation to eliminate idolatry in the Land, one may not rely on the rule of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש] to avoid fighting a war to conquer the Land. Furthermore, to say there is a Torah obligation to wage war to conquer and secure Eretz Yisra’el, but to also hold that pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש], saving human life, is an exception to that Torah obligation, would be to render the obligation to conquer Eretz Yisra’el meaningless. The exception would swallow the rule, as it simply is not possible to wage war without risking human life. Lastly, and most importantly, we learn, or at least should learn, that we must have full and complete trust in HASHEM and in His Torah, regardless of what our intellects or instincts – our evil inclination [יצר הרע] – might tell us. It is true that the Gazan-Arabs would resist by force the retaking of Gaza by Medinat Yisra’el. It is true that retaking Gaza would endanger Jewish lives. It is true that many in the so-called “international community” would object. It’s also true that many other unpleasant things might occur if Medinat Yisra’el retook Gaza. But it is also true that HASHEM gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an inheritance and commanded the Jewish people to conquer the Land. Lastly, implicit in the command to conquer Eretz Yisra’el is the prohibition of voluntarily relinquishing control over all or any part of Eretz Yisra’el to any other nation or people. As Jews, we recite the following before laying down at night and after arising in the morning: “Hear, Yisra’el. The LORD is our God; the LORD is One [שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד]. Debarim 6:4. May we, the Jewish people, including our religious leaders and the Jewish politicians who hold office in Medinat Yisra’el, hear, understand, and follow the Torah, and no longer cause HASHEM to ask: “How long will this people provoke Me, and how long will they not have faith in Me, despite all the signs that I have performed in their midst?” שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
|
THE ISRAEL FOUNDATION
