​Parashat Bo speaks of the last three of the ten plagues, the plagues of the locusts, darkness, death of the bechorim (Hebrew, plural, literally the “eldest” or “firstborn”).  The Parashat then turns to a discussion of lamb and matsa (Hebrew, “unleavened bread”).  Each of these topics, in order, are discussed in close proximity to the others, thus perhaps implying some sort of relationship or connection between each topic.

In the previous Parashat (Va’era), we read about the first seven of the ten plagues that Hashem visited upon Par’o as the result of Par’o intransigence with regard to letting the Hebrews depart Misrayim.

Parashat Bo begins with the plague of the locusts and then the plague of darkness.  Only then did Par’o somewhat capitulate.  “And Par’o called to Moshe and said, ‘Go, serve the Lord; only let your flocks and your herds stay behind. . . .’” Shemot 10:24.

Many might view Par’o’s seemingly capitulation as success for Moshe Rabbeinu and the Hebrews.  If Moshe Rabbeinu simply compromised by agreeing to leave the Hebrews’ livestock in Misrayim, Par’o would allow the Hebrews to leave the country.

Moshe Rabbeinu, however, does not compromise.  Instead, he replies, “Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.  Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not be a hoof be left behind. . . .”  Shemot 10:25-26.

Some might have said Moshe Rabbeinu’s refusal to compromise with Par’o, who was at that time the most powerful man in the world, was foolish.  But contrary to what these “moderates” might have said, Moshe Rabbeinu understood that Par’o’s refusal to unconditionally allow the Hebrews to leave Misrayim was nothing less than a rejection by Paro of Hashem and Hashem’s kingship over the world.  Recall that when Moshe first approached and said to Par’o, “Thus says the Lord God of Yisrael, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to Me in the wilderness,” Shemot 5:1, Par’o replied, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice and let Yisrael go?  I know not the Lord. . . .”  Shemot 15:2.

Par’o, of course, did not agree to Moshe’s request that the Hebrews be allowed to take their livestock with them when they depart Misrayim and then revoked his offer to allow them to leave without the livestock.

The Torah then “interrupts” the story of the plagues to instruct Moshe regarding the festival of Pesah (Passover).

Returning to the plagues, the Torah then tells us about Par’o’s renewed intransigence that results in the plague of the bechorim, that is, the death of the firstborn in every house, except of course, for the houses of the Hebrews.  Par’o, who had finally had enough, called for Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aharon and said, “Rise up and get you out from among my people, both you and the children of Yisrael; and go, serve the Lord as you have said.  Also take your flocks and your herds. . . .”  Shemot 12:31-32.

Ramban (Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270), explained that the reason for the commandment to slaughter, roast, and eat a lamb

Regarding matsa, Maimonides (Moshe Maimonides, 1138-1204), explained, “Due to the fact that the idolaters would sacrifice only leavened bread, and they would offer up all manner of sweet food and would smear their animal sacrifices with honey, . . . therefore God warned us not to offer to Him any of these things, leaven or honey.”  The Guide for the Perplexed, 3:46.  Likewise, it has been said that “Whoever eats chametz on Pesach is as if he prayed to an idol.”  The Zohar, 2:182.

Leavened bread, “hames,” has also been said to symbolize “arrogance” or “pride.”  For example, the Talmud relates, “Rabbi Alexandri would end his daily prayers with the following supplication: ‘Master of the Universe, You know full well that it is our desire to act according to Your will; but what prevents us from doing so? — the yeast in the dough. . . .”  Maseket Berakhot, 17a.

Similarly, the Nitziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Berlin, 1817-1893), wrote that:

Thus, three lessons that can be learned from Parashat Bo are that, just as:

1.  Moshe Rabbeniu did not compromise with Par’o, so too, we should not compromise with those who deny Hashem;

2.  The Hebrews exhibited their faith in Hashem by obeying Hashem’s command to slaughter the Egyptian’s god — the lamb — so too, we should have faith in Hashem and not be afraid to reject the false gods of others; and

3.  Leavened bread (hames) is not eaten during the festival of Pesah because it symbolizes arrogance or pride, so too, we should be humble in general, and in our service to Hashem in particular.

Shabbat Shalom!

​​SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Parashat Va’era is permeated with Hashem’s command that Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aharon petition Par’o to “let the Children of Yisra’el go out of his land.”  Shemot 6:10-11.  This command is repeated no less than eight times throughout this Parashat, in various forms, including the famous injunction “Let My people go, [so] that they may serve Me.”  See, Shemot 6:13, 6:29, 7:2, 7:15-16, 7:26, 8:16, 9:1, 9:13.

Par’o, as we know, did not comply.  Parashat Va’era then describes seven of the ten plagues that Hashem inflicted upon Misrayim.

The Hebrews were slaves in Misrayim; the Exodus freed them from that slavery.  One might thus conclude that following their exodus from Misrayim, the Hebrews were a “free” people.

If “freedom” is the opposite of slavery, then the Hebrews, after leaving Misrayim, should have been “free” to act without constraint.  But they weren’t.  They were taken to Mount Sinai, given the Torah and all its commandments — Torah laws — and then led to Eretz Israel and commanded to conquer the Land.

As slaves in Misrayim, the Hebrews were obligated to follow the laws of their slave masters.  If they failed to do so, there were consequences.  After the exodus from Misrayim, the Jews (formerly the Hebrews) became obligated to follow the laws of the Torah.  Likewise, if the Jews failed to follow the laws of the Torah, there were (and still are) consequences.  It’s true the consequences for failing to obey their human slave masters in Misrayim were likely more immediate than the consequences for failing to obey the laws of the Torah, but this is not a fundamental difference; it is merely a difference of timing.

As proof of this point, recall that Hashem did not instruct Moshe to “Let My people go, so that they may be free.”  Rather, His instruction was, “Let My people go, [so] that they may serve Me.”

So we see that, although the exodus from Misrayim resulted in the termination of Misrayim control over the Hebrews, the exodus did not result in the Hebrews being able to act without constraint.  Rather, the exodus simple changed the identity of their Master.

Being able to act without constraint is a better description of sovereignty than it is of freedom.  Sovereignty, by definition, includes, among other things, the legal right to make and enforce laws.  The Misrayim government was sovereign in that it possessed the legal right to make and enforce slavery laws against the Hebrews.

Hashem, the Master of the Universe, is the ultimate sovereign.  He created everything, including the Torah and all of its laws.  The Misrayim government, when it existed, was sovereign in its time and place.  Unlike the Misrayim government, the Master of the Universe was, is, and will always be sovereign over everything, for all time.

“Freedom,” on the other hand, describes the ability (or lack thereof) to make free-will decisions within the context of the laws which have been established by a sovereign.  Under a Misrayim, Socialist, or other type of dictatorial sovereign, the range or scope of that free-will is quite narrow.  By contrast, under a Torah law-based system, the range or scope of free-will is quite broad.

Some people today may believe that they are “free” to decide whether to follow the laws of the Torah or, G-d forbid, to completely reject the authority of those laws.  These individuals, however, confuse “freedom,” the ability to make free-will choices within the context of rules established by the sovereign, with sovereignty itself, which is the legal right to make (or exempt themselves from) laws.

When a person chooses to replace the Torah with something else, that person is not making a choice between individual sovereignty and slavery, but rather, between whether his “master” will be the Master of the Universe (Hashem) or some other, inferior, master.

Take, for example, Socialism and its close cousin Communism, which seeks to abolish religion (among other things) so that there is no (apparent) authority which is higher than the State.  Those who follow this path by substituting the lowercase “g” of government for the capital “G” of G-d have merely substituted one “master” for another.  Both have laws and both have methods of enforcing their laws.  Those who make the small “g” of government their god soon discover that their range or scope of free-will decision making — their “freedom” — is quite narrow.

A currently-popular method of implementing Socialism is through use of the god of radical environmentalism.  Fundamental among the tenets of radical environmentalism is the belief that maintaining the earth in its “natural” state is more important than providing for the needs of man, and that mankind is the ultimate threat to the environment.  Thus, radical environmentalism promotes the small “g” of government to advocate for laws that, for example, purport to control climate change (formerly known as “global cooling,” until it was determined that the earth is not cooling); restrict the development of land; and control the number of children that are born, either through abortion or through various other means of population control.

The radical environmental agenda, like its Socialist parent, is diametrically opposed to the Torah.  “Hashem created Mankind in His own image, in the image of G-d, He created him, male and female, He created them.  And Hashem blessed them, and Hashem said to them, be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it. . . .”  Bereshit 1:27-28.  “Subduing” the earth, of course, does not mean destroying the earth.  It merely means harnessing its potential and putting that potential to productive use for the benefit of mankind.

Lastly, there is the god of hedonism, a philosophy that essentially provides that each person can decide for himself what conduct is moral, immoral, permitted, or prohibited.  Although one might erroneously believe that the ability to make such choices constitutes individual sovereignty, the truth is that such individuals are merely enjoying the freedom to make free-will decisions within the framework which has been established by the sovereign under which they live.  For proof of this fact, one need only look to the situation where the individual’s determination of what is permitted conflicts with the rule laid down by the sovereign.  This approach, obviously, is also diametrically opposed to the Torah.

There is a famous saying that, although a person is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.  Although a person may be of the opinion that he is “free” to choose his god, that “freedom” does not change that fact that Hashem is the Creator and Master of the Universe, and that it is the laws of the Torah to which each of us will ultimately be held accountable.

As humans, we usually don’t fully know what future consequences will result from our actions.  Accordingly, it’s not surprising that events don’t always unfold the way we anticipated or hoped.

Hashem, the Creator and Master of the Universe, on the other hand, gave us the Torah as our “owner’s manual” for life.  Living within the laws of the Torah, although perhaps not always perceived as being easy, especially when one is accustomed to living according to a different value system, is actually the best and, perhaps surprisingly, the easiest way to live life — easiest because Hashem knows exactly what the consequences will be for each and every one of our actions and, being the loving and merciful G-d that He is, He gave us the Torah to guide us and help us make the most of our lives and the lives of others.

May we all be blessed to exercise our free-will — our freedom — to choose Hashem and His Torah.

Shabbat Shalom!

Parashat Shemot introduces us to Moshe Rabbeinu, who was born in Misrayim at a time when a government decree that, if followed, would have required all male Hebrew babies to be killed shortly after birth.  Moshe Rabbeinu, however, survived the infanticide decree, grew to adulthood, married, and started a family.

Then, one day when he was at work, shepherding sheep for his father-in-law Yitro, Moshe Rabbeinu had an encounter with Hashem, at what is known as the Burning Bush.  “And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed.”  Shemot 3:2.  “G-d called out to him out of the midst of the bush. . . .”  Shemot 3:4.

During the subsequent conversation that occurred between Hashem and Moshe Rabbeinu, Hashem told Moshe “I am the G-d of thy father, the G-d of Abraham, the G-d of Yizhaq, and the G-d of Ya’aqov.”  Shemot 3:6.

Hashem continued: “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Misrayim and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; and I [have] come down to deliver them out of the hand of Misrayim and to bring them up out of that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of [Eretz Israel]. . . .  Shemot 3:7-8.

One obvious question is why did Hashem take the Hebrews out of Misrayim, rather than simply solving their difficulties with the government and thus making life in Misrayim tolerable.  Another obvious question is why did Hashem promise to take the Hebrews to Eretz Israel, rather than, for example, to Brooklyn, London, Paris, Madrid, Baghdad, Tehran, or some other place.

The answer, of course, is because Eretz Israel is holy; it is The Holy Land; The Promised Land.  The Torah is singularly focused on this point.

“And the land which I gave to Abraham and Yizhaq, to thee [Ya’aqov] I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.”  Bereshit 35:12.

The Torah explicitly states the reason for the Exodus.  “I am the Lord your G-d, Who brought you out of the land of Misrayim, to give you the land of Kena’an [Eretz Israel], and to be your G-d.”  Vayyiqra 25:38.  This pasuk is often misquoted as “I am the Lord your G-d, who took you our of Egypt to be your G-d,” omitting the all-important phrase “to give you the land of Eretz Israel.”

The Talmud states:

Halacha, that is, Jewish Law, states that the misva of living in Eretz Israel is timeless; it is still the Halacha today.  The Shulchan Aruch, 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.”

Instead of singing “Next year in Yerushalayim,” let us make it “This year in Yerushalayim.”

Shabbat Shalom!

Parashat Vayhi opens with Ya’aqob Abinu extracting a vow from his son Yosef to “carry me [Ya’aqob] out of Misrayim and bury me in” Eretz Israel.  Bereshit 47:29-31.  Ya’akob then sits up on his deathbed and says to Yosef, “G-d Almighty appeared to me at Luz, in the land of Kena’an, and blessed me, and said to me ‘behold . . . I will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.’” Bereshit 48: 2-4.

After Ya’aqob passed, Yosef had him embalmed, Bereshit 50:2, and then transported his remains to Eretz Israel for burial.  Bereshit 50:7.

Parashat Vayhi closes with Yosef ill and about to die.  “Yosef said to his brothers, “I die and God will surely visit you and bring you up [to Eretz Israel] out of this land [of Misrayim], to the land of which [Hashem] swore to Abraham, to Yizhaq, and to Ya’aqob.’”  Bereshit 50:24.  Yosef then extracted a vow from his family that they “shall carry up [to Eretz Israel] my bones from here.”  Bereshit 50:25.  “Yosef died, being a hundred and ten years old, and they embalmed him and he was put in a coffin in Misrayim.”  Bereshit 50:26.  Later, in Parashat Beshallah, we learn that Moshe Rabbeinu did, in fact, take “the bones of Yosef with him,” from Misrayim to Eretz Israel.  Shemot 13:19.

Parashat Vayhi thus opens and closes with Ya’aqob and his son Yosef both extracting from their relatives a vow that their remains be removed from Misrayim and buried in Eretz Israel.  In both instances, reference was made to Eretz Israel as being the land that Hashem promised to the Jewish People and in both instances the body of the deceased was embalmed before it was transported to Eretz Israel.

Contrary to the events which are described in Parashat Vayhi, Halacha (Jewish Law) clearly states that a deceased person should be buried within twenty-four hours of death, or at least as soon thereafter as possible, and that embalming is prohibited. 

The fact that Parashat Vayhi repeats that both Ya’aqob and Yosef insisted on being buried in Eretz Israel suggests that the importance of being buried in Eretz Israel, even if one was not able to live in Eretz Israel, is so great that it constitutes an exception to the general rules of prompt burial and no embalming.

The Biblical source for the concept that the body of a deceased person should be buried within twenty-four hours is derived from the passuk which states, “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and thou hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him that day (for he that is hanged is accursed by G-d.”  Debarim 21:22-23.

The Talmud explains,

The Talmud continues:

Thus, we see from the Gemara that the Biblical source which requires burial on “that day” refers to a person who was executed for a capital offense, not to an individual who died of natural causes, or an illness, accident, or the like.  We also see that Halacha permits a delay in conducting the funeral where the purpose of the delay is “that the burial will be conducted with greater dignity.”

Lastly, we know that Halacha discourages embalming, as the desecration of human remains is forbidden.  However, just as it is permitted to delay a funeral so that the funeral “will be conducted with greater dignity,” so too it is permitted to do that which is needed for dignity and hygiene to preserve a body for burial.

Parashat Vayhi shows, through Ya’aqob and Yosef, that there no greater dignity for a deceased than to be buried in Eretz Israel.  Thus, the delay in burying Ya’aqob and the exhuming of Yosef’s remains, transportation, and reburial in Eretz Israel was, of course, proper.

A lesson we can learn from Parashat Vayhi is that while it is preferable for a Jew to live and die in Eretz Israel, “the land of which [Hashem] swore to Abraham, to Yizhaq, and to Ya'aqob,” if that is not possible, the best alternative, as we learn from Ya’akob and Yosef, is to be buried in Eretz Israel.

​Shabbat Shalom!

Parashat Vayigash concludes with the famine in Egypt reaching its climax.  As we recall, Yosef had risen to power in Par’o’s Administration; fallen from power and thrown in jail on false charges that had been concocted by the jealous Mrs. Par’o; had once again risen to power after interpreting Par’o’s dreams regarding the seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine; and was subsequently elevated to the position of Viceroy, second-in-command of the Par’o Administration, for the purpose of presiding over preparations for, and management of, the famine.

Yosef’s responsibilities as Viceroy necessarily included the formulation and implementation of monetary and fiscal policy.  “Monetary policy is primarily concerned with the management of interest rates and the total supply of money,” while “[f]iscal policy is a collective term for the taxing and spending actions of governments.”  Monetary and Fiscal Policy defined.

When the famine became severe, “Yosef gathered up all the money [literally, “כסף,” “silver”] that was found in the land of Misrayim, and in the land of Kena’an, for the corn which they bought. . . .”  Bereshit 47:14.  In other words, as Viceroy, Yosef managed the total supply of money in Misrayim by acquiring crops, specifically, corn, which was grown in Misrayim during the years of plenty, presumably at low market prices or by nationalization (governmental seizure) of the crops, and then, when the famine struck, sold those crops at high or higher prices.  This monetary policy resulted in the masses in Misrayim not having any money.  “all of Misrayim came to Yosef and said, ‘Give us bread; for why should we die in thy presence, for there is no money [“אפס כספ,“ literally, “no money” ]?”  Bereshit 47:15.

The people of Misrayim were desperate.  They came and pleaded with Yosef; Yosef responded, “Give me your cattle. . . .  And they brought their cattle. . . .  Yosef gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the herds, and for the asses, and he fed them with bread in exchange for all of their cattle for that year.”  Bereshit 47:16-17.

The people of Misrayim were still impoverished after the first year of famine.  They returned to Yosef during the second year of famine and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of poverty, offered to sell their land to Par’o and to sell themselves to Par’o as slaves.  Yosef purchased their land, but did not accept their offer to purchase them as slaves.  Bereshit 47:18-20.
Instead of purchasing the people of Misrayim as slaves, Yosef relocated them to parts of the country that were distant from the land that they formerly owned, “[a]s for the people, [Yosef] removed them to the cities from one end of the borders of Misrayim to the other,” Bereshit 47:21, and allowed them to work as sharecroppers, for a fee of twenty percent of what the land produced.  “[H]ere is grain for you, and you shall sow the land.  And it shall come to pass at harvest times, that you shall give a fifth part to Par’o, and four parts shall be your own. . . .”  Bereshit 47:23-24.

There are at least three lessons we can learn from the foregoing sections of this Parashat.

First, we learn that a person should be very skeptical when a government purports to act as an “ordinary” participant in the marketplace.  When “ordinary,” that is, private, non-governmental, persons or entities buy or sell goods or services, we understand that each is acting in his own best-interest and that an economic transaction will occur only if each party to the transaction believes that the transaction will enhance his personal situation.

The same is true when a government is a party to a marketplace transaction.  However, when a government is a market participant, the situation is fundamentally different because a government, unlike other market participants, gets to make the rules, that is, create the laws.

We read in Parashat Miketzh that Yosef “gathered up all of the food of the seven years [of plenty, prior to the famine] which were in the land of Misrayim and laid up the food in the cities [and in the fields].”  Bereshit 41:48.

The Ramban was of the opinion that Yosef “gathered all the food under his control, and he gave enough of it every year for sustenance to the Egyptians, so that they should not squander it” and that “[i]t is possible that [Yosef] paid them money from the royal treasures at a low market price.” Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, at 507.  In other words, Yosef, acting on behalf of the government of Misrayim, either simply nationalized, that is, seized, all of the food that was produced in Misrayim during the seven good years or, alternatively, used the equivalent of what we recognize in modern times as a law of imminent domain to “purchase” the food at very low prices.  If the Ramban is correct, the acquisition by Misrayim of food produced during the seven good years was not the result of voluntary market transactions.  Even if the Ramban is not correct, the fact that Yosef was able to gather “up all of the food of the seven years” strongly suggests that the government of Misrayim was, in some fashion, manipulating the market for food.

We see similar governmental manipulations of markets in contemporary times.  For example, most major cities operate mass transit, busses, trains, and the like.  Many of those cities also create a governmental monopoly on taxicabs, by requiring the purchase of a limited number of taxicab licenses and, when politically feasible, by outlawing competition from ride-sharing businesses such as Uber and Lyft.  Almost always, government officials (and others) attempt to justify these monopoly laws by arguing that the laws are needed to protect the income of the taxicab drivers. “It’s for the benefit of the taxicab drivers and their families,” we are told.

What is often missed, however, is that a monopoly on taxicab licenses must inevitably raise the cost of a taxicab ride.  When the cost of taxicab rides increase, demand for taxicab rides will decrease because not everyone who would otherwise hire a taxicab is still able or willing to do so.  These displaced taxicab customers will then seek alternative – less expensive – forms of transportation.  That alternative form of transportation is often government-operated busses and trains.  It is no coincidence, of course, that a government which is in the mass transit bus and train business is the same government that enacted laws which create a monopoly for its “competitor” – taxicabs – and which thereby artificially increased the demand for its busses and trains (which, of course, almost never even “break-even,” let alone earn a profit).

Second, we learn that most countries today tax their citizens far more than is allowed by Biblical law.  We see that Yosef implemented a twenty percent tax on the people of Misrayim.  “And it shall come to pass at harvest times, that you shall give a fifth part to Par’o, and four parts shall be your own. . . .“ Bereshit 47:23-24.

To “tithe” means to give a portion of one’s income for communal or charitable purposes.  The Biblical concept of tithing is, contrary to popular belief, mandatory, not optional.  In the context of Tanakh, the purpose of tithes was to raise revenue for community needs.  In other words, a Biblical “tithe” is a form of “tax.”

Tithing is mentioned in several places in Tanakh.  For example, in Parashat Re’e, there is a command that “Thou shalt truly tithe [עשר] all the incense of thy seed that the field brings forth, year by year.  And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy G-d, in the place which He shall choose to place His name, the tithe [מעשר] of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thy oil, and the firstlings of thy herds, and of thy flocks. . . .”  Debarim 14:22-23.

The English transliteration of the Hebrew word “tithe” is “ma'aser” [מעשר].  The three-letter root-word of “מעשר” is “עשר,” which literally means “ten.”  The prefix letter “מ” means “from.”  Therefore, the word “tithe,” or “ma’aser” means “from ten,” which is usually understood to mean “ten percent.”

Thus, we can learn from the Hebrew word “מעשר” that ten percent of one’s income is the minimum tax a person should be required to pay.  From the story of Yosef’s taxation of the people in Misrayim, we can learn that twenty percent of one’s income is probably the maximum tax a person should be required to pay.

Unfortunately, in most countries today, the total tax a person is required to pay far exceeds twenty percent of their income.

Third, we learn that a country should not allow people who erroneously believe that they possess a legitimate claim to real estate to continue occupying that real estate.

“As for the people [who sold their land to Par’o, Yosef] removed them to the cities from one end of the borders of Misrayim to the other. . . .”  Yosef’s purpose in doing so was to establish Par’o’s undisputed ownership of the land and to impress upon the sellers of the land that they no longer had a claim to their former property.  See, Rashi, Radak, Meshech Chocmah.

The Talmud relates that Yehoshua cautioned the Jewish People: “Know for what purpose you are crossing the Jordan.  It is in order to drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, as it is stated: ‘And you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you.’”  Masekhet Sotah 34a, citing Bamidbar 33:52.  The Jewish People, however, did not comply and were chastised by an angel of the Lord, who said, “you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall pull down their alters, but you have not obeyed My voice. . . .  they shall be as snares to you and their gods shall be a trap to you.”  Shofetim 2:2-3.

As we continue to see to this very day in Medinat Israel, failure to “drive out all of the inhabitants of the land before you,” that is, to expel from Eretz Israel those who believe their right to possess Eretz Israel is superior to that of the Jewish People, will result in those people being “as snares” and their “gods shall be a trap to” the Jewish People.

We don’t need a crystal ball to see the consequences of our actions and inactions; Tanakh will do just fine.

Shabbat Shalom!

​By: Rabbi Menashe Sasson
Reporting from Jerusalem, Israel

On September 15, 2020 (25 Elul 5780), the Prime Minister of Israel signed in Washington, D.C. an agreement dubbed the “Abraham Accords.”  The agreement was brokered by the United States and seeks to “normalize” relations between Israel, on the one hand, and, the Muslim/Arab countries United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, on the other hand.

Generally speaking, the “normalization” of relations between countries – countries formally recognizing the sovereignty of each other, engaging in economic trade with each other, and the like – promotes peace, stability, and civility.

Israel, the only non-Muslim country in the region, will seemingly benefit from this agreement through the conversion of foes into friends.  Prior to entering into this agreement, the UAE and Behrain, like many other Arab countries, past and present, did not formally recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel (as do some Jewish Israelis, but that is a topic for another day).  As a result of this agreement, Israel will arguably be safer, as it is less likely that nations which have formal diplomatic relations with Israel will wage war, or support the waging of war, against Israel.  Israel, presumably, will benefit economically, as both the UAE and Behrain are financially affluent countries.

The UAE and Behrain will benefit from the agreement because, as the saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  In this case, the enemy of the UAE and Behrain is Iran.  Iran and Israel are enemies because Iran – as it has stated publically many times – would utterly destroy Israel, if given the chance.  Thus, the UAE and Behrain, knowing that Israel would never wage unprovoked war against them, came to the completely rational conclusion that Iran poses a significantly greater military threat to them, as comparted to Israel.

The broker of this deal, the United States, incentivized the UAE by making it an offer it could not refuse.  The UAE has long-sought to purchase F-35 fighter jets and other sophisticated weaponry from the U.S., but the U.S. has always refused to sell, that is, prior to the Israel-UAE/Behrain agreement.  Israel, on the other hand, opposes the sale of such military equipment to the UAE, but apparently believes the benefits of the agreement with the UAE and Behrain outweigh its risks.

However, the threat posed to Israel by potential unintended consequences related to the sale by the U.S. of sophisticated military equipment to the UAE and the speculative nature of the economic benefits that Israel might expect enjoy as a result of this agreement do not provide a full accounting of the costs to be paid by Israel for entering into this agreement.

Prior to the public announcement of this agreement between Israel and the UAE/Behrain, the U.S. attempted to broker another Middle East peace agreement, an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Israel.  That effort, even though it was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs, set the stage for Israel to exercise full sovereignty over certain areas of Judea and Samaria, areas which currently are not under full Israeli control, despite being part of Israel.  Making matters worse, the Israeli prime minister, in running for election a mere few months before the Israel-UAE/Behrain agreement, made a campaign promise to apply sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.

Thus, with the signing of the Israel-UAE/Behrain agreement, Israel has effectively abandoned all efforts to apply sovereignty to Judea and Samaria.

The Israeli-UAE/Behrain agreement represents is nothing short of another “Land for Peace” agreement.  As history has demonstrated many times in the past, “Land for Peace” agreements never work to the advantage of Israel.  More importantly, however, the Torah, the “constitution” of the Jewish People (albeit not the constitution of the State of Israel), clearly forbids the Jewish People from entering into “Land for Peace” agreements.  For a discussion on the Biblical prohibition against “Land for Peace” agreements, please visit: http://www.theisraelfoundation.org/blog/parasha-hukat-sovereignty-and-land-for-peace.

Israel may appear to benefit in the short-run from the Israel-UAE/Behrain agreement.  But because it has, for all intents and purposes, abandoned Judea and Samaria by entering into what is nothing more than another “Land for Peace” agreement, Israel has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

​By: Rabbi Menashe Sasson
Reporting from Jerusalem, Israel

Tisha B’Av, literally, the Ninth [day of the Hebrew month of] Av, is the Jewish “National Day of Mourning,” so to speak.  Tisha B’Av is a day on which, each year, Jews commemorate many of the tragedies which have befell the Jewish People over the centuries.

During Biblical times, those tragedies included:

1. The Biblical account of the Twelve Spies, who reconnoitered Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) before the Jewish People first entered the Land;
2. The destruction, by Nebuchandnezzar during 587 BCE, of First Temple in Jerusalem, which had been built by King Solomon;
3. The destruction, by the Romans during 70 CE, of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, which had been built by Ezra and Nehemiah;
4. The defeat of Bar Kokhba (a Jewish leader who led a revolt against the Romans) and his men and the destruction of the Jewish city of Betar, where more than a half million Jews were murdered; and
5. The plowing under, by the Roman commander Turnus Rufus, of the site where the First and Second Temples had previously stood.

During post-Biblical times, other tragedies which are commemorated on Tisha B’Av included:

1. The destruction of Jewish communities in France and Germany during the First Crusade (1096 CE);
2. The expulsion of Jews from England (1290 CE);
3. The expulsion of Jews from France (1306);
4. The expulsion of Jews from Spain (1492 CE);
5. Germany entered World War I (1914 CE), which eventually led to the Holocaust;
6. The Nazi German SS commander Heinrich Himmler received approval from the Nazi Party for “The Final Solution” (1941 CE), which ultimately resulted in the murder of some 6 million Jews;
7. The start of mass deportations of Jews from Warsaw to the Nazi death camp at Treblinka (1942 CE);
8. The bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 and injured 300 (1994 CE); and
9. The relinquishment of sovereign control by the State of Israel over Gaza (2005), which, among other things, resulted in the expulsion — by the Israeli military — of 8,000 Jews who lived in Gush Katif (southern Gaza) and which, to this day, has resulted in Arabs firing rockets from Gaza into Israel.

The first word in Tanach, the Hebrew Bible, is “Bereshit” [translated: “In the beginning”] begins with the letter “bet,” the second letter of the Hebrew “alphabet.”  From this, the Rabbis derived that this world, the physical world in which we live, is represented by the number 2.

Jewish Sages and other great Rabbis have also taught that G-d gave Moshe Rabbeinu two Torahs on Mount Sinai: the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.

Both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, collectively referred to simply as the “Torah,” contain instructions from G-d concerning the conduct of mankind.  One category of instructions found in the Torah, a category which might be called the “Torah for individuals,”  sets forth instructions relating to individual conduct (e.g., keeping the Sabbath, honoring one’s parents, etc.).  The other category of instructions found in the Torah, a category which might be called the “Torah for the Jewish nation,” sets forth instructions relating to national conduct (e.g., laws relating to Eretz Israel, Jewish kings, the law of war, etc.).  Contemporary Jewish religious practice focuses almost exclusively on the former, while almost completely ignoring the latter.

Although the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem have become the quintessential example of Jewish tragedy which is commemorated each year on Tisha B’Av, we might also view Tisha B’Av from a slightly deeper perspective.

The Second Temple was destroyed during the year 70 CE.  Intrinsic in that tragedy was the loss of Jewish sovereignty, which was not regained until 1948 — almost 2,000 years later — when the modern-day State of Israel was established.

Thus, because one of the two “Torahs” that G-d gave to the Jewish people — the Torah which provides instructions relating to national conduct — was lost for almost 2,000 years, and which has yet to be fully reacquired or realized, it might be appropriate to view Tisha B’Av in a new light.  Rather than being seen as a commemoration of seemingly unrelated tragedies that occurred over the centuries, Tisha B’Av might be better understood as commemorating the singular tragedy of the loss of Jewish sovereignty, a tragedy which encompasses and encapsulates all the discrete Jewish tragedies over the centuries, a tragedy which, at least to some meaningful degree, still persists to this day.

May we merit to speedily and fully implement the “Torah for the Jewish nation.”

​By: Rabbi Menashe Sasson
Reporting from Jerusalem, Israel

The Hebrew word “hok” means “decree.”  The plural of “hok” is “hukat.”  A “hok,” however, is not just any decree, it is a decree from Heaven for which we mortal humans can discern no obvious logical reason or purpose.  Commandments which prohibit actions such as murder and theft, for which a logical reason or purpose is obvious, are also “decrees,” but they are decrees of a different type, which do not constitute hukat.

Two hukat are described in the beginning of Parashat Hukat, the first being “tumat hamet” (ritual contamination from a corpse); the second type of hok being “parah adumah,” the “Red Heifer” (purification from that contamination).

After receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai, the Jewish People, which had become the nation of “Israel” at Mount Sinai, set off on their journey to the land that the Creator had promised them, the Land of Israel.  In order to arrive at their destination, they needed to pass through several kingdoms (countries).  The most direct route was through the Kingdom of Edom.

Toward the end of Parashat Hukat, we learn that the King of Edom denied a request by Israel to peaceably pass through his country.  Although disappointed, Israel accepted Edom’s refusal to grant their request for passage and looked for an alternative route.

An alternative route was through the Kingdoms of Ammon and Bashan.  Israel asked the King of Ammon for permission to peaceably pass through his country.  The King of Ammon, like the King of Edom, also denied Israel’s request for passage.  But unlike the King of Edom, the King of Ammon used his “military” to attack Israel.  Israel 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 Israel and was likewise defeated.

After the war, the former lands of Ammon and Bashan became part of the Land of Israel.  There was no immediate request that, in exchange for “peace,” Israel return to Ammon and Bashan the land which Israel had captured during the war.

However, some 300 years later, however, Ammon proposed “Land for Peace,” stating that it would once again wage war against Israel if Israel did not “return” to Ammon the land Israel had captured from it in battle.  Shoftim (Judges) 11:13, 23-24.  Israel refused; Ammon attacked Israel again, and was again defeated in battle.

Thus, we see that the Torah rejects the idea of “Land for Peace.”  Exercising full and complete sovereignty over the entirety of the Land of Israel, including lands which Israel has captured in wars which are waged to secure the Land of Israel, 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 hukot of tumat hamet and parah adumah are discussed at the beginning of Parashat Hukot and that the foundation is laid toward the end of Parashat Hukot for Israel’s rejection of the idea of “Land for Peace.”  Although some may contend that there is no obvious logical reason or purpose for rejecting offers of “Land for Peace,” the Torah clearly teaches otherwise.

​By: Rabbi Menashe Sasson
Reporting from Jerusalem, Israel

On February 26, 2020, the United States designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) three Lebanon-based officials and 12 Lebanon-based entities linked to the Martyrs Foundation, part of Hizballah’s support network.

Download the government press release below.

​By: Rabbi Menashe Sasson
Reporting from Jerusalem, Israel

The Six-Day War, fought between June 5, 1967 through June 10, 1967, which began after Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, resulted in Israel being victorious over Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, all of whom engaged in a coordinated military campaign against Israel.

During the Six-Day War, Israel captured the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, and Samaria and Judea.

During 1994, Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) entered into a series of agreements known as the Oslo Accords, which resulted in the creation of the Palestinian Authority.  Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority was granted limited rights of self-government in the Gaza Strip and certain portions of Samaria and Judea.

The Oslo Accords did not, however, create a Palestinian Arab state.

During September 2000, Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip, and elsewhere, embarked upon a campaign of violence.  Known as the “Second Intifada” (the First Intifada having occurred prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords), Palestinian Arabs used suicide bombers and rocket attacks to target Jewish Israeli citizens and the State of Israel.

In 2005, Israel, instead of responding to Palestinian Arab acts of war by repudiating the Oslo Accords and taking decisive military action against the Palestinian Authority and asserting sovereignty over the Gaza Strip, instead implemented a unilateral disengagement plan, which resulted in the eviction of Israeli citizens from their homes in the Gaza Strip and the end of Israeli control of the Gaza Strip.  Israel, however, retained exclusive control of the airspace over the Gaza Strip and of the coastal territorial waters west of the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza left the Palestinian Authority with administrative authority — but not sovereignty — over the Gaza Strip.

During 2006 and 2007, there was a conflict between the Palestinian Arab groups Hamas and Fatah.  Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organization by both Israel and the United States (as well as by many other countries), has been the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip since June 2007.

Hamas admits responsibility for rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians, attacks which continue to this day and which are launched from the Gaza Strip.  Some rockets have been launched from Palestinian residential areas and mosques.

Israeli cities affected by Palestinian Arab rocket attacks include Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

What other country would relinquish use of a portion of its land to a people who would then use that land to wage war against it?  What other country would allow such a people to engage in acts of war against it by launching rockets at its civilian population and its cities?  The answer, of course, is few, if any, countries such as Israel, which possesses the military capability to decisively stop such acts of war would ever tolerate this type of a situation for very long, if at all.

Although Israel possesses a military that is clearly superior to that of the insurgencies that are Hamas, Fatah, and the like, Israel, unfortunately, lacks a political system and civilian leadership to put and end to the Palestinian Arab terrorism that no other country would tolerate.

​By: Rabbi Menashe Sasson
Reporting from Jerusalem, Israel

Some say that opposition to the State of Israel, including support for the BDS — Boycott, Divest, Sanctions — movement, is not anti-Semitic.  According to this opinion, there is a difference between being “anti-Israel” and being “anti-Semitic.”  This opinion is held both by some non-Jews and by some Jews.

According to the web site bdsmovement.net, “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) is a Palestinian-led movement. . . .”  The BDS movement claims that it seeks to apply “nonviolent pressure” on Israel — through boycotts of Israeli businesses, divestment of investments in Israeli’s economy, and the imposition by other governments of sanctions against the State of Israel — all in order to achieve its objectives.

On Friday, August 23, 2019, Rina Shnerb, 17, sustained fatal injuries from an improvised explosive device (IED) that was thrown at Rina; her father Rabbi Eitan Shnerb, 46; and her brother Divir, 19; by Muslim terrorists.  The attack occurred while the victims were hiking near Danny’s Spring, also known as Ein Bubin Spring, which is located in a remote area outside of Dolev, in the Binyamin region, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) on a circuitous route north of Jerusalem, Israel.

Rina’s father and brother, who sustained non-fatal injuries, were treated by paramedics, one of whom is related to the Shnerb family, before they were airlifted by helicopter to a hospital.

The Shnerb family is Jewish.

Danny’s Spring, is named after Danny Gonen, 25, who, on June 19, 2015, was murdered in an attack by a Muslim terrorist who shot both Danny and a second victim, who survived.

On August 25, 2019, Israeli press reported that the Muslim terrorist organization Hamas has been working — for over a year — to bring explosives engineers to Judea and Samaria.

On September 28, 2019, Israeli news sources also reported that the following three alleged Muslim terrorists, all of whom are alleged members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), had been arrested for the bombing that resulted in the murder of Rina Shnerb and injuries to Rina’s father and brother.

1.  Samar Mina Salim Arabid, 44, an alleged senior PFLP member.  Arabid allegedly prepared and activated the explosives that killed Rina and injured her father and brother.  It was also reported that Arabid has several prior arrests for his involvement in terror attacks.

2.  Qassam Aa Karim Ragah Shabli, 25, an alleged PFLP member.  Shabli is alleged to have prepared the explosives and created the bomb that killed Rina.  It was also reported that Arabid has several prior arrests for his involvement in terror attacks.

3.  Yazin Hassin Hasani Majmas, 25, an alleged PFLP member.  Majmas reportedly participated in the planning and execution of the bombing that killed Rina and injured her father and brother.  He is also reported to have been arrested in the past for committing “lone-wolf” acts of terrorism.

The Israeli Security Agency said that the trio, led by Arabid, planned to carry out additional terror attacks, including shooting attacks and a kidnaping.  It was reported that, during their interrogation of those arrested, the existence and location of another explosive device was disclosed.  This device was located and detonated by Israeli security forces.

On October 2, 2019, the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs confirmed an Israeli new report that Sammer Arabid, worked for the Palestinian Authority BDS organization Al-Dameer, which supports and promotes boycotts against the State of Israel, until mid-2017 and that Arabid’s wife Nora has served as the organization’s treasurer for the past two years.

In February 2019, the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs released a report (in English) that revealed more than 100 links between terrorist organizations and BDS.  One of the terrorist organizations listed in the report is Al-Dameer.