|
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat BeHar Sinay [בהר סיני] begins, “And the Lord spoke to Moshe in mount Sinay. . . .” Vayyiqra 25:1. The root of the Hebrew word “BeHar” is “Har [הר],” which means “mount” or “mountain.” The first letter of the word “BeHar [בהר] is the Hebrew letter “bet” [ב], which means “in” or “with.” Thus, BeHar [בהר] means “in the mountain” or “with the mountain.” “Sinay” [סיני] is the name of the mountain. “The mountain,” which is located outside of, but on the way to Eretz Yisra’el from Misrayim (Egypt), is the location where the Jewish people received the Torah. In Parashat BeHar Sinay, we learn that HaShem brought the Jewish people “out of the land of Misrayim to give [them] the land of Kena’an,” that is, to give the Jewish people Eretz Yisra’el, “and to be [their] G-d.” Vayyiqra 25:38. This brings us to the misva of Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל], that is, the misva to settle in Eretz Yisra’el, also known as making Aliyah [עליה], which in Hebrew literally means to “go up.” 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. Furthermore, the misva of living in Eretz Yisra’el is timeless. The Shulkhan Arukh states that: “If [a husband] proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisra’el and [the wife] does not want to [go], [the husband] must divorce her. . . . [And if the wife] proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisra’el] and [the husband] does not want to [go], he must divorce her.” Shulkhan Arukh, Even HaEzer 75:4. Some, however, are of the opinion that, prior to the Redemption, it is forbidden to Yishuv Eretz Israel [ישוב ארץ ישראל], that is, to make Aliyah [עליה] and settle in Eretz Yisra’el. This belief is typically based on three verses from Shir Ha’Shirim [שיר השירים], one of which occurs twice: “I adjure you, O daughters of Yerushalayim, by the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, that you stir not up, nor awake my love, until it please,” Shir Ha’Shirim 2:7, 3:5, and another similar verse that occurs once: “I adjure you, O daughters of Yerushalayim, that you stir not up, nor awake my love, until it please.” Id. 8:4. A Midrash that is discussed in the Talmud explains that the three verses from Shir Ha’Shirim [שיר השירים] refer to three oaths, two of which HaShem elicited from the Jewish people and one which He elicited from the nations (“Three Oaths”). The Talmud explains that the Three Oaths are: (1) the Jewish people should not ascend to Eretz Yisra’el as a wall, but little by little; (2) the Jewish people should not rebel against the rule of the nations of the world; and (3) the nations of the world should not excessively subjugate the Jewish people. T.B. Masechet Ketuvot 111a. In Hebrew, the phrase that “the Jewish people should not ascend to Eretz Yisra’el as a wall [שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה] has been interpreted by the Rabbis to mean that the Jewish people should not “break-in” to Yerushalayim, that is, should not take Yerushalayim by force. Although the Midrash which discusses the Three Oaths appears to have been written in an effort to prevent a recurrence of the defeat which the Jewish people suffered at the hands of the Romans as a result of the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E. – 136 C.E.), it must, nevertheless, be conceded that the Midrash itself is silent on the issue of whether the Three Oaths were intended to be permanent or limited to a particular period of time. There are, however, at least four reasons why the Three Oaths were either never binding Halakha, or no longer constitute binding Halakha. First, an “oath,” by definition, is a promise or statement which is made by an individual while invoking the name of HaShem. It is questionable whether a nation – the Jewish people as a whole – are capable of taking an oath, as in all likelihood, not all members of the nation would – or did – agree to be bound by the oath. At most, only members of the nation who actually agreed to be bound by an oath would be subject to its terms. Therefore, because a nation is not capable of taking an oath, it follows that a nation cannot be bound by the terms of an oath. Thus, the Three Oaths are not, and never were, binding Halakha (Jewish Law). Second, the Three Oaths were never binding on the Jewish people because the Midrash which discusses them is Aggadic in nature (commentary on the non-legal aspects of the Tanakh), as opposed to Halakhic in nature (an explanation of the legal aspects of the Humash). Halakha generally requires at least some rabbinical consensus and typically involves the issuance of legal opinions. The purpose of Aggadah, on the other hand, is to motivate the masses by teaching moral, metaphysical, and mystical lessons. Accordingly, Aggadah is not subjected to the rigors which are present in the development of Halakha. For this reason, Halakha is not derived from Aggadah. Shmuel ben Hofni Gaon (969 C.E. – 1034 C.E., Babylon), one of the last of the Geonim and the author of Mevo HaTalmud [מבוא התלמוד] (Introduction to the Talmud), which is appended to most editions of T.B., Masechet Brachot, wrote that any commentary in the Talmud that does not relate to a misva from the Torah is Aggadah and that Aggadah should be incorporated into Halakha only when it is logically sound to do so. Authorship of Mevo HaTalmud [מבוא התלמוד] is generally attributed – although erroneously – to Shmuel ibn Naghrillah, who is better known as Rabbi Shmuel HaNagid (Shmuel the governor) [שמואל הנגיד] (993 C.E. – c. 1056 C.E., Spain). Shir Ha’Shirim is a poetic, not a legal, text and does not relate to a misva from the Torah. Thus, the Three Oaths are Aggadic in nature. Although it may have been logically sound to incorporate the Three Oaths into Halakha for some period of time immediately following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the rationale for doing so no longer exists. Therefore, today, the Three Oaths have no Halakhic application. Third, neither the oath to not ascend to Eretz Yisra’el as a wall [שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה], that is, to not “break-in” to Yerushalayim, or the oath to not rebel against the nations, have been violated. Medinat Yisra’el, the modern-day State of Israel came into existence on May 14, 1948, as the result of international agreement in the form of a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. Acting in accordance with a United Nations resolution can hardly be construed as ascending to Eretz Yisra’el as a “wall,” “breaking-in to Yerushalayim, or rebelling against the nations of the world. The fact that the State of Israel was attacked by all of its Arab neighbors immediately after it declared its independence, although important for other reasons, is of no Halakhic consequence in the context of the Three Oaths. Fourth, the nations of the world unnecessarily subjugated the Jewish people during the Holocaust [שואה], thereby releasing the Jewish people from any oaths which may have applied to them. In conclusion, we know from the Talmud and Halakha that it is a misva to Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל], that is, to settle in Eretz Yisra’el. We learn from Parashat Behuqqotay that HaShem promises the Jewish people blessing if we keep His Torah. We also learn, from the Admonition [תוכחה], that there are consequences for not keeping the Torah. May we all keep the Torah to the best of our ability, including – and perhaps especially – the misva of Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל] when it is possible for a person to do so, and to receive HaShem’s bountiful blessings. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
0 Comments
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat Emor discusses capital punishment, among other things, and says, in no uncertain terms that “he who mortally strikes [יכה] any person shall surely be put to death.” Vayyiqra 24:17. “[A]nd he that strikes [but does not kill] [מכה] another person, he shall be put to death.” Id. 24:21. Taken literally, the pasuk that says “he who mortally strikes [יכה] any person shall surely be put to death” could be understood to mean that a person may not kill another person under any circumstances, including killing in self-defense. Additionally, if a person who strikes another person is to be put to death, why does the Torah need to tell us that a person who mortally strikes another person must also to be put to death? If one is to be put to death for merely striking another person, then surely mortally striking another person would also subject the offender to the death penalty. In Parashat Mishpatim, we learn that: “If a thief is discovered while tunneling in, and he is struck and dies, there is no blood-guilt on his account. If the sun shone upon him, there is blood-guilt on his account.” Shemot 22:1-2. The Talmud explains that “[i]t is . . . assumed that before someone burglarizes a house, he [has already] decide[d] to kill the occupant, should it become necessary to do so. For this reason, the occupant is permitted to kill the burglar.” T.B., Masekat Sanhedrin, 72a. Additionally, the Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, articulates a number of laws relating to other justified killings, including those which occur during war. See, e.g., M.T. Hilchot Melachim U’Milchamoteiheim 6-8, 12, 13. Thus, we learn that the term “mortally strike [יכה]” does not include cases of self-defense or other forms of justified killing. As for one who merely “strikes [מכה] another person,” without killing that person, the great commentator Rashi (1040 – 1105 C.E., France) explained that this pasuk refers to one who strikes his father or mother. Although the State of Israel has a law that permits the imposition of the death penalty, the only crimes that, under current Israeli law, are subject to the death penalty are certain war crimes and certain crimes against the government. Murder is not punishable by death. To date, Israel has executed only two people, Adolf Eichmann and Meir Tobianski. Meir Tobianski was an officer in the IDF who was accused of treason. He was exonerated after his execution. With the exception of the United States, all western countries have abolished capital punishment. Additionally, many U.S. states have either eliminated capital punishment altogether, or, like California, they simply decline to execute those who have been sentenced to death. Of the other countries that still retain the death penalty, the majority are either Muslim or Asian (or both). Almost all countries and states that have abolished the death penalty have also legalized or otherwise facilitated abortion as a means of birth control. Since it is illogical to refrain from executing those who commit murder, but to simultaneously legalize and promote elective abortion, the reason for abolishing the death penalty cannot be based on a reverence and respect for life. There must be another reason. Countries (such as Israel) and states that have abolished the death penalty are also likely to enact, or have enacted, laws which severely limit a person’s legal ability to protect himself with privately-owned firearms or other weapons. However, numerous studies have repeatedly shown that rates of violent crime are consistently lower in jurisdictions where law-abiding citizens are allowed to own firearms, as compared to jurisdictions where the law discourages self-defense. As with the death penalty, the reason for laws which restrict a person’s legal ability to protect himself cannot, logically, be based on a reverence and respect for life. These same countries – those that have abolished the death penalty, permit elective abortion, while also restricting the right to self-defense – also champion the concept of “equality.” The concept of “equality,” however, is tricky. If everyone is to be “equal,” then there is no longer a reason to require that the parties to a marriage be of opposite genders. This novel, new definition of “marriage,” however, rejects thousands of years of experience and tradition, in favor of a supposedly more “enlightened” younger generation. Also, in the name of equality, we see these same Western countries moving away from free-markets and toward centrally-planned economies. The details of how this is occurring, whether the state owns the means of production or merely controls privately-owned companies that own the means of production, is irrelevant. What matters is that there is a constant push away from free-markets and toward a centrally-planned economy, all under the guise of so-called “equality.” What we see is that those who would abolish the death penalty, legalize elective abortion, criminalize self-defense, discard thousands of years of experience and tradition by legalizing homosexual so-called “marriage,” and substitute a centrally-planned economy for the free-market, have a unified agenda. But what is this unified agenda? What is the common thread that connects each of these seemingly diverse and unrelated topics? The answer, of course, is simple. The unifying aspect of all of these trends is a rejection of Torah. As we see in Parashat Emor, the Torah mandates the imposition of the death penalty under certain circumstances. In other areas of the Torah, we learn that elective abortion is a sin; that self-defense is not only permitted, but actually required under certain circumstances; that homosexual conduct is an “abomination;” and that a free-market is the economic system mandated by the Torah. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the common thread which connects all the laws of the Torah is an acceptance of HaShem and His Torah, while the common thread which connects all aspects of so-called “Progressivism,” Socialism, and the like, is a complete rejection of HaShem and His Torah. Unlike some other religions, Judaism understands that one can only come to accept the truth of the Torah willingly and voluntarily. In order for a person to exercise his free-will and voluntarily accept the truth of Torah, there must exist for him an alternative choice. In other words, in order for “good” to exist in this world, “evil” must also exist. May we all be blessed to see and accept the absolute wisdom of Torah and to become increasingly closer to HaShem through our study of His Torah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat Qedoshim begins: “And the Lord spoke to Moshe saying, Speak to all the congregation of the children of Yisra’el, and say to them, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” Vayyiqra 19:1-2. This command, of course, begs the question, “What does it mean to be ‘holy’”? At the close of Parashat Qedoshim, HaShem provides some insight into what it means to be “holy.” “And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.” Vayyiqra 20:26. In other words, what HaShem is telling us is that, in this context, to be “holy” means to be “separate.” Just as HaShem is holy/separate from mankind, He separated the Jewish people from the other nations for the purpose of being HaShem’s chosen people. The concept of holiness/separateness is an integral part of Torah and Halakha (Jewish Law). For example, Parashat Qedoshim mentions the subject of kashrut [קשרות] (Jewish dietary laws), a word which is derived from the root-word “kosher” [כשר], which means fit for a particular purpose. In the sentence which immediately precedes the statement that HaShem has “separated [the Jewish people] from the [other nations of the world], Vayyiqra 20:26, HaShem commands that the Jewish people “distinguish between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean birds and clean; and you [the Jewish people] shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by bird, or by any manner of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean,” Vayyiqra 20:25. Other examples of Jewish holiness/separateness include brit milah [ברית מילה] (circumcision). “And the Lord spoke to Moshe saying, Speak to the children of Yisra’el, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a male child . . . on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” Vayyiqra 12:1-4. Then there is the prohibition on intermarriage, which, not coincidentally, is found in a somewhat lengthy paragraph of the Torah which addresses the subject of expelling from Eretz Yisra’el those who claim a right to the Land which is superior to that of the Jewish people: When the Lord thy God shall bring thee to the land into which thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hitti, and the Girgashi, and the Emori, and the Kena’ani, and the Perizzi, and the Hivvi, and the Yevusi, seven nations greater and mightier than thou, and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, and thou shalt smite them, then thou shalt devote them to utter destruction; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give to his son, nor shalt thou take his daughter for thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the Lord be inflamed against you, and He will destroy thee speedily. But thus shall you deal with them: you shall destroy their alters, and break down their images, and cut down their asherim [sacred trees], and burn their carved idols with fire. For thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God has chosen thee to be a special people to Himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set His love upon you, or choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He had sworn to your fathers, has the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondsmen, from the hand of Par’o, king of Mizrayim. Know, therefore, that the Lord thy God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps covenant and troth [kindness] with those who love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations, and repays them that hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack to him that hate Him; he will repay him to his face. Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them. Debarim 7:1-11 (emphasis added). Thus, we see that the command “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy,” Vayyiqra 19:1-2, means not only that the Jewish people must be separate from the other nations and peoples of the world in the context of the food that they eat, the exterior appearance of male genitalia, and with respect to whom a Jew may marry (and, by extension, with whom a Jew may bear children), but also with respect to whom the Jewish people may permit to reside in Eretz Yisra’el (the Land of Israel). In 1948, after almost 2,000 years of exile from the Eretz Yisra’el, the Jewish people reestablished sovereignty over a portion of the Land. Following hard-fought battles during the 1948 War of Independence, Arabs fled from west Jerusalem, Haifa, and Jaffa, as well as in Ramle and Lydda, two towns located between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. However, the then-new Israeli government, beginning a pattern that has persisted to this day, lost its resolve and failed to expel the Arabs from Nazareth and the rest of the Galilee and allowed other Arabs to return to Israel under the guise of “family reunification.” The 1949 Armistice Agreements (aka: The Rhodes Agreement) brought an additional 30,000 Arabs into Israel. Making matters worse, although some 700,000 Jews from Arab countries immigrated to Israel in the years immediately following 1948, leaving behind property and other valuables in their former Arab countries of residence for which they were never compensated, Israel “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory” by failing to complete the population transfer by sending the Arabs who remained in Israel to neighboring Arab lands. The Jewish State (aka: the Israeli government), having failed in 1948 to fulfill its Torah obligation, to wit: “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee to the land into which thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee. . . ,” Debarim 7:1, was given a second chance in 1967, when HaShem granted the Jewish people miraculous success in The Six-Day War. Following the war, the Jewish State had control over The Old City, in Jerusalem; Judea and the surrounding hills; Bethlehem; Hebron; Samaria, including Shechem, Bet El, Shilo, Jericho, Gilgal; and Gaza. In the aftermath of The Six-Day War, white (surrender) flags flew from almost every Arab window in Hebron, as the Arab residents of that town, likely remembering the unprovoked 1929 massacre by Arabs of 67 Jews, and knowing that a 1929-type massacre of Jews would probably have reoccurred had the Arabs won The Six-Day War, feared Jewish retribution. Not only did the Jewish State not compel the defeated Arabs of Hebron to relocate to an Arab county following The Six-Day War, the Jewish Defense Minister assured the Arabs that Me’arat HaMakhpela [מערת המכפלה] (the Cave of Machpelah), where Abraham and Sara, Yizhaq and Rivqa, and Ya’akob and Le’a are buried, would remain under Muslim control. Making matters worse, not only did the Jewish State not compel Arabs to relocate to Arab countries, it actively prevented them from doing so. When thousands of Arabs fled eastward, toward Jordan, the Israeli Defense Minister ordered Jewish troops to intercept them and return them to their Israeli villages, presumably for the purpose of preempting objections from Israel’s detractors. Then there was October 7, 2023, when Arabs invaded Israel from Gaza, an area of Israel that the “Jewish” government withdrew from in 1994, as a result of the ill-advised Oslo Accords. During the invasion, Arabs massacred more than 1,100 people, the vast majority of whom were both Jewish and civilian (including many women and children), and took some 250 Jews hostage. The Jewish State’s timid, secular-socialist strategy for preventing terrorism has, as history has demonstrated time and again, been a complete, abject, and deadly failure. Perhaps a new strategy, a Jewish strategy, that is – a Torah strategy – is in order. If the Jewish people are to dwell safely and securely in their Land, the Jewish State must heed the command of Parashat Qedoshim to be holy, that is, to be separate from the other nations. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat Ahare Mot discusses, among other things, the types of relationships which are forbidden and the punishment for engaging in such relationships. The section on forbidden relationships begins with HaShem instructing Moshe Rabbeinu to tell the Jewish people to refrain from engaging in immoral practices which were then prevalent in Misrayim (Egypt), and in Eretz Kena’an (the Land of Israel). Vayyiqra 18:1-3. Speaking to men, HaShem commands, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover her nakedness. I am the Lord.” Vayyiqra 18:6. The relatives with whom a man is forbidden to have a relationship are then listed:
Vayyiqra 18:6-22. Men and women are both prohibited from engaging in relations with animals. Vayyiqra 18:23. These pesukim suggest a number of questions. Perhaps the most obvious is, why are these prohibitions, save for one, directed only to men? As a general rule, the Torah commands beneficial conduct only when, in the absence of a command, a large percentage of the population is not likely to engage in such conduct, or where the conduct is especially beneficial. For example, the Torah commands men, but not women, to get married. Bereshit 2:24. The reason, of course, is that men are generally more inclined than women to partake of the physical pleasures of marriage, while at the same time rejecting the obligations of marriage, and because marriage is especially beneficial, both to individuals and to societies. A corollary to this general rule is that the Torah prohibits harmful conduct only when, in the absence of a prohibition, a large percentage of the population is likely to engage in such conduct, or where such conduct is especially harmful. Thus, since men are more likely than women to be promiscuous, and because promiscuous behavior is especially harmful – both to individuals and to societies – the Torah prohibits such conduct. Although women are not immune to promiscuous conduct, one need only look at various societies, both past and present, to see that, in general, men are more prone to this type of misbehavior, as compared to women. If we were to give examples, it would be relatively easy to compile a long list of men whose careers and personal lives have been ruined, or at least seriously compromised, as a result of such conduct, while a corresponding list of women would be comparatively short. Even though the Torah prohibits certain types of relationships, it encourages, indeed mandates, that men and women get married and, to the extent they are capable of doing so, to have children. “[A] man leaves his father and mother, and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Bereshit 2:24. On the sixth day of creation, HaShem said, “Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it. . . .” Bereshit 1:28. After the Great Flood, HaShem “blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.’” Bereshit 9:1; 9:7. According to the Talmud, Shimon ben Shetach (c. 140-60 BCE) instituted a requirement that a groom give his bride a marriage contract, a ketubah [כתובה], which literally translated means “written.” T.B. Masekat Shabbat 14b. Perhaps most famously, a ketubah [כתובה] sets forth the husband’s obligation to pay his wife a certain amount of money if he divorces her. Although often emphasized to a lesser degree, a ketubah [כתובה] also articulates a husband’s obligation to provide his wife with three things: 1. Food, 2. Clothing, and 3. Onah [עונה]. Translated literally, “onah” [עונה] means “season.” In the context of a wife’s rights as set forth in her ketubah [כתובה], the term “onah” [עונה] refers to a husband’s obligation to engage in marital relations with his wife. The, perhaps, seeming incongruence between, on the one hand, the prohibitions in Parashat Ahare Mot, which enjoin a man from engaging in relations with certain classes of individuals and, on the other hand, of a husband’s obligation to engage in relations with his wife, deserves some examination. As we previously noted, the purpose of the prohibitions in Parashat Ahare Mot, which are directed almost exclusively at men, seem to imply that men are more likely than women to engage in intimate conduct which is harmful, both on an individual level and on a societal level. Judging from history, we of course know this is quite true. Therefore, we might expect that Halakha (Jewish law) would mandate that a wife engage in marital relations with her husband, so that her husband would be satisfied and, thus, presumably, less likely to seek physical satisfaction from other women. Jewish law, however, is exactly the opposite. Rather than a wife being obligated to provide her husband with physical satisfaction, the husband is required to satisfy his wife’s needs. This conundrum, however, is easily resolved. The source of a husband’s obligation to provide his wife with onah [עונה] is the pasuk, “If he take[s] another wife for himself, her food, clothing, and her duty of marriage shall not [be] diminish[ed].” Shemot 21:10. Therefore, we see that although Parashat Ahare Mot forbids a man from engaging in certain types of relationships, the Torah clearly contemplates that a man might have more than one wife. Indeed, we see in Tanakh many instances of men having more than one wife, as well as the absence of any prohibition from doing so. Rambam’s Mishneh Torah on this subject is quite detailed and provides, in part, that “[t]he [obligation of] conjugal rights as prescribed by the Torah [is individual in nature and depends] on the strength of each particular man and the [type of] work he performs.” M.T. Hilchot Ishut 14:1. “A wife has the right to prevent her husband from making business trips, except to close places, so that he will not be prevented from fulfilling his conjugal duties. He may make such journeys only with her permission.” M.T. Hilchot Ishut 14:2. Similarly, she has the prerogative of preventing him from changing from one profession which grants her more frequent conjugal rights to a profession that grants her less frequent rights. Id. “A man [has the prerogative of] marrying several wives – even 100 – whether at one time or one after the other. His wife may not object, provided he has the means to provide each [wife] with her subsistence, clothing, and conjugal rights as befits her.” M.T. Hilchot Ishut 14:3. The Shulhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) likewise recognizes a man’s right to take more than one wife. A man may marry a number of women provided he has the means to sustain them[; . . .] the sages gave [a] worthy suggestion that a man marry no more than four women so that he may fulfill his sexual obligation [to each of them at least] once a month. Shulhan Aruch, Even Ha’ezer 1:9. This was the Halakha until about the year 1000 CE, when Rabbeinu Gershom (c. 960 - 1040, France, Germany) instituted a ban on polygamy. Reasons which have been given for the ban include: Shalom Bayit (peace in the home); the difficulty that some men might have in supporting more than one wife; and as a complement to another of Rabbeinu Gershom’s edicts that, contrary to Torah law, a man may not divorce his with without her consent. Regarding this last reason, a ban on multiple wives was intended to prevent a man from simply marrying another woman if, in reliance on Rabbeinu Gershom’s “modification” of the Torah, a woman refused to consent to her husband’s request for a divorce. As an initial matter, not only is Rabbeinu Gershom’s ban on polygamy at odds with the permission given by the Torah for a man to take more than one wife, the ban is arguably also inconsistent with the Torah’s command that Jews and Gentiles alike “be fruitful and multiply.” On the sixth day of creation, HaShem said, “Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it. . . .” Bereshit 1:28. After the Great Flood, HaShem “blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.’” Bereshit 9:1; 9:7. Rabbeinu Gershom’s ban on polygamy was intended to remain in effect only until the year 5000 (1240 CE). Id. The Pit’heh Teshuba, in his commentary to the Shulhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law), explained that Rabbeinu Gershom limited the duration of his enactment in order to avoid violating the prohibition of “Bal Tosif” – adding onto the Torah. Rabbeinu Gershom’s ban on polygamy was not accepted by all Jews. The Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet (1235-1310, Barcelona, Spain)) wrote that in Spain and some other regions, the ban was not accepted. This is also the view of Maharam Alshakar (1466-1542). Thus, we see that the Torah allows a man to have more than one wife at a time; the polygamy ban was instituted by a rabbi who lived in a Christian-majority geographic area; the polygamy ban was intended to be temporary, out of concern that a permanent ban would have the effect of altering the Torah; and that the polygamy ban has never been fully accepted by all of the Jewish people. Upon closer examination, we see that the stated reasons for the ban cannot withstand scrutiny. Regarding Shalom Bayit, we see that polygamy has not necessarily led to less Shalom Bayit in cultures where it is, or has been, practiced, as compared to Christian-majority countries, where polygamy generally is illegal. Quite the contrary; rates for divorce and domestic violence are quite high in many Christian-majority countries. As for the concern that some men might have difficulty supporting more than one wife, although perhaps true, that certainly is not a legitimate basis for a complete ban on polygamy. In no other economic context do was say that because some people cannot afford more than one, all people are limited to one. Furthermore, we see in cultures that are not guided by Torah principles that men often father many children with different women, without marrying any of the women or voluntarily supporting the women or the children whom they father. Allowing a man to have more than one wife, on the condition that he financially supports her and their children, would certainly be a better social policy. And finally, as many parents have told their child: “two wrongs don’t make a right.” The so-called “temporary” ban, which was not made permanent in the first instance, out of concern about altering the Torah, but which has, de facto, become permanent, cannot be justified on the ground that it complements a different (and likewise impermissible) change to the Torah, that is, the change which now requires a wife’s consent for a husband to divorce her. The Torah, in Parashat Ahare Mot, forbids men from engaging in relationships with certain people. However, the Torah, in its wisdom, also permits other relationships which, in the context of Western and Christian cultures, is prohibited. As a general matter of Halakhic prudence, the Rabbis should not prohibit that which the Torah allows. Thus, because the Torah allows polygamy, the Rabbis should not ban it. Whether anyone should engage in polygamy is an individualized and personal decision, which should be arrived at in a thoughtful, careful, and reasoned manner. As religious, Torah-observant Jews, may we, and the Rabbis who guide us, be blessed to have the faith, trust, and strength to accept all of our Holy Torah, even, and perhaps especially, those parts which we do not fully understand or which we may find to be objectionable to our supposedly “enlightened,” Westernized, Christianized concepts of right and wrong. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. The festival of Pase’ah is a commemoration and celebration of Jewish freedom. At the Pesah seder, we read the Haggadah and discuss Jewish emancipation from slavery, which was accomplished through the exodus from Egypt. Regarding the reason HaShem took the Jews out of Egypt, there is a pasuk in the Torah which is often misquoted as saying, “I am the Lord your G-d, who brought you out of the land of Mizrayim [Egypt] to be your G-d.” The pasuk, fully and correctly quoted, actually says, “I am the Lord your G-d, who brought you out of the land of Mizrayim [Egypt] to give you the land of Kena’an [Eretz Yisra’el], and to be your G-d.” Vayyiqra 25:38. The addition of the omitted phrase in this pasuk “to give you the land of Kena’an” answers the question of why it was necessary for HaShem to take the Jews out of Egypt. After all, if HaShem simply wanted to be the G-d, of the Jews, He could have performed miracles that would have given Jews the freedom to worship Him while they continued to live in Mizrayim, or, for that matter, in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, London, or Paris. The order in which HaShem informs us of the reason for the Exodus is also instructive. HaShem said He took the Jews out of Mizrayim “to give [them Eretz Yisra’el]” and “to be [their] G-d,” the implication being that there is a relationship between Eretz Yisra’el and HaShem being the G-d of the Jewish people. The Talmud addresses the issue: [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. Masechet Ketuvot, 110b. After giving the Jewish people the Torah at Mount Sinai, HaShem warned them against allowing the inhabitants of Eretz Yisra’el to remain in the Land after the Land had been conquered by the Jews. 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 34:11-12. The command to expel from Eretz Yisra’el all inhabitants who possessed the land prior to the Jews is repeated in Sefer Bamidbar: HaShem spoke to Moshe in the plains of Moab, by the Yardan [river], at Jericho, saying, speak to the Children of Yisra’el and say to them: When you cross the Yardan [river] to the land of Kena’an, you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the Land before you. . . . You shall possess the Land and you shall settle in it, for to you have I given the Land to possess it. Bamidbar 33:50-53. 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 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 [Kenana’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 [Kena’anite] nations, it would be improper for Israel 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 Israel's enemies, it is immoral for Israel 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 Israel dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Israel. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Israel came to the 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. Why, one might ask, does HaShem emphasize expelling from Eretz Yisra’el those who claim a legal or other right to the Land? The answer is simple. Shortly before the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, HaShem, who was speaking about the Jewish people, said, “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation [אתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש].” Shemot 19:6. The word “kadosh” [קדוש], in addition to meaning “holy” also means “separate,” which suggests that HaShem intends for the Jewish people to be physically, as well as spiritually, separate from the other peoples of the world. Applying this Torah commandment to contemporary times, we see that the State of Israel must limit Israeli citizenship and rights of residency to those who are Halakhically Jewish, as well as create incentives for non-Jewish residents of Israel who claim a right to possession of Eretz Yisra’el to relocate to other lands, because, among other reasons, these individuals will always “be a snare among” the Jewish people. One might argue, however, that Israel is a democracy and that a democratic country may not exclude people based on race. There are several answers to this question. The first is that denying citizenship to non-Jews and incentivizing certain non-Jews to relocate to other lands does not constitute discrimination based on race. When addressing the issue of racial discrimination, it is important to understand that, “race,” by definition, reflects a physical characteristic or trait which is immutable, that is, a characteristic or trait which cannot be changed. Notwithstanding that the majority of persons who are Halakhically Jewish are persons who were born to a Halakhically Jewish mother (“Born Jew”), there are also many Jews who, in accordance with traditional rules of Halakha, converted to Judaism (“Naturalized Jews”). In other words, just like the citizens of many other nations, there are citizens of the Jewish nation who are Born Jews and there are citizens of the Jewish nation who are Naturalized Jews, that is, Jews who “immigrated” and joined – that is, became citizens of – the Jewish nation. The fact that a person may become Jewish through a halachically valid conversion conclusively demonstrates that “Jewishness” is a mutable characteristic or trait which can be acquired, as opposed to an immutable characteristic or trait which cannot be altered or acquired. Therefore, to discriminate against someone because they are not Jewish is not a form of discrimination which is based on race. A fortiori, laws which distinguish between Jews and non-Jews are not laws which discriminate based on race. To this, one might respond – correctly – that although laws which distinguish between Jews and non-Jews are not laws which discriminate based on race, such laws, nevertheless, discriminate based on religion. To the Western (and largely, the Christian) mind, it is unacceptable to discriminate against someone because of his religion. This, however, is not a Torah concept, nor is it a concept that is accepted by many non-Western countries. For example, Saudi Arabia, which is widely considered to be a “moderate” Muslim country, has, for a very long time, forbidden Jews even to enter its country, much less reside there. Other countries that, for many, many years, have systematically discriminated against Jews include: Aden, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen. More importantly, however, the State of Israel, in addition to claiming to be a democracy, also claims to be a Jewish State, in fact, the only Jewish state in the world. As such, it is inconceivable that the State of Israel should allow non-Jews to live in Israel or to grant them political rights which will allow them – peaceably – through natural population growth, to become a majority of the population which, in turn, would allow them to use Israel’s supposedly democratic political system to, for example, change the name of Israel to “Palestine” and to then change Israel from a Jewish state to an Arab or Muslim state. The complaint of Arabs who reside in Israel is not that the State of Israel treats them poorly. Indeed, there is virtually no immigration of Arabs from Israel to other countries. Rather, the complaint of Arabs who reside in Israel is, simply, that the State of Israel exists. The Arab who resides in Israel genuinely, although erroneously, believes that the Land of Israel was stolen from him. Thus, from his perspective, the only satisfactory outcome is for the State of Israel to cease to exist. Hatikvah [התקוה], the Israeli national anthem, reads in part, “As long as in the heart, within [כל עוד בלבב פנימה], The soul of a Jew still yearns [נפש יהודי הומיה], [for] The land of Zion and Jerusalem [ארץ ציון וירושלים]. This is hardly a song, or a sentiment, which is likely to arouse or awaken much patriotism in a non-Jew who happens to reside in Israel. May the Jewish people understand, accept, and pray for the timeless freedom that was envisioned by HaShem when He took us out of Egypt so many years ago, and may the Jewish citizens of the State of Israel exercise their freedom to vote for Jewish politicians who will transform the State of Israel into a state which is truly Jewish, rather than the current state which is Jewish in name only. Next Year in Jerusalem [בשנה הבאה בירושלים]! !שבת שלום & חג שמח Shabbat Shalom & Hag Sameah! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. In the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 Arab terrorist attack, as well as others, including those which were committed by Arabs in Bnei Brak (5 killed), Beersheba (4 killed), and Hadera (2 killed) during the month of Adar II 5782 (March 2022), and following a Facebook post praising the attacks, allegedly made by an Arab teacher who is employed by the Israeli school system and which allegedly stated, “God bless the heroes, and bless the hands that did the deed,” the question was raised, “If the Israeli government had the will to stop the current terrorist attacks, and prevent future terrorist attacks, what could it do?” The answer to this question is not difficult, but it does need a little foundational information. A Torah command or Rabbinical obligation (as well as an act performed in conformance therewith) is known as a “misva” [מצוה]; the plural being “misvot” [מצוות]. For the purpose of a discussion of Parashat Mezora, there are two classes of misvot [מצוות]: “Comfortable Misvot,” that is, misvot which religious Jews openly discuss and generally enjoy performing and, on the other hand, “Uncomfortable Misvot,” those misvot which, typically, are not freely discussed. The Uncomfortable Misvot can further be divided into two subcategories: those which, typically, are performed and those which, typically, are seldom, if ever, performed, even though performance is possible. Parashat Mezora introduces us to the Uncomfortable Misva of Taharat HaMishpacha [טהרת המשפחה] (family purity) which, for reasons of modesty, is typically not openly discussed, especially in mixed company, but which is observed by religious couples. Examples of Uncomfortable Misvot which are seldom, if ever performed, include self-defense, capital punishment, Yeshuv Eretz Yisra’el (the obligation to live in the Land of Israel), and expelling from Eretz Yisra’el those inhabitants of the land who claim a right thereto which is superior to that of the Jewish people. Regarding self-defense, Parashat Mishpatim informs us that: “If a thief is discovered while tunneling in, and he is struck and dies, there is no blood-guilt on his account. If the sun shone upon him, there is blood-guilt on his account.” Shemot 22:1-2. The Talmud explains that “[i]t is . . . assumed that before someone burglarizes a house, he [has already] decide[d] to kill the occupant, should it become necessary to do so. For this reason, the occupant is permitted to kill the burglar.” T.B., Masekat Sanhedrin, 72a. As for capital punishment, Parashat Emor states that “he who mortally strikes [יכה] any person shall surely be put to death.” Vayyiqra 24:17. Halakha which applies this pasuk goes into great detail regarding offenses which are punishable by death. Mishneh Torh, Hilchot Sanhedrin 6:1-9:3. As can readily be seen, the Torah does not merely authorize capital punishment, it mandates it in certain circumstances. Concerning Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל], that is, the misva to settle in Eretz Yisra’el, also known as making Aliyah [עליה], which in Hebrew literally means to “go up,” 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. Furthermore, the misva of living in Eretz Yisra’el is timeless. The Shulkhan Arukh states that: “If [a husband] proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisra’el and [the wife] does not want to [go], [the husband] must divorce her. . . . [And if the wife] proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisra’el] and [the husband] does not want to [go], he must divorce her.” Shulkhan Arukh, Even HaEzer 75:4. Lastly, regarding the expulsion from Eretz Yisra’el of those inhabitants of the Land who claim a right thereto which is superior to that of the Jewish people, HaShem, in His infinite wisdom, knew that the occupants of the Land would not voluntarily relinquish their control over Eretz Yisra’el. Thus, HaShem commanded that the Jewish people conquer the Land and expel the conquered inhabitants, and enjoined the Jewish people from entering into an agreement with conquered 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. The Halakha relating to non-Jews 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 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. According to the Or HaHaim: “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 HaHaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 inform 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. With this background, we now return to the question which was posed at the beginning of this article, to wit: “If the Israeli government had the will to stop the current terrorist attacks, and prevent future terrorist attacks, what could it do?” 1. According to its Basic Laws (a faux, quasi-constitution), the State of Israel describes itself as a “Jewish State” and a “democracy.” Since it is not possible to have a democratic Jewish state which consists of individuals who have a predisposition and incentive to vote to change the Jewish character of the state, the first reform that could be undertaken is to limit the acquisition of Israeli citizenship, and thus the right to vote, to persons who are Halakhically Jewish. 2. The State of Israel could also enact and enforce a death penalty law of general applicability for all premeditated murders, including but not limited to murders committed during the course of a terrorist attack. 3. Because Halakha forbids the appointment of a non-Jew to any position of authority over a Jew, the State of Israel could limit the eligibility to: a. run for, or hold, public office to persons who are Halakhically Jewish and who hold Israeli citizenship; and b. apply for, or hold, any position of government employment. 4. Also, in accordance with Halakha, the State of Israel could: a. limit the eligibility for all government benefits, financial, educational, health care, etc., to Israeli citizens who are Halakhically Jewish; and b. impose special taxes on non-Jews. The combination of these aforementioned policies, over the long-term, would both decrease the opportunity for non-Jews to commit terrorist attacks, while also incentivizing them to emigrate to a another country. All it would take to implement these reforms is the political will to do so, and faith that blessing will flow to the Jewish people for performing HaShem’s “Uncomfortable Misvot.” שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. This week’s parashat, Tazria, and next week’s parashat, Mezora, discuss in great detail a number of ailments, skin conditions, and bodily emissions, and the role of the Kohanim in “diagnosing” these conditions. If a particular skin condition – zara’at [צרעת] – covers a person’s entire body, a Kohen is to declare the person to be “pure” [טהר]. If, however, the skin condition covers less than the person’s entire body, a Kohen is to declare the person to be “impure” [טמא]. And if the zara’at breaks out abroad the skin, and the zara’at covers all the skin of him that has the plague from his head to his foot, as far as the priest can see, then the priest shall consider, and behold, if the zara’at have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that has the plague; it has turned white, he is clean. But when raw flesh appears in him, he shall be unclean. And the priest shall see the raw flesh and pronounce him to be unclean, for the raw flesh is unclean, it is zara’at. Or, if the raw flesh turn again, and be changed to white, he shall come to the priest, and the priest shall see him, and behold, if the plague be turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean that has the plague, he is clean. Vayyiqra 13:12-17. At first, one might think that a person who is only partially covered with zara’at [צרעת] might be deemed to be pure [טהר], and that someone whose body is fully covered with zara’at [צרעת] would be deemed to be impure [טמא]. However, as with many things in the Torah, the truth, that is, reality, is exactly the opposite of what one might otherwise logically conclude. Many people who read about the laws of zara’at [צרעת] might find the study of these laws to be an interesting intellectual exercise, but then conclude that such laws have no practical, real-world application in today’s modern society. Such a conclusion, however, would be mistaken. In the Talmud, the Rabbis explain that redemption – the Mashiah – will come at one of two possible times: If the Jewish people “are deserving, [HaShem] will hasten [the time for the coming of Mashiah] [זכו אחישנה]”; but if the Jewish people “are not deserving, [redemption will come] in its time [לא זכו בעתה]. T.B., Maseket Sanhedrin 98a. The Talmud then elaborates, stating that: “[If] the Jewish people are deserving, [Mashiah will arrive swiftly], with the clouds of Heaven [זכו עם ענני שמיה],” but if the Jewish people “are not deserving, [Mashiah will come slowly, as] a humble man, riding on a donkey [לא זכו עינ ורוכב על חמור].” Id. In other words, it is up to us when Mashiah will come, and whether we want the redemption, as the saying goes, the easy way or the hard way. But, you might ask, what does the coming of Mashiah have to do with the laws of zara’at [צרעת], of purity [טהר] and impurity [טומאה]? The Talmud, referring to Parashat Mezora, Vayyiqra 13:13, explains: It was taught in a Baraita: R. Nehemiah said: in the generation when the son of David will come, insolence will increase; honor will dwindle; the vine will produce its fruit, yet wine will be expensive; the entire Kingdom will convert to heresy [the world’s dominant power will be drawn to the false beliefs of the heretics and will propagate heresy]; and there will be no rebuke. . . . Rava said, what is this verse? [Answer] All of it has turned white; it is pure. T.B., Masekat Sanhedrin 97a. In other words, just as when zara’at [צרעת] covers only a portion of a person’s body, that person is impure [טמא], so too when only a portion of the world accepts the false beliefs of heretics, the world, as a whole, is likewise impure [טמא]. However, just as a person is pure [טהר] when his entire body is covered with zara’at [צרעת], so too, when the entire world has accepted false beliefs, the world will be pure [טהר] and thus ready for redemption. See, Rashi. Today’s world is certainly impure. One need only look at Western societies and so-called “civilizations” to see how the secular heretics are denying Torah principles. Likewise with Iran, which seeks nuclear weapons so it can destroy Israel; China, Russia, and all the other dictatorial regimes deny HaShem, which they must do to stay in power. By any “realistic” assessment of the world, we are taking the “hard way” to redemption, to Mashiah. But, as we learn from the Talmud, there is another way. The Midrash tells a story about an impoverished Kohen who lived in Eretz Yisra’el. Like so many of today’s Israelis, the Kohen decided to leave Eretz Yisra’el in order to attempt to improve his financial situation. However, before he could leave, the Kohen had to make arrangements for his “customers,” who would come to him for a “diagnosis” of purity [טהר] or impurity [טומאה], after they had contracted zara’at [צרעת]. Midrash Tanchuma, Tazaria 6. The Kohen taught his wife the basic principle of zara’at [צרעת] that “if the root of the hair is dry, know that it is smitten, as the Almighty gave the root of each hair its own well from which to draw water and, if the well dries up, so does the hair.” Id. The Kohen’s wife responded by saying, “If the Almighty gave the root of each hair its own well from which to draw sustenance, how much more it is true that you, a man who has countless hairs and whose children deserve their sustenance from you, will be granted sustenance from the Almighty?” Id. With that, the Kohen’s wife did not permit the Kohen to leave Eretz Yisra’el. The lesson the Kohen missed, but which his wife understood, is that HaShem is in control of the world, including all its details, right down to the root of each hair. If we have faith [אמונה] in HaShem, we will know and understand, as with all other things, that if we, the Jewish people, do our part, HaShem will respond in-kind. In other words, if we, the Jewish people, are deserving, Mashiah will arrive swiftly, with the clouds of Heaven [זכו עם ענני שמיה].” May we, as individuals and as a nation, turn toward, and draw close to, HaShem and become deserving of having Mashiah arrive swiftly, with the clouds of Heaven. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat Shemini tells us that: And Nadab and Avihu, the sons of Aharon, took each of them his censer [fire pan] and put fire in it, and put incense on it, and offered [a] strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not. And the fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Vayyiqra 10:1-2. On its face, this is a difficult pasuk to understand. HaShem killed Nadab and Avihu because they brought an incense offering that they had not been commanded to bring. To understand the reason for this apparently illogical outcome, a little background is in order. This world [עולם הזה], the physical world in which we live, is a world of duality. For example, there is hot and cold, up and down, on and off, and so on. We understand, of course, that there are many points between the two end-points which represent this duality. That understanding illustrates and emphasizes this duality, but does not refute it. The Torah itself alludes to this duality. As we know, the first word in the Torah is “Bereshit [בראשית],” which often is translated as “In the beginning.” The Hebrew alphabet, the “Aleph-Bet,” begins with the letter “Aleph” [א]. The second letter of the Aleph-Bet, not surprisingly, is the letter “Bet” [ב]. Unlike other languages, each letter of the Hebrew alphabet has a corresponding numerical value. The first letter of the Aleph-Bet, the “Aleph” [א] has a numerical value of 1. The number “one” represents HaShem, who is One. The second letter of the Aleph-Bet, the “Bet” [ב] has a numerical value of 2. The first word of the Torah, “Bereshit [בראשית],” begins with the letter “Bet” [ב] (numerical value of 2), which is an allusion to the fact that this world [עולם הזה] is a world of duality. Another duality consists of those who believe that this world [עולם הזה] was created by HaShem and, on the other hand, of those who believe this world exists due to “natural” or other causes that have nothing to do with HaShem. Those of us who believe – that is, those of us who “know” – that HaShem created this world [עולם הזה] constantly seek to “connect,” that is, to have a relationship, or to have a better, closer relationship, with HaShem. Jews do not have a monopoly on wanting to “connect” with their Creator. Both Jews and Gentiles alike, whether they realize it or not, are driven to do so. Recognizing this fact, the Sages told us that one who is obligated to perform a misva, and who does perform that misva, is greater than one who, although not obligated to perform the misva, does so voluntarily. Derashot HaRan 7:21. At first glance, the logic of this idea might seem counter-intuitive. After all, would it not be better to perform a misva voluntarily, as opposed to only performing the misva after one has been commanded to do so? In other contexts, it is often true that performing an act voluntarily is greater than fulfilling an obligation. Take, for example, the situation of a person who voluntarily gives charity (that he has not been commanded to give) or a person who pays a debt that he owes, but which he has not been commanded to pay. Most people would probably agree that the act of giving charity is more meritorious than the act of voluntarily paying one’s bills. This, of course, would be correct. But when it comes to serving HaShem, things are different. The purpose of performing misvot is to accept upon oneself the Yoke of Heaven, to bend one’s will and humble oneself before his Creator. When one performs a misva that he is commanded to perform, he thereby accepts upon himself the Yoke of Heaven by bending his will to match that of his Creator and, thereby, humbles himself before his Creator. However, the person who voluntarily performs a “misva” without having been commanded to do so has not accepted upon himself the Yoke of Heaven by bending his will to match that of his Creator. Rather, he has merely reaffirmed in his mind the correctness of his own decision that performing the misva is the proper thing to do. Thus, rather than accepting the Yoke of Heaven and humbling himself before his Creator, he has actually done exactly the opposite. He has aggrandized himself before his Creator. With this background, we now return to Parashat Shemini. As previously discussed, this is a world of duality. Perhaps the most significant example of this duality is that which is represented by the question: was man created by a Devine Creator or is man, at his origin, simply the result of “natural,” unaided evolution? These choices, of course, are mutually-exclusive; it can only be one or the other. The numerical values which correspond to the characters of the Aleph-Bet provide some insight into this issue. As we know from Parasha Bereshit, HaShem created the world in six days and rested on Shabbat, the seventh day. Thus, the number 7 represents this world [עולם הזה]. It is interesting that the 7-day week has become almost universal worldwide, even though the number seven does not divide evenly into 365, the number of days in a year. Certain atheistic regimes, such as the former Soviet Union, attempted to abolish the 7-day week (in favor of a 5-day week); however, all such efforts worldwide have failed. The number 8, on the other hand, represents the spiritual world. For example, we perform Brit Milah [ברית מילה] (circumcision) on the eighth day after a baby boy is born. One reason that has been given for this is that because the number 7 (which represents HaShem’s absolute sovereignty over this world) + 1 (which represents HaShem, who is One), equal 8. Other examples of the number 8 representing the spiritual is Hannukah, which celebrates for eight days the Jewish defeat of the Greeks, who sought to annihilate Jewish spirituality; the eight strands which are attached to each of the four corners of a Tallit; and the eight special garments that were worn by the Kohen Gadol while serving in the Beit Hamikdash. The significance of the number 8 is also present in Parashat Shemini. The Priestly service in the Mishkan reached its pinnacle on the eighth day of the inauguration service, when Aharon and his sons Nadab and Abihu were consecrated as Kohanim. Nadab and Abihu, in their zeal to serve HaShem, brought an offering that HaShem had not commanded them to bring. However, rather than being rewarded for voluntarily performing a “misva” that they had not been commanded to perform, HaShem summarily executed both of them. And Nadab and Avihu, the sons of Aharon, took each of them his censer [fire pan] and put fire in it, and put incense on it, and offered [a] strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not. And the fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Vayyiqra 10:1-2. The lesson to be learned from Nadab and Avihu is one of duality, that of serving HaShem in a correct manner, on His terms, and not in an incorrect manner, on our terms. This applies to both Jew and Gentile alike. For Jews, this means following the Halachic rulings of authoritative and respected rabbis. For rabbis, it means being careful when issuing Halakhic rulings to ensure that such rulings, first and foremost, reflect, and do not abrogate, Biblical requirements and, secondly, that such rulings, while taking into account relevant Halakhic precedent, also give appropriate consideration and weight to the specific facts and circumstances which exist at the time and place where the Halakhic ruling is being given. For Gentiles, this means learning and following the Seven Laws of Noah, preferably with the guidance of a competent rabbi, and by not creating a new religion through the voluntary performance “misvot” that one is not commanded or allowed to perform. For both Jew and Gentile alike, the lesson to be learned is that we must serve HaShem on His terms, and not, as did Nadab and Avihu, on our terms, by creating a new religion. That is, we must not create a “strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded [us] not.” We can now better understand what our Sages meant when they taught that one who is obligated to perform a misva and who performs that misva, is greater than one who, although not obligated to perform a particular misva, does so voluntarily. Derashot_HaRan 7:21. May we all be blessed to connect with HaShem by accepting upon ourselves the Yoke of Heaven; that is, by bending our will and humbling ourselves before our Creator. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat Vayyiqra, the first Parashat of Sefer Vayyiqra, introduces us to korbanot (sacrifices) [קורבנות], starting first with general rules of korbanot [קורבנות] and then moving on to discuss particular korbanot [קורבנות], to include elevation offerings from sheep and goats, elevation offerings from fowl, flour offerings, oven-baked offerings, pan-baked offerings, deep-pan offerings, the salting of offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, bull offerings, He-goat offerings, and guilt offerings. After the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash (Temple) [בית המקדש] in Yerushalayim, the Men of the Great Assembly instituted thrice-daily prayers as a substitute for the daily offerings in the Beit HaMidash [בית המקדש]. The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the times beyond which the different prayers may not be recited is rooted in a profound disagreement, also manifest in a later amoraic dispute. It was stated: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The practice of praying three times daily is ancient, albeit not in its present form; prayers were instituted by the Patriarchs. However, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the prayers were instituted based on the daily offerings sacrificed in the Holy Temple, and the prayers parallel the offerings, in terms of both time and characteristics. T.B., Masekhet Berakhot, 26b. The Talmud states that the recitation of both Shema (שמע) and Grace After Meals (ברכת המזון) are required by the Torah, but that prayer is required “only” by Rabbinic law. T.B. Masekhet Berakhot, 21a. Ramban (Moses ben Nahman, aka: Nachmanides), relying on the pasuk: And when you go to war in your land against the adversary that oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets; and you shall be remembered before the Lord your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies. . . , , Bamidbar 10:9, rules that a Biblical obligation exists to pray during times of crisis, but that there exists no such general (e.g. daily) obligation to pray: It is a mitzvah to plead fervently with G-d through prayer and teru’ah [Shofar blasts] whenever the community is faced with great distress . . . for it is a mitzvah to affirm in moments of distress our belief that the Holy One listens to prayers and intervenes to grant aid. Commentary to Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 5. Although Nachmanides and Maimonides agree there is a Biblical obligation to pray during times of crisis, Nachmanides, unlike Maimonides, rules that no Biblical obligation exists to pray on a daily basis. Thus, we see from the foregoing that the obligation to bring korbanot [קורבנות] in the Beit HaMidash [בית המקדש] is a Torah obligation and that daily prayer, although based in part on the practices of the Patriarchs, constitutes an obligation which is based on Rabbinic decree. Furthermore, building and maintaining the Beit HaMidash [בית המקדש] 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. . . .” Debarim 12:1-7. 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 [בית המקדש] whenever the Jewish people reside in Eretz Yisra’el. That is, when the Jewish people are in possession of the Eretz Yisra’el, they are subject to a positive Biblical commandment to build and maintain a Mikdash “all the days that [the Jewish people] live on the Land.” Debarim 12:1. The Rambam (Moses ben Maimon, a.k.a Maimonides, 1138-1204) held that, upon entering Eretz Yisra’el, 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 [בית המקדש]. Id., 1:2. An obvious difficulty with building a Beit Mikdash [בית המקדש] only after a king has been appointed over Yisra’el and after the king has “annihilated” the seed of Amalek, is the fact King Solomon built the first Beit HaMikdash [בית המקדש], 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 [בית המקדש], is considered as if it was destroyed in that generation.” T.B. 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 [בית המקדש]. Today, the Jewish people, after having been dispossessed of sovereignty over Eretz Yisra’el for some 2000 years, once again possess political sovereignty over Yerushalayim and Medinat Israel (the modern day 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 [בית המקדש]? 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 [בית המקדש] 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 [בית המקדש השלישי] 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 [בית המקדש השלישי], before that task becomes even more difficult that it already is. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat Pequde begins with an accounting of the materials used in the construction of the Mishkan. “These are the accounts of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of the Testimony, as they were counted, according to the commandment of Moshe. . . .” Shemot 38:21. Moshe Rabbeinu had received from the Jewish people the materials which were to be used in the construction of the Mishkan, and had delegated to Bezalel the task of managing and safeguarding those materials. Moshe Rabbeinu and Bezalel were, of course, men of outstanding character. As it is written about Moshe Rabbeinu, “in My [HaShem’s] entire house, he is the trusted one.” Bamidbar 12:7. Jewish law (Halakha) provides that Jewish leaders must, among other things, be wise, humble, and have a fear of HaShem, a loathing for money, and a good reputation. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:7. Halakha also provides that a Jewish leader may not “amass silver and gold to keep in his personal treasury.” Hilchot Melachim 3:4. However, Halakha also prohibits the appointment of certain persons whose professions are less than prestigious, and, presumably, less financially remunerative. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 1:6. Regarding wealth, the questions become:
Regarding wealth, the Torah is teaching that a potential leader must possess character traits of honesty and incorruptibility, and be of sufficient means so that he will not be susceptible to bribery or corruption. As for Moshe Rebbeinu accounting for materials which were to be used in the building of the Mishkan, the lesson Torah is teaching is that government must be open and transparent, regardless of how righteous our political leaders might be. A fortiori, if a leader as righteous as Moshe Rebbeinu must publicly account for valuables received for the construction of a public building, so too must our lesser, contemporary leaders account for their actions. For example, during the COVID pandemic, Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) entered into an agreement with a manufacturer of a COVID vaccine, which provides that Medinat Yisra’el will distribute a new and experimental vaccine through its state-run medical system and then provide the vaccine manufacturer with data regarding the vaccine’s use, all without the knowledge or consent of patients. Although the entire agreement has not been publicly released, a portion of that agreement has been leaked. In the United States, the government has agreed to release data regarding COVID vaccines; however, the U.S. government has asked a court to grant it four to five decades to complete its release of data. In both Medinat Yisra’el and the United States (as well as elsewhere), COVID vaccine mandates have effectively forced individuals to be vaccinated, notwithstanding open questions about the vaccine’s safety. Indeed, significant numbers of adverse reactions to COVID vaccines have included death from blood clots in the heart (mostly in younger men) and miscarriages in pregnant women. Due to the hazards presented by COVID vaccines, a New York-based Orthodox Rabbinical Court issued a ruling stating that, with few exceptions, it is forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law) for a person to submit to COVID vaccinations. When the Torah tells of Moshe Rebbeinu providing an accounting of the materials which the Jewish “government” of its time received for the construction of the Mishkan, it is telling us not only that government should be open and transparent, but also that political leaders work for, and thus are accountable to, the people who are being governed, as opposed to the governed being servants of, and accountable to, the political leaders. Yes, political leaders have power and prestige; however, that power and prestige should be used for the benefit of the people who are being governed and not for self-enrichment or self-aggrandizement of any kind. After more than 2,000 years of exile, HaShem has given Eretz Yisra’el back to the Jewish people; may the Jewish people now be blessed, once again as in days of old, to acquire righteous leaders. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat Vayyaquel opens with the command, “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord; whoever does work on it shall be put to death. You shall not kindle a fire in all your dwellings on the sabbath day.” Shemot 35:1-3. We learn from the Gemara that “kindling a fire” [לא תבערו אש, literally, “do not light a fire”] is one of the thirty-nine primary Shabbat prohibitions. Maseket Shabbat 75b. However, in Parashat Vayyaquel, we are told “You shall not kindle a fire in all your dwellings [לא תבערו אש בכל משבתיכם] on the sabbath day.” These pesukim raise at least two questions: Why does the Torah, when restating the command to observe Shabbat:
Turning first to the second question, we learn from the Gemara that the thirty-nine categories of primary Shabbat prohibitions represent the various types of work that was done in the building of the Mishkan (temporary Sanctuary). Maseket Shabbat 73a, et seq. Fire, of course, is a fundamental tool which, in one way or another, is used in almost all types construction. A novel theory which has been advanced to explain why “in all of your dwellings [בכל משבתיכם]” was added to the prohibition of kindling a fire on Shabbat [לא תבערו אש] is that Moshe Rabbeinu was concerned that some of the craftsmen who were making the various components of what would become the Mishkan might, in their zeal to complete the Mishkan, take their work home and kindle a fire on Shabbat so that they could complete their work sooner. Turning now to our first question, why did the Torah single out and include the prohibition of kindling a fire on Shabbat, requires that we step back and look at the structure of the last few parashiyot. When we do that, we see that the Torah engages in a lengthy discussion about the Mishkan, “interrupts,” so-to-speak, that discussion for the story of the Golden Calf, and then returns to a discussion of the Mishkan and related topics. Rabbi Umberto Cassuto (1883, Italy – 1951, Israel) wrote that the phrase “You shall not kindle a fire in all your dwellings [לא תבערו אש בכל משבתיכם]” was intended as a refutation of the pagan custom of lighting fires in homes in celebration of pagan festivals. Rabbi Cassuto noted that in Mesopotamia, there was a festival dedicated to fire and that the people of Mesopotamia were commanded to make a fire in their homes on that festival. Rabbi Cassuto’s theory is bolstered by the observation of an academic who noted that the text of the Torah which follows the story of the Golden Calf, but which precedes the prohibition in Parashat Vayyaquel of “You shall not kindle a fire in all your dwellings [לא תבערו אש בכל משבתיכם] on the sabbath day” constitutes an uninterrupted warning to the Jewish people of the dangers of assimilating into the cultures of other nations. Thus, we see that the purpose of the sequence of the topics in this week’s parashiyot and the parashiyot that we have been reading for the past few weeks – holy matters, idolatry (the Golden Calf), warnings against making treaties with those who occupy Eretz Yisra’el (assimilation), commandment against the pagan practice of kindling a fire on a holiday, and then, back to holy matters – is to teach that we, the Jewish people, must remain separate and apart from the nations of the world if we are to be the “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” [ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש], Shemot 19:6, that Hashem desires us to be. The misvah to remain separate and apart from the nations of the world is composed of two branches: individual (aka: personal) misvot and national misvot. Personal misvot include, for example, refraining from the sin of intermarriage and the timeless obligation for a Jew to live in Eretz Yisra’el. National misvot, which are discussed at-length in other articles, include, for example, expelling most non-Jews from Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) and rebuilding the Beit HaMikdash. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. The Torah, in Parashat Ki Tissa, opens with HaShem speaking to Moshe Rabbeinu at the top of Mount Sinai about a variety of mostly “religious” topics, one of which is Shabbat. “HaShem spoke to Moshe, saying, Speak to the Children of Yisra’el and say, “You must observe my Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you for your generations, to know that I am HaShem, who makes you holy.” Shemot 31:12-13. The Torah continues: Shabbat “is a sign forever that in six days, HaShem made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. When [HaShem] finished speaking to [Moshe Rabbeinu] on Mount Sinai, [HaShem] gave Moshe the two Tablets of Testimony, stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God.” Shemot 31:16-18. Meanwhile, at the foot of the mountain, the Jewish people, impatient as they were that Moshe Rabbeinu was taking longer than expected to descend from the top of Mount Sinai, busied themselves with making a Golden Calf. According to Rashi’s timeline, Moshe Rabbeinu, ascended Har Sinai for the first time on Shavout, descended forty days later, on the 17th of Tammuz, saw the Golden Calf and “threw down the Tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain.” Shemot 32:19. On the 18th of Tammuz, those who had worshipped the Golden Calf – “about three thousand men,” – were executed. Shemot 32:28. On 19 Tammuz, Moshe ascended Har Sinai again, for another forty-day period, this time to seek forgiveness from HaShem for Am Yisra’el having engaged in the sin of the Golden Calf, and descended for a second time on 29 Av, after HaShem agreed to forgive Am Yisra’el. On Rosh Hodesh Elul, Moshe Rabbeinu ascended Har Sinai for a third, and final time, for another forty-day period. After learning the entire Torah from HaShem, Moshe Rabbeinu, on Yom Kippur, descended Har Sinai for the final time, with the second set of Tablets. Shortly before descending Har Sinai on Yom Kippur, Moshe Rabbeinu said to HaShem, “If I have found favor in Your eyes, . . . forgive our iniquity and our error and make us Your heritage.” Shemot 34:9. HaShem responded, “Behold! I seal a covenant. Before your entire people I shall make distinctions such as have never been created in the entire world and among all the nations. . . .” Shemot 34:10. HaShem continues, 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 scared trees. Shemot 34:11-17. Let us summarize what just happened.
What happened next, although not recounted in this parasha, is the Jewish people depart Har Sinai and make their way to Eretz Yisra’el. The Halakha – Jewish law – relating to non-Jews 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 an interest. The latter class of non-Jews – those who do not claim an ownership interest in Eretz Yisra’el – may reside in Eretz Yisra’el “if they submit, eradicate their idolatry, and accept the seven Noahide laws. . . .” Radak, commentary to Debarim 20:11 (They shall become tribute and serve you.). See also, Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 6:1; Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 527. “Tribute” means to pay taxes. To “serve you” or “servitude” means enjoying individual rights, but not national rights, including but not limited to serving in any governmental position of authority, whether appointed (civil service) or elected. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 6:1. Psrashat Ki Tissa addresses those who claim an ownership or similar interest in Eretz Yisra’el. “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 scared trees.” Shemot 34:12-13. HaShem also commands that Am Yisrael “not make for yourselves molten gods.” Shemot 34:17. When the Torah speaks of the Canaanite nations, it is not merely referring to ancient civilizations who just happened to be occupying Eretz Yisra’el prior to the arrival of Am Yisrael; rather, the Torah is referring to all people, for all time, who claim a legal right to Eretz Yisra’el. “You are to drive out all the inhabitants of the land. . . .” Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that, “you must not allow a single soul (of these seven nations) to survive” in this instance the Torah does not speak of the seven Canaanite nations, but [rather] about all others who lived amongst them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e. “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Yisra’elites were to drive out[,] even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven nations. Or HaHaim, Bamidbar 33:52). Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 inform 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 modern-day Arabs – who claim a right to Eretz Yisra’el – are a people referred to by the Torah as “inhabitants of the land” and as “all the ones who dwell in the land.” The Arabs, just as the Torah promised, 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. A fortiori, because it is forbidden to allow Arabs to remain in Eretz Yisra’el, all the more it is forbidden for the Jewish people to allow the Arabs to form a state within the borders of Eretz Yisra’el. HaShem’s message could not be more clear. Not only are the Jewish people forbidden to agree to a “Two-State Solution,” the Torah requires that we drive the Arabs out of the land, as politely as possible, of course, and then “break apart their alters,” especially the Jewish people’s modern-day Golden Calf, that molten god which currently sits on Har HaBayit. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. The Torah, in Parashat Tezavve, sets forth laws relating to the garments, the Hebrew word for which, in the singlular, is “begged”[בגד], or “beggedim” [בגדים] in the plural, that were worn by the Kohanim during the Priestly Service. The Torah describes in great detail the specifications for making these beggedim. But why does the Torah go to such great lengths to specify the particulars of the Priestly garments? To answer this question, we must point out the obvious: the Priestly Service, as its name implies, may be conducted only by priests, that is, only by Kohanim. Although HaShem is One, HaShem Echad, as we recite daily in the Shema, our world, the physical world in which we live, is a world of duality, that is, a world of opposites. For example, there is hot and cold; up and down; man and woman; good and evil, and holy and secular. The Hebrew word for “holy” is “kadosh” [קדוש]. In addition to meaning “holy” or “sacred,” “kadosh” also means “to be cut off, separated, or to be or become pure or sacred.” The opposite of “kadosh” is “hullin” [חולין], which means “profane,” “secular,” “mundane,” or “ordinary.” “Hullin” is also the name of a Talmudic tractate in the order of Kodashim, which deals in large part with laws regarding the ritual slaughter of animals whose meat will be used for non-consecrated purposes. Returning to our discussion of beggedim [בגדים], garments, we see that the special beggedim worn by the Kohanim while performing the Priestly Service are different from the garments which the Kohanim and others wore for other purposes. This brings us to a fundamental question. Why do humans wear clothes? After all, no other creature wears clothes; wearing clothes is a uniquely human practice. The practical answer is that we humans, unlike the animal kingdom, need protection from the elements. Another reason is that one purpose of clothing is to conceal or to hide the body from public view. All of this is true, but there’s more. As we recall from Parashat Bereshit, human beings “only” began to wear clothes after Adam and Havva ate from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (“The Tree”). Prior to that time, there was no need, no purpose, for humans to wear clothes. The need for humans to wear clothes came about only because Adam and Havva betrayed their natural purity by defying HaShem and eating from The Tree. This defiance of HaShem raises at least two important points. First, the Hebrew language, Lashon HaKodesh, which, when translated, literally means “the separate language,” is unique among all other languages in that Hebrew words which share the same shoֹresh [שורש], that is, the same root, also share a common meaning or idea. The Hebrew word for garment, as previously mentioned, is begged [בגד], which in Hebrew is spelled “bet, gimel, dalet” (reading from right-to-left). The root of the Hebrew word “b’giydah” [בגידה], which means both “betrayal” and “treason” is also the Hebrew letters “bet, gimel, dalet.” Thus, we can learn from Lashon HaKodesh – the Hebrew language – that human beings only began to need clothing after Adam and Havva defied, that is, betrayed, HaShem by eating from The Tree. Second, we learn that human beings became aware of the duality of this world only after Adam and Havva ate from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We also learn that, along with this awareness came the need to “conceal” or “hide” most portions of the human body because man, by eating from The Tree, had acquired knowledge of good and evil. Returning now to the topic of duality, the description in Parashat Tezavve of the Priestly garments illustrates yet another example of the duality of this world. The Kohanim, the “priests” of the Jewish people, are separate from the rest of the Jewish people. This “separateness” is illustrated by the different attire the Kohanim wear while performing the Priestly service, a service that, as we mentioned, may only be performed by Kohanim and not by the rest of Am Israel. Also, we learned that Hebrew, Lashon HaKodesh, the national language of the Jewish people – is, literally, the “separate language.” Lastly it should not be forgotten that HaShem took us, the Jewish people, “out of the land of Egypt” not just to be our God, but also to give us Eretz Israel, Vayikra 25:38, and to make us “a light unto the nations, so that [HaShem’s] salvation may extend to the ends of the earth.” Yesha’yahu 49:6. As we learn in Parashat Yitro, the Jewish nation, not surprisingly, should be separate from the other nations of the world. This separateness is described in the pasuk which states that Am Israel is to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” [ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש]. Shemot 19:6. Just as the Kohanim are separate from the rest of Am Israel, so too should Am Israel be separate from the other nations of the world. Unfortunately, Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) has not yet achieved this “separateness.” To achieve “separateness,” HaShem commanded that the Jewish people expel from the Land those non-Jewish inhabitants of the Land who do not accept Jewish sovereignty over the Land. He also commanded that the Jewish people not enter into an agreement with them 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. The Halakha – Jewish law – relating to non-Jews 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 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. According to the Or HaHaim: “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 HaHaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 inform 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. Today, some 3,000+ years after the Jewish people first crossed the Yarden river [נהר הירדן] and entered Eretz Yisra’el, the Jewish people, after a long exile, are finally back in the Land. However, we have not achieved the “separateness” that HaShem warns is necessary if we are to dwell in peace. May we, the Jewish people, merit a government in Medinat Yisra’el which will govern in accordance with the Torah and Halakha, which, in part, means expelling from the Land those who claim an ownership interest in the Land which is superior to that of the Jewish people. Only then will we have achieved the “separateness” which is contemplated by the Torah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. 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 out of all your tribes to put His name there [the Beit HaMikdash], 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 Yisra’el. That is, when the Jewish people are in possession of Eretz Yisra’el, 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 Yisra’el, the Jewish people became obligated to appoint a king, “erase the memory of Amalek,” and build a Beit HaMikdash. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 1:1. 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 Medinat Yisra’el (State of 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 Yisra’el for some 2000 years, once again possess political sovereignty over Yerushalayim and Medinat Yisra’el. 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. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. The Hebrew word “mishpat” [משפט] means “law.” The plural of “mishpat” is“mispatim,” [משפטים]. Parashat Mishpatim sets forth various laws, some of which can be thought of as “religious” in nature and others which can be thought of as “secular,” “mundane” or not religious in nature. Parashat Mishpatim begins with “[n]ow these are the laws [המשפטים] which thou shalt set before them,” Shemot 21:1, and then proceeds to list various “secular” or “mundane” laws, such as those regarding civil negligence, punitive damages, and the law of self-defense: If a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall into it, the owner of the pit shall make it good and give money to the owner of [the ox or ass], and the dead beast shall [belong to the owner of the pit]. Shemot 21:33-35, and If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking-in, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no blood shed on his account. Shemot 21:37-22:1. Parashat Mishpatim then transitions to various “religious” laws, some of which include: “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest. . . ,” Shemot 23:12, “[t]hree times thou shalt keep a feast to Me in the year,” Shemot 23:14, and “[t]hou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread . . . and the feast of the harvest . . . , and the feast of the ingathering.” Shemot 23:15-16. HaShem then says, “Behold, I send an angel before thee, to thee in the way and to bring thee to the place which I have prepared. Take heed of him and obey his voice.” Shemot 23:20-21. HaShem continues, saying that if the Jewish people “shalt indeed obey [the angel, then HaShem] will be an enemy to thy enemies and an adversary to thy adversaries.” Shemot 23:22. HaShem is not speaking generally of the enemies of the Jewish people, but, rather, of those enemies who are occupying Eretz Israel, “the Emori, and the Hitti, and the Perizzi, and the Kena’ani, and the Hivvi, and the Yevusi; [saying that He] will cut them off.” Shemot 23:23. HaShem continues: I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the Land become desolate. . . . Little by little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased and inherit the Land. And I will set thy bounds from the Sea of Suf [northern part of the Gulf of Suez] even to the Sea of the Pelishtim [Mediterranean Sea] and from the desert to the [Euphrates] River, for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in the land, lest they make thee sin against Me, for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to thee. Shemot 23:29-33. There are several important lessons we can learn from Parashat Mishpatim: 1. The Torah does not make any distinction between laws which, in contemporary Western thought, are classified as secular laws for the governance of a nation-state and laws relating to religion. There are, to be sure, differences between these two categories of laws, but the idea that there should be some sort of artificial separation between the two (e.g., separation between religion and state) is not a Torah concept. 2. If Medinat Yisra’el” (the State of Israel) were to adopt the Torah as its “constitution” and govern itself in accordingly, to include the gradual and orderly expulsion from the Land of inhabitants who claim a right to Eretz Yisra’el which is superior to that of the Jews, HaShem would “drive . . . out” these inhabitants “[l]ittle by little . . . until [the Jewish population increases and Jews] inherit the Land.” 3. The Torah does not support a “two-state solution,” nor does it sanction treaties that purport to exchange “land for peace” or Jewish hostages for peace. The Jewish people – and the government of Medinat Israel – should always have faith [אמונה] and trust [בטחון] in HaShem and in HaShem’s Torah, regardless of whether, or perhaps especially when, those laws challenge contemporary and Western “wisdom.” שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! LIKE WHAT YOU JUST READ? CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. The Torah, in Parashat Yitro, teaches that the Jewish people should establish courts of law. [T]hou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens; and let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be that every great matter they shall bring to thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so that it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God commanded thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall go to their place in peace. Shemot 18:21-23. Non-Jews, that is, the descendants of Noah — the rest of humanity — were likewise commanded to establish court systems. Maseket Sanhedrin 56a. As of January 1, 2024, approximately 7,208,000 Jews lived in Medinat Yisar’el (the modern state of Israel), which accounted for approximately 73.2% of the country’s total population of 9,842,000. The non-Jewish Arab population of Medinat Yisra’el totaled approximately 2,080,000 (21.1% of the total population). Of the estimated 15.2 million Jews worldwide, 47% live in Medinat Yisra’el. Jewish Virtual Library. At first glance, it may appear that the misva of establishing a Jewish court system is not, as a practical matter, a misva that can be performed by most of the worldwide population of Jews. The Jewish law concept of dina demalkhuta dina (the law of the land is the law) might even be seen as exempting Jews who live in foreign lands (e.g., outside of Medinat Yisra’el) from the misva of establishing a Jewish court system. Notwithstanding that the Jewish people have not had political independence for most of its more than 3,500+ year history, Jewish law, in unprecedented fashion, has not only endured, but has continued to evolve and develop because, for much of that period, Jews managed to retain judicial autonomy, even in exile, under what are generally referred to as “Charters of Privilege.” A “Charter of Privilege” was an arrangement whereby the ruling government allowed a minority group which resided within its borders to govern itself, to include operating its own independent legal system. To pay for this privilege, the minority group collected taxes from its members, which it then paid over to the ruling government. Inside Eretz Yisra’el (the Land of Israel), Jewish political independence, including judicial autonomy, existed from shortly after the crossing of the Jordan river through the destruction of the Second Temple. Following the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish judicial autonomy continued for a time, under the functional equivalent of a charter of privilege. Meanwhile, Jewish judicial autonomy existed even in exile, under charters of privilege, in places, for example, like Babylonia, Spain, and Poland. The jurisdiction of Jewish courts encompassed both private civil matters (contracts, torts, family law, etc.) and public law (government administration, taxes, etc.), and in some locales, included criminal law matters. It was under these circumstances that the body of Jewish law developed over the centuries. It was also under these circumstances that the Rabbis instituted the prohibition against Jews litigating against fellow Jews in non-Jewish courts (Arka’ot Shel Goyim). The Jewish Emancipation, beginning in the late 18th century, resulted in the loss, in most places (with notable exceptions including Turkey and North Africa), of Jewish judicial autonomy and, with it, the ability of Jews to fully perform the misva, found in Parashat Yitro, of establishing and operating a Jewish court system. In 1948, with the founding of Medinat Yisra’el, the Jewish people regained not just judicial autonomy, but for the first time in almost 2,000 years, national sovereignty over at least a portion of their homeland. Unfortunately, however, as good as things are now, compared with the past 2,000 years, all is not as it should be. Medinat Yisra’el was founded by secular, socialist Jews. Consequently, the establishment of Medinat Yisra’el resulted in the only Jewish state in the world adopting a patchwork of laws from a multitude of foreign legal systems, which, in turn, resulted in a secular court system that is run by Jews, albeit not a Jewish court system of the type which is contemplated by Parashat Yitro. The good news, however, is that, if you and your family have not already made Aliyah, or at least have not acquired Israeli citizenship, you can, by acquiring Israeli citizenship, either through Aliyah or otherwise, participate in the national civic life of the country by working with your Jewish brothers and sisters who are attempting to fulfill the misva of establishing a Jewish judicial system which is based on Jewish law and which has as members of its judiciary persons who decide cases in a manner which is consistent with judges who “fear God.” שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. It is not uncommon to hear someone say that the Jewish response to aggression should be to pray and say Tehillim (Psalms). In support of this position, advocates of passivism often quote a pasuk from Parashat Beshallah which states, “The Lord shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.” Shemot 14:14. Passivism can be defined as “the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable” What is the Torah perspective on “passivism”? Parashat Beshallah, recounts the story of the Hebrews departing Misrayim after finally having been given permission by Par’o to do so. However, after allowing the Hebrews to leave, Par’o had an apparent change of heart and decided to muster his army to pursue and attack them. The Hebrews, for their part, weren’t all too happy either. They complained to Moshe Rabbeinu, saying, “Because there were no graves in Misrayim, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? Shemot 14:11. It was in this context that Moshe Rabbeinu said, “The Lord shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.” Shemot 14:14. Seemingly, Moshe Rabbeinu was, in essence, saying, “Pray; say Tehillim, and everything will be okay.” However, in the very next pasuk, the Torah states, “And the Lord said to Moshe, ‘Why dost thou cry to Me? Speak to the children of Yisra’el, that they go forward.’” Shemot 14:15. The Talmud relates that at the moment the Hebrews were starting to cross the Red Sea, “Moshe was prolonging his prayer. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to [Moshe]: My beloved ones are drowning in the sea and you prolong your prayer to me?” Maseket Sotah 37a. Rashi explains that HaShem was saying, “Now is not the time to prolong prayer, for Israel is in distress [and immediate action must be taken.]” Rashi, Commentary on the Torah, Shemot 14:15. To drive home the point, the Talmud further relates that, as the tribes were arguing among themselves, none willing to be the first to enter the Red Sea, “Nahshon ben Amminadab . . . descended into the sea first [accompanied by his entire tribe],” Maseket Sotah 37a, . . . and when the water was up to his neck, only then did he cry out in prayer “Save me, God; for the waters are come in even unto the soul. I am sunk in deep mire, where there is no standing . . . let not the water flood overwhelm me, neither let the deep swallow me up.” Id., citing Tehillim 69:2–3, 69:16. At the end of Parasha Beshallah, we read of the battle against Amaleq: Then came Amaleq and fought with Yisra’el in Refidim. And Moshe said to Yehoshua, Choose us out men, and go and fight with Amaleq. Tomorrow, I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of G-d in my hand. So Yehoshua did as Moshe had said to him, and fought Amaleq. Moshe, Aharon, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moshe held up his hand [in prayer], that Yisra’el prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amaleq prevailed. But Moshe’s hands were heavy; and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it. Aharon and Hur supported his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Yehoshua harried Amaleq and his people with the edge of the sword. Shemot 17:8-13. Thus, we see that the Torah is not teaching that the Jewish people should be passivists; quite the contrary. What the Torah is teaching is that when faced with imminent aggression or other danger, the Jewish people should not “cry to [HaShem],” but rather, that the Jewish people should temporarily stop praying and saying Tehillim, and, instead, get down to the business of self-defense. HaShem, in turn, will then “fight for” the Jewish people. Shemot 14:14. As we learn from Moshe’s prayer at Refidim, the Torah is not saying that prayer and saying Tehillim are unimportant; both are very important. Rather, the lesson the Torah is teaching is that there is a proper time for everything — including a time for reciting prayers and Tehillim. In the famous words of Qohelet, there is “a time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.” Qohelet 3:8. History bears this lesson out as well. To cite just two examples, one needs only to look back a few short years to the 1948 War of Independence and to the Six Day War of 1967 to see that, against all odds, Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), with HaShem “fight[ing] for” the Jewish people — successfully defended itself against overwhelming Arab aggression. Indeed, if, when the time comes, you do your part, “[t]he Lord shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.” Shemot 14:14. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war against our Arab enemies. Parashat Bo speaks of the last three of the ten plagues, the plagues of the locusts, darkness, and death of the bechor [בכור] (literally the “eldest” or “firstborn,” pl [בכורים]). The Parasha then turns to a discussion of lamb [טלה] and matsa [מצה] (“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’s 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 seeming 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 Yisra’el go? I know not the Lord. . . .” Shemot 5:2. 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). Speak to the congregation of Yisra’el, saying, On the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb [טלה] . . . and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month and the whole assembly of the congregation of Yisra’el shall kill it towards evening. . . . And they shall eat the meat in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread [מצה]. . . .” Shemot 12:3-9. Returning to the plagues, the Torah then tells us about Par’o’s renewed intransigence that results in the plague of the firstborn [בכורים], 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 Yisra’el; 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: is that the constellation of Aries (the Ram) is at the height of its power in the month of Nisan [the month of Pesah], it being the sign of the zodiac which ascends the heavens. Therefore, [HaShem] commanded us to slaughter the sheep and eat it in order to inform us that it was not by the power of the constellation that we went out from Egypt, but by decree of the Supreme One. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis, that the Egyptians worshiped [lamb/sheep] as a deity, [HaShem] has all the more informed us that through this He subdued their gods and their powers at the height of their ascendency. And thus, the Rabbis have said, “Take you lambs and slaughter the gods of Egypt.” Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, Shemot, p. 118-119. 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, . . . [HaShem] 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 [leavened bread] on Pesach is as if he prayed to an idol.” The Zohar, 2:182. Hames [חמץ] (“leavened bread”), 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: matza takes no advantage of the human technological ingenuity and creativity which allows man to raise the dough more than simple flour and water which are created by God. Hames [leaven] is the epitome of human involvement in nature. Thus, non-leaven is the symbol of the survival and ongoing existence of the Jewish People as they survive solely through the spirit of God. Nitziv, Commentary to Shemot, 13:3. Thus, three lessons that can be learned from Parashat Bo are that, just as: 1. Moshe Rabbeniu did not compromise with Par’o, who denied HaShem, so too, we should not compromise with those who deny HaShem, including, and perhaps especially, with those who deny that HaShem gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people; 2. The Hebrews exhibited 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 expel from Eretz Yisra’el – as HaShem has commanded – those who deny that HaShem gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people; and 3. Hames [חמץ] (leavened bread) 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, and recognize that it is not the superior capabilities of the Israeli military (IDF) that protects Eretz Yisra’el and the Jews who live there, but rather, it is HaShem who protects, after we do our part. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war our Arab enemies have forced upon us. 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 Parashat Va’era, 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 qualitative 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 seek 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 uppercase “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 (Jew and Gentile, alike) 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. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war our Arab enemies have forced upon us. Parashat Shemot introduces us to Moshe Rabbeinu, who was born in Misrayim at a time when the government issued a 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 Yisra’el]. . . . 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 Egyptian government and thus making life in Misrayim tolerable. Another obvious question is why did HaShem promise to take the Hebrews to Eretz Yisra’el, rather than, for example, to Brooklyn, London, Paris, Madrid, Baghdad, Tehran, or some other place. The answer, of course, is because Eretz Yisra’el is holy; it is The Holy Land; The Promised Land. The Torah is singularly focused on this point. Now, the Lord said to Avram, get out of thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, [and] go to the land that I will show thee [Eretz Yisra’el], and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curses thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Bereshit 12:1-3. “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 Yisra’el], 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 out of Egypt to be your G-d,” omitting the all-important phrase “to give you the land of Eretz Israel.” 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: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.” Maseket Ketuvot, 110b. Halakha, that is, Jewish Law, states that the misva of living in Eretz Yisra’el is timeless; it is still the Halakha today. “If [a husband] proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisra’el and [the wife] does not want to [go], [the husband] must divorce her. . . . [And if the wife] proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisra’el] and [the husband] does not want to [go], he must divorce her.” Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 75:4. Life is short. There are many unforeseen circumstances and events which occur in a person’s life, not to mention that the world is changing faster now than ever before. So, instead of singing “Next year in Yerushalayim,” let us make it “This year in Yerushalayim,” while it is still possible to make Aliyah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war our Arab enemies have forced upon us. 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 Yisra’el. Bereshit 47:29-31. Ya’aqob 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 Yisra’el 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 Yisra’el] 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 Yisra’el] 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 Yisra’el. In both instances, reference was made to Eretz Yisra’el 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 Yisra’el. Contrary to the events which are described in Parashat Vayhi, Halakha (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 Yisra’el suggests that the importance of being buried in Eretz Yisra’el, even if one was not able to live in Eretz Yisra’el, 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 Mishna teaches that everyone, not only an executed transgressor, must be buried on the day of his death, if that is at all possible. Rabbi Yohanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: From where is it derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition? The verse states: “But you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu]” [Debarim 21:23], doubling the verb for emphasis. From here it is derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition. Maseket Sanhedrin 46b. The Talmud continues: Come and hear a proof from the Mishna: If one left his deceased relative unburied overnight for the sake of his honor, e.g., in order to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not transgress the prohibition of “his body shall not remain all night.” What, is it not referring to the honor of the deceased? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the honor of the living relatives of the deceased. Maseket Sanhedrin 46b. 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 Halakha 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 Halakha 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 Yisra’el. Thus, the delay in burying Ya’aqob and the exhuming of Yosef’s remains, transportation, and reburial in Eretz Yisra’el 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 Yisra’el, “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’aqob and Yosef, is to be buried in Eretz Yisra’el. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war our Arab enemies have forced upon us. Parashat Vayyiggash marks the beginning of the Egyptian exile. The Egyptian exile is instructive because, as we know, AND ABRAM PASSED THROUGH THE LAND. I will tell you a principle by which you will understand all the coming portions of Scripture concerning Abraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqob. It is indeed a great matter which our Rabbis mentioned briefly, saying: “Whatever has happened to the patriarchs is a sign to the children.” It is for this reason that the verses narrate at great length the account of the journeys of the patriarchs, the digging of the wells, and other events. Ramban on Genesis 12:6:1 In other words, history repeats itself. Just as the Israelites moved to Egypt, made significant contributions to that country’s success, and then became a disfavored minority upon whom blame can be assessed for every perceived wrong, real or perceived, so too, Jews in the United States and other diaspora countries will suffer the same fate. Reasons for Exile [גלות] (Galut) The reason for the Babylonian exile was punishment for sin. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: At the time when the First Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, found Abraham standing in the Temple. He said to Abraham: “What has My beloved to do in My house?” Masekhet Menachot 52b. Although one reason for the Babylonian exile is punishment for sin, the Jewish people will, ultimately, repent and return to both HaShem and Eretz Yisra’el. The second reason for the exiles is perhaps more surprising: And Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, exiled Israel among the nations, only so that converts would join them, as it is stated: “And I will sow her to Me in the land” (Hosea 2:25). Does a person sow a se’a of grain for any reason other than to bring in several kor of grain during the harvest? So too, the exile is to enable converts from the nations to join the Jewish people. Masekhet Pesachim 87b. Rabbi Elazar lived during the years following the destruction by the Romans of the second Beit HaMikdash. Although the purpose of the Babylonian exile (which occurred concurrently with the destruction of the first Beit HaMikdash), and perhaps arguably the subsequent exiles, was punishment for sin. However, at least one purpose of the current exile is to create Jewish converts, a purpose which, unfortunately, has largely gone unfulfilled. In Rabbinic literature, converts are sometimes referred to as “Holy Sparks” and the process of attracting converts is referred to as “gathering” those “Holy Sparks.” The source of these Holy Sparks can be traced all the way back to the beginning of the Torah itself. “And the earth was astonishingly [תהו] empty [ובהו], and darkness [וחשך] was upon the face of the deep [פני תהום], and the Spirit of HaShem [ורוח אלהים] hovered upon the surface of the waters.” Bereshit 1:2. “Astonishingly” [תהו] refers to the Babylonian exile (423-371 BCE); “empty” [ובהו] refers to the Median (Persian) exile (371-356 BCE); “darkness [וחשך] refers to the Greek exile (318-138 BCE); “face of the deep” [פני תהום] refers to the current, Roman exile (approx. 63 BCE through the present); and the “Spirit of HaShem” [ורוח אלהים] refers to the Messianic period at the end of days. Bereshit Rabba 2:4. The Babylonian, Median (Persian), and Greek exiles have all come to pass, just as the Torah tells us they would. We are now in the fourth, and last, the Roman, exile. And as we shall see shortly, we are “knocking on the door,” so to speak, of the Messianic era. Redemption We know that the appearance of Mashiach and the beginning of the Redemption will occur no later than 6,000 years from creation. Masekhtot Rosh Hashana 31a, Sanhedrin 97a; Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, Gerald Friedlander, Sepher-Hermon Press, New York, 1981, p. 141; Zohar 1:117a, Zohar Vayera 119a. Each 1,000 years is analogized to one day, which means that each hour consists of approximately 41.67 years. The current year from creation, the year on the Jewish calendar, is 5784. Thus, there are 217 years, or approximately 5.21 hours left in the “day” that constitutes the final 1,000 years. Thus, if we assume that the “day” which constitutes the final 1,000-year period will end at 6:00 p.m., the current “time” is approximately 12:47 p.m. Recall that Mashiach may come at any time and that the 6,000 year “deadline” for the arrival of Mashiach is the latest time at which he could appear. Conclusion We know that there will be four major exiles, the Babylonian, Median (Persian), Greek, and Roman exiles; that 3 of the 4 exiles have come to pass; that we are in the fourth exile; and that the dual purpose of the exiles is to punish the Jewish people for sin and to gather converts, Holy Sparks,” from the four corners of the world. We also know that the Messianic period can begin at any time, but not later than the year 6000 from creation; that we are currently in the year 5784 from creation; and that, if each 1000 years represents one day, it is now almost 1:00 p.m. on the last day before Mashiach will come no later than 6:00 p.m. Lastly, our Sages teach that only 20 percent – 1 out of every 5 – Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus; meaning that 80% stayed behind! Rashi, Shemot 13:18. Who were these 80 percent? They are Jews whom we would classify today as assimilated; those who would prefer to stay in galut rather than come to Eretz Yisra’el. Time is rapidly running out. May HaShem bless all the Jewish people, as well as those who want to convert to Judaism, to stop sinning (including the secular political “leaders” of Medinat Yisrael), so that all Jews can make and finalize their preparations and to make Aliyah (immigrate to Eretz Yisra’el) without further delay. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war our Arab enemies have forced upon us. In Parashat Miqqez, we learn that, because of a famine in Eretz Yisra’el, Ya’aqob sent his sons, Yosef’s brothers, the brothers who had sold Yosef to the Yishme’elim, to purchase food in Mizrayim. Bereshit 42:1-5. Unbeknownst to Ya’aqob and Yosef’s brothers, Par’o had appointed Yosef to the position of “governor of the land [of Mizrayim] and [it was] he that sold [food] to all the people of the land.” Id. 42:6. When the brothers approached Yosef to purchase food, “Yosef knew his brethren, but they knew them not.” Id. 42:8. On a simple level, the pasuk “Yosef knew his brethren, but they knew him not” can be understood as saying that Yosef recognized his brothers because, when the brothers sold Yosef to the Yishme’elim, which was the last time they had seen each other, the brothers had beards, but Yosef, being young, had not yet grown a beard. Thus, Yosef recognized his brothers, but his brothers did not recognize him. Rashi, Bereshit 42:8, citing Masekhet Ketubot 27b; Masekhet Yevamot 88a; Bereshit Rabba 91:7. A deeper explanation is that “’Joseph recognized his brothers’ when they were given over to his hand, he recognized that they were his brothers and had mercy on them. ‘But they did not recognize him’ when he fell into their hand, by [not] treating him in a brotherly manner.” Id., citing Bereshit Raba 91:7. We often refer to our fellow Jews as our “brothers” and “sisters.” If our fellow Jews are our “brothers” and “sisters,” there must be a lineage that creates this familial bond. And, indeed there is. That familial lineage was formed at Har Sinai, with the giving of the Torah. When the Hebrews gathered at the base of Har Sinai, they prepared themselves to receive the Torah by, among other things, agreeing to accept unconditionally all of the precepts of the Torah and then learn the details of those precepts at a later time and by bathing, immersing in a mikveh (ritual bath), of sorts. In other words, the Hebrews arrived at Har Sinai as non-Jews, converted to Judaism, received the Torah, and then departed Har Sinai as Jews. Thus, we see that the source of the bonds that make our fellow Jews “brothers” and “sisters” is the Torah and, G-d forbid, without the Torah there is no such thing as Jews, Judaism, or Jewish “brothers” and “sisters.” Today, unfortunately, there are many Jews who do not recognize the Torah as Divine. There are also many Jews who, although they accept the Torah as having been Divinely given, do not recognize that it is HaShem’s will that all Jews reside in Eretz Yisra’el. May all Jews be blessed to recognize the Torah as Divine and that it is HaShem’s will that all Jews “recognize” their brothers and sisters, and to do everything possible to move to, and live with their brothers and sisters in Eretz Yisra’el. For those for whom it is not possible to move to Eretz Yisrael, may they be blessed to do everything possible to support other Jews to move to Eretz Yisrael. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war our Arab enemies have forced upon us. Hanukkah [חנוכה], which means “inauguration” or “dedication,” is an eight-day rabbinic holiday which begins on the 25th day of the Hebrew month of Kislev, and which typically occurs during the Gregorian month of November or December. Hanukkah is sometimes referred to as the “Festival of Lights,” an apparent reference to the candles that are lit on each night of the holiday. Hanukkah celebrates the Jewish military victory, circa 2nd century BCE, of the Maccabees over the Seleucid Empire, an ancient Greek, Hellenistic empire which was founded by the Macedonian Greek general Seleucus I Nicator. Under the later rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek Seleucid Empire conquered Eretz Yisra’el, which then consisted of both Judea, Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), and other areas in Medinat Yisra’el (modern-day State of Israel). Under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, thousands of Jews in Eretz Yisra’el were massacred; Jewish religious practice in Eretz Yisra’el was banned; the Beit HaMikdash [בית המקדש] (Holy Temple in Yerushalayim) was desecrated through the erection therein of an alter to the Greek god Zeus and the sacrificing therein of pigs; and, Jews were ordered to worship Greek gods. During the persecution of Jews by the Greeks, Mattityahu haKohen ben Yohanan (“Mattityahu”), while in his hometown of Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut, aka: Modi’in (which is about 35 kilometers southeast of Tel Aviv and about 30 kilometers west of Yerushalayim; not to be confused with Modi’in Illit), was ordered by a Greek official to sacrifice a pig to the Greek gods. When Mattityahu refused, a secular “Hellenist” Jew volunteered to perform the sacrifice. Mattityahu then killed both the secular Jew and the Greek official. Thus, the Maccabean Revolt [מרד החשמונאים], which consisted primarily of guerrilla warfare, was born. The Maccabees’ most consequential victory was the conquest of Yerushalayim and the capture of the Beit HaMikdash [בית המקדש]. Although only enough kosher oil for one day was found in Beit HaMikdash [בית המקדש], that small amount of oil burned continuously for eight days, which was long enough for new, kosher oil to be squeezed from olives. Hanukkah is thus celebrated for eight days. During the decades that followed, the Maccabees continued their insurgent activities, using guerrilla warfare tactics against not only the Greek occupiers and oppressors, but also against the secular “Hellenist” Jews who sympathized and cooperated with the Greeks. The Maccabees achieved some degree of success. Although Eretz Yisra’el was still officially under the control of the Greek Seleucid Empire, the Maccabees acquired a degree of informal autonomy, which it used to raise an army and continue prosecuting a civil war against the secular “Hellenist” Jews. The Hasmoneans, some of whose members were related to the Maccabees, rose to power. Unfortunately, the Hasmoneans, unlike the Maccabees, presided over great spiritual and moral decline within the Jewish nation. The last two Hasmonean rulers, the secular “Hellenists” Jews Hyrcanus and Aristobolus, had a dispute. In their attempt to settle the dispute, Hyrcanus and Aristobolus invited the Romans into Eretz Yisra’el to mediate and, hopefully, to help settle the dispute. The rest, as they say, is history. As the late American broadcaster Paul Harvey might have said, now you know “The Rest of the Story.” Subsequent to the time when the Jewish people, with the help of the Maccabees, conquered Yerushalayim, Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisra’el and Yerushalayim was lost for more than 2,000 years. In the Hebrew year 5708 (1948 on the Gregorian calendar), that sovereignty was regained, and subsequently retained though what can only be described as open miracles which were bestowed on the Jewish nation by the grace of Heaven. Unfortunately, not much has changed since the time of the Maccabees. The Jewish people still have an enemy who contend that the Jewish people are not the rightful owners of Eretz Yisra’el and who, by force of arms, seek to dispossess the Jewish people of Eretz Yisra’el. There are still Hellenized Jews in Eretz Yisra’el and, just as during the times of the Hasmoneans, these Hellenized Jews occupy positions of political power, although they look to Washington, D.C., rather than to Rome, for salvation. As no Jew in his right mind wants another Jewish civil war, we must continue to pray for Devine assistance, while simultaneously using the democratic process to transform Medinat Yisra’el from its current status as a Hellenized, Jewish state in name only, into a state which is guided by Torah and Halakha and, thus, into a state which is truly Jewish. חנוכה שמח Hanukkah Sameach Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece is dedicated to all the Jews in Eretz Yisra'el who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed in the current war our Arab enemies have forced upon us. Some 3,500 years ago, “Ya’aqob [and his family] came to Shalem [שלם], a city of Shekhem [שכם], which is in the land of Kena’an, . . . [and] he bought a piece of land on which he spread his tent. . . .” Bereshit 33:18-19. The modern-day city of Shekhem [שכם] is located approximately 49 kilometers (30 miles) north of Yerushalayim. The seller of the land was a man named Hamor. Id. Dina [דינה], the daughter of Ya’aqob and Le’a, “went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shekhem [שכם], the son of Hamor [חמור] the Hivvite [literally, “Donkey the Hivvite”], prince of the country, saw her, he took her, lay with her, and defiled her.” Bereshit 34:1-2. Hamor [חמור] attempted to negotiate with Ya’aqob a marriage between Shekhem [שכם] and Dina [דינה]. Rather than consent to a marriage of his daughter to a rapist, Ya’aqob’s sons – Dina’s brothers – Shim’on and Levi devised and implemented a plan that would leave the males of the city of Shalem [שלם] in a weakened physical state, and then attacked and killed them all, plundered their belongings, and took their wives captive. Ya’aqob’s response to his sons Shim’on and Levi was: “You have brought trouble on me to make me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Kena’ani and the Perizzi, and I, being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me, and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.” Bereshit 34:30. The questions raised by this event include whether Shim’on and Levi were justified in taking revenge against (1) Shekhem [שכם], as an individual, and (2) the entire population of Shekhem [שכם]. Maimonides ruled that gentiles are: obligated to set up judges and magistrates in every major city to render judgment concerning [the Noahide Laws]. . . . A gentile who transgresses [any of the Noahide Laws] shall be executed by decapitation. For this reason, all the inhabitants of Shekhem [שכם] were obligated to die. Shekhem [שכם] kidnapped. They observed and were aware of [his deeds], but did not judge him.” M.T., Hilchot Melachim 9:14. As with other Biblical texts, our task is to determine how to best understand and apply the lessons of this Parashat to current times. To do so, we start with two postulates: (1) the acts of Shim’on and Levi were justified, and (2) Shim’on and Levi were acting on behalf of the Jewish nation, and not as individuals. We learn from the text of the Parasha itself that the acts of Shim’on and Levi were justified. Rather than rebuking Shim’on and Levi for having sinned, the righteous Ya’aqob said to Shim’on and Levi only that: “You have brought trouble on me to make me odious among the inhabitants of the land . . ., I, being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me. . . .” Bereshit 34:30. As the text of the pasuk clearly states, Ya’aqob’s objection to the conduct of Shim’on and Levi was based not on moral grounds, but rather, on practical considerations. Maimonides and other commentators concur. Regarding the Halakhic justification for their acts, Maimonides ruled that because Shekhem [שכם], the individual, had committed the capital offense of kidnapping and because the “country” known as Shekhem [שכם] had violated the Noahide laws through their failure to establish a court system which would administer justice, the actions of Shim’on and Levi’ were justified. Thus, rather than having two individuals (Shim’om and Levi) who were acting in their capacity as individuals to avenge the rape of their sister, our Parasha tells the story of one nation – the Jewish nation – acting through two of its citizens (Shim’on and Levi), retaliating against another nation (the “country” of Shekhem [שכם]) for a wrong that the latter nation had committed against a citizen of the former nation. Understood in this light, the lesson for our times is clear: when a member of another nation, for example, the nation of the descendants of Yishma’el, commit a capital offense against a citizen of the Jewish nation (a Jewish citizen of Medinat Yisra’el, the modern-day State of Israel), and the nation of which the offender is a member fails or refuses to administer justice in accordance with the requirements of the Noahide laws, the Jewish State is fully justified in retaliating against both the offending individual and the offending nation. The justification for Jewish retaliation is even stronger in cases where the offending nation does not merely fail to administer justice in accordance with the Noahide laws, but rather, affirmatively encourages such lawless and immoral behavior by paying “salaries” and “pensions” to its citizens who terrorize members of the Jewish nation. May HaShem bless Medinat Yisra’el with true Jewish leaders who will govern Medinat Yisra’el in a manner which is consistent with the Torah and not be, as was Ya’aqob, concerned with being “odious among the inhabitants of the land.” שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
|
AuthorMenashe Sasson is a Sephardic rabbi, American attorney, and Executive Director of The Israel Foundation, a U.S.-based not-for-profit organization that provides Jews and Noahides with a Zionist perspective on Torah, Eretz Yisra’el (The Land of Israel), and Halakha (Contemporary Jewish Law). |
THE ISRAEL FOUNDATION
