|
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. There are two roads to Geulah [גאולה] (Redemption): the short route and the long route; the easy way and the hard way. Parashat Ha’azinu ([האזינו] “listen”) contains the roadmap for the short route. Parasha Ha’azinu concludes with HaShem’s last command to Moshe Rabbeinu. And HaShem spoke to Moshe, on that selfsame day [בעצם היום הזה (which, literally translated, means “actually this day”)], saying, Ascend to the mount of Abarim, to Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Mo’ab, that is facing Yereho, and see the land of Kena’an, that I give to the children of Yisra’el as an inheritance, and die on the mountain. . . . Debarim 32:48-50. One method of determining the meaning of a word in Tanakh is to look to other instances where the same word is used. Ideally, one should look to the first instance in Tanakh where the word is used. The Torah uses the phrase “selfsame day” [בעצם היום הזה] in two other places. One was when Noah, over the objections of the masses, entered the Ark, Bereshit 7:13; the other was when Moshe, over the objections of the Egyptians, took the Israelites out of Egypt. Shemot 12:51. When HaShem ordered Moshe to ascend Mount Nebo, it was over the objections of the Israelites, who believed they could prevent Moshe’s death by persuading Moshe to not ascend the mountain. According to Rashi, in each case, use of the phrase “selfsame day” [בעצם היום הזה] recounts an event where HaShem compelled an act “on the brightest part of the day, for all to see and over the objections of a large number of people,” to demonstrate that no one can thwart the will of HaShem. Rashi, on Debarim 32:48-50. In Parasha Beshallah, we learn that: Amalek came and battled Yisra’el in Refidim. Moshe said to Yehoshua, “Choose people for us and go do battle with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of HaShem in my hand.” Yehoshua did as Moshe said to him . . . and Moshe, Aharon, and Hur ascended to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, that when Moshe raised his hands, that Yisra’el prevailed, [but] when he lowered his hands, Amalek prevailed. Moshe’s hands grew heavy, so they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aharon and Hur supported his hands, one on this side and one on that side, and his hands were steady until the setting of the sun. Yehoshua weakened Amalek and its people with the blade of the sword. Shemot 17:8-13. We learn from Parasha Ha’azinu that man cannot thwart the will of HaShem. From Parasha Beshallah we learn that success against the enemies of the Jewish people requires both competent and determined military leadership and action, combined with prayer. Medinat Yisra’el – the State of Israel – was established in 1948, after World War II and the Holocaust. Immediately after coming into existence, Medinat Yisra’el was attacked by each and every of its contiguous neighboring countries – all of which happen to be Arab. In a fashion similar to that of the Israelites, whose fight against the Amalekites is told in Parasha Beshallah, Medinat Yisra’el, with substantial and indispensable assistance from the Almighty, won its 1948 war for independence or, more accurately, it’s first war of survival. As a result, Medinat Yisra’el was able to establish sovereignty over a very small geographic area. During 1967, Medinat Yisra’el was again attacked by each and every of its contiguous Arab neighbors. Again, with substantial and indispensable assistance from the Almighty, Medinat Yisra’el prevailed. Not only did Medinat Yisra’el win the 1967 war, she managed to substantially expand her 1948 borders. Medinat Yisra’el’s post-1967 borders encompassed more of the Biblical areas of Eretz Yisra’el, including Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount), and Judea and Samaria. However, in direct contravention of the Torah, Medinat Yisra’el, since winning the 1967 war, has relinquished control of Har HaBayit to the Jordanians and has failed to exercise sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. We learn from the Torah, in Parashat Lekh-Lekha, that “HaShem said to Abram, ‘Go for yourself [לך-לך] from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make you a great nation. . . .’” Bereshit 12:1-2. The commentator Maimonides (the Rambam) wrote: We were commanded to occupy the Land that HaShem gave our ancestors, Abraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqob. We must not abandon it to any other nation, or leave it desolate. HaShem said, “Clear out the Land and live in it, since it is to you that I am giving the Land to occupy.” Bamidbar 33:53-54. . . . Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvah 4. Thus, we see that HaShem gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an “inheritance” and that the Jewish people “for all time” and “even during the exile” are to reside in the Land. Implicit in this command is, of course, a prohibition against relinquishing Eretz Yisra’el, or any part thereof, to any non-Jew. From Parasha Ki Tissa, we learn that HaShem warned the Jewish people at Har Sinai, during the giving of the Torah, against entering into treaties which would allow those from whom the Land has been captured to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Rather, you shall break apart their alters, smash their pillars, and cut down their sacred trees. Shemot 34:11-17. In Parashat Mas’e, we learn that “HaShem spoke to Moshe in the plains of Moab, by the Yarden, near Yereho, saying, ‘Speak to the Children of Yisra’el and say to them: When you cross the Yarden [river and enter] into Eretz Kena’an, you shall drive out all of the inhabitants of the Land before you. . . .” Bamidbar 33:50-52. Likewise, in Parashat Shofetim, we are told that “But from the cities of these peoples that HaShem, you G-d gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any person to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them. . . .” Debarim 20:16-17. The Or HaHayyim wrote that: Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Kena’anite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Kena’anite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Kena’anite] nations. Or HaHayyim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HaShem is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HaShem driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HaShem’s Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. Just as the Torah promised, the Arab nations, in cooperation with each other, have collectively fought against Medinat Yisra’el, while the Arabs who live in Medinat Yisrael are today a “snare among” the Jewish people because the Jewish people have “seal[ed] a covenant with” them simply by allowing them to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. Considering the current state of affairs in Medinat Yisra’el, in the light of the lesson from Parasha Ha’azinu that man cannot thwart the will of HaShem; the lesson from Parasha Beshallah is that success against the enemies of the Jewish people requires both competent and determined military action and prayer. The lesson from Parasha Ki Tissa, the Or HaHayyim, and Abarbanel, is that treaties should not be made which would allow Arabs to remain in Eretz Yisra’el after their claim to the Land has been extinguished through military defeat. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that the current Jewish political leaders of Medinat Yisra’el have failed to apply the lessons of the Torah, including those of Parasha Ha’azinu and Parasha Beshallah. An obvious question is: “Why has the political leadership of Medinat Yisra’el not governed assertively, in accordance with the Torah, and in the best interests of the Jewish people? One answer, sadly, is fear and lack of “bitahon” [ביטחון] (trust in G-d). They fear Arab retaliation; they fear how the nations, including the United States, will react; and, perhaps most, they fear loss of their political power. If, however, they had “bitahon” [ביטחון], they would take to heart the Torah command that: When you go out against your enemy, and you see a horse and chariot – a people more numerous that you – you shall not fear them, for HaShem, your G-d, is with you. . . . Debarim 20:1-4. There are at least two important messages in these pesukim. The first is that if the Jewish people have “bitahon” [ביטחון], and if they perform “hishtadlut” [השתדלות] (exertion of human effort), HaShem will go “with [the Jewish people], to fight for [the Jewish people] with [their] enemies, to save [the Jewish people].” The second is that the Jewish people should treat their enemies as enemies. The pesuk commands: “when you go out against your enemy” to emphasize that war is being fought against an enemy, not a friend. The Midrash teaches that the Jewish people should, “Go against them as enemies! Just as they do not have mercy upon you, do not have mercy on them.” Tanchuma, Shofetim 15. In other words, when fighting a war, the Jewish people should fight to win, should not show weakness, and should avoid taking half-measures in the mistaken belief that doing so is somehow compassionate, righteous, or effective. We know from the Talmud that Mashiach can come at one of two possible times: at either a fixed point in time or earlier, if the Jewish people merit redemption. Masechet Sanhedrin 97a-b. May the Jewish people, especially its Jewish political leaders in Medinat Yisra’el, do complete Teshuvah [תשובה] (repentance), have “bitahon” [ביטחון] (trust in G-d), and perform “hishtadlut” [השתדלות] (exertion of human effort) in order to get Medinat Yisra’el on the right path and to merit immediate Geulah [גאולה] (redemption). שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
0 Comments
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This article is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. I. The Nature of Teshuvah Rosh HaShanah [ראש השנה], literally translated, means “head of the year.” It is, in other words, the holiday which celebrates the Jewish new year. However, unlike its non-Jewish counterparts, Rosh HaShanah is not observed with raucous parties and fireworks. Rather, it is a somber day of reflection and prayer. Tanakh refers to the holiday not as Rosh HaShanah, but rather, as Yom Teruah [יום תרועה], which, literally translated, means “day of ‘blast’ (of shofar), ‘trumpet call,’ ‘cry,’ or ‘alarm.’” “[T]here shall be a day of rest for you, a remembrance with shofar blasts [תרועה], a holy convocation.” Vayyiqra 23:23. Rosh HaShanah is the first of the two Jewish “High Holidays,” the Yamim Nora’im [ימים נוראים], the “Days of Awe.” The second of the two High Holidays is Yom Kippur [יום כיפור], the Day of Atonement. The ten days between Rosh HaShanah [ראש השנה] and Yom Kippur [יום כיפור] are known as the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah [עשרת ימי תשובה], the Ten Days of Repentance. The misva of Rosh HaShanah [ראש השנה] is to hear the blowing of the shofar, Vayyiqra 23:23, which is intended to motivate individuals to do teshuvah [תשובה], that is, to repent for one’s sins, during the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah [עשרת ימי תשובה]. Teshuvah atones for all sins. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 1:3. Teshuvah, in turn, consists of four elements: (1) ceasing the commission of the particular sin; (2) removing the particular sin from one’s thoughts; (3) resolving in one’s heart to never again commit the particular sin; and (4) verbally confessing commission of the sin. Id., 2:2. “The confession should be made ‘before G-d,’ and not in public.” Id. 2:1, n.9. II. The Misva to Conquer Eretz Yisra’el HaShem commanded the Jewish people to expel the gentile inhabitants of the Land (Eretz Yisra’el) and to not enter into an agreement with those inhabitants that would allow them to remain in the land. Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Shemot 34:11-17. Halakha – Jewish statutory law – relating to gentiles living in Eretz Yisra’el recognizes two classes of people: those who claim an ownership or similar interest in Eretz Yisra’el and those who do not claim any such interest. Regarding those who claim an ownership interest in the Land, the Torah is not referring merely to ancient civilizations who just happened to be occupying Eretz Yisra’el at the time the Jewish people crossed the Yardan (Jordan river) to enter and conquer Eretz Yisra’el. Rather, the Torah is referring to any people – for all time – who claim a legal right to Eretz Yisra’el which is superior to that of the Jewish people. According to the Or HaHayyim, the pesuk which states that: “You are to drive out all of the inhabitants of the land. . . .” means that: Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Canaanite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Canaanite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Canaanite] nations. Or HaHayyim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HaShem is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HaShem driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HaShem’s Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. III. The Misva to Reside in Eretz Yisra’el The Talmud states: [T]he Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Israel, even in a city that is mostly populated by idolaters [gentiles], and he should not reside outside of Eretz Israel, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Israel is considered as one who has a G-d, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Israel is considered as one who does not have a G-d. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.” Maseket Ketuvot, 110b. Halakha states that the misva of living in Eretz Israel is timeless; it is still the law today. The Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 75:4, states that: “If [a husband] proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and [the wife] does not want to [go], [the husband] must divorce her. . . . [And if the wife] proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisrael] and [the husband] does not want to [go], he must divorce her.” IV. The “Palestinians” The Roman emperor Hadrian conquered Judea in the year 135 C.E. The Jewish warrior Bar Kokhba was killed and the Judeans (the Jewish residents of Judea) were exiled to the four corners of the earth. Hadrian enacted laws, punishable by death, which made it illegal for any Jew who remained in Judea to keep Shabbat, study Torah, or circumcise their children. Yerushalayim was bulldozed and renamed “Aelia Capitolina.” Hadrian also changed the name of “Judea” to “Palestine.” Notwithstanding that Hadrian changed the name of Judea to “Palestine,” there has never been a Palestinian people separate and apart from the Jewish people, nor has there ever been a State of Palestine. The modern-day Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians” are nothing more than a people who lost any contemporary legal right to Eretz Yisra’el that they might arguably have had – including Judea and Samaria – during the wars of 1948 and 1967. V. The Jewish Sins Which Require National Teshuvah The first Jewish sin which requires national teshuvah is the failure of the Jewish people, through their elected government officials in Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), to have immediately asserted sovereignty over the entirety of Medinat Yisra’el following the conclusion of the 1967 war. When a person reacquires a lost object, his natural inclination is to immediately claim ownership of the object. If he does not immediately do so, he “opens the door” to competing claims. So too, it is with Medinat Yisra’el and the liberated territories of Judea and Samaria. The reason Medinat Yisra’el did not – and has not yet – asserted sovereignty over the liberated territories has to do with separate, but interrelated issues of demographics and an erroneous application of certain provisions of Medinat Yisra’el’s founding documents. Regarding demographics, Medinat Yisra’el is concerned, as it has continually been since its founding in 1948, that Israeli-Arabs will someday become a majority, rather than a minority. Were that demographic shift to occur, Medinat Yisra’el, through its democratic elections, would cease to be the nominally Jewish state that it is today. Medinat Yisra’el’s founding documents provide that Medinat Yisra’el is both a Jewish state and a democracy. Since its founding in 1948, Medinat Yisra’el has assumed that Israeli-Arabs must be granted the same political rights (e.g., the right to participate in the political process through voting and the ability to hold public office) as Jewish-Israeli citizens. This irrational, indeed schizophrenic, assumption has led to the present situation wherein the Jewish government is literally afraid to do what is in the best interest of the Jewish state and the Jewish people, for fear of antagonizing its Arab residents. The only way Medinat Yisra’el can hope to be both a Jewish state and a democracy is for citizenship, and the democratic rights relating to citizenship, to be reserved solely and exclusively for its Jewish citizens, to the exclusion of all others. To some, this idea might sound outrageous. The question that should be posed to these individuals is, simply: Which Arab state(s) allows Jews to vote? There is no historical precedent where two peoples, both of whom claim a legal right to a particular geographic area, have lived together peaceably on that land for any prolonged period of time. Medinat Yisra’el is no different. The second Jewish sin which requires national teshuvah is the failure of the Jewish people, through their elected government officials in Medinat Yisra’el, to adopt a legal system based on the Torah and to encourage non-Jews who claim a right to the lands of Medinat Yisra’el, through financial and political incentives, to emigrate from Medinat Yisra’el to other countries. May we, the Jewish people, do full and complete teshuvah for our national sins; receive atonement for those national sins; and thereby be written and sealed in the Book of Life. שנה טובה ומתוקה Shana Tova u’Metuka! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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 Ki Tavo restates that the Jewish people are a nation, separate and apart, and, above all of the other nations, not because the Jewish people are somehow “better” or “superior” to gentiles, but solely because the Jewish people accepted the Torah. Thou has avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in His ways, and to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and to hearken to His voice; and the Lord has avouched thee this day to be a people for His own possession as He has promised thee, and that thou shouldst keep all His commandments, and to make thee high above all nations which He has made, in praise, and in name, and in honour, and that thou mayst be a holy people to the Lord thy God, as He has spoken. Debarim 26:17-19. In other words, the Torah is reminding us that the Jewish people exist solely because their ancestors, the Israelites, accepted the Torah. The Torah is also telling us that, by extension, the Jewish nation likewise exists solely because the Jewish people accepted the Torah. Parashat Ki Tavo then relates the second “Admonition” (“reproof,” “rebuke”) [תוכחה], which was given to the Jewish people by Moshe Rabbeinu shortly before the people crossed the Jordan river [נהר הירדן] to conquer Eretz Yisra’el. The first “Admonition” was given to the Jewish people by HaShem. Vayyiqra 26. Although the text of the two sets of Admonitions differ, the message of both is the same: If the Jewish people keep the Torah, they will be blessed; if not, they will be cursed. The first Admonition provides: “If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them, then I will give you [blessings]. . . .” Vayyiqra 26:3. “But if you will not harken to Me, and will not do all these commandments [you will be cursed].” Vayyiqra 26:14. The second Admonition states: And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt harken diligently to the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all His commandments which I [Moshe Rabbeinu] command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all the nations of the earth, and all these blessings shall come on thee. . . . Debarim 28:1. But it shall come to pass, if thou will not harken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee. Cursed shalt thou be. . . . Debarim 28:15, et seq. Often overlooked is the fact that both sets of Admonitions warn against not performing the misvot in Eretz Yisra’el. The first set of Admonitions warn, “And you shall do My statutes, and keep My judgments, and do them; and you shall dwell in the land in safety.” Vayyiqra 25:18. The second set of Admonitions, as mentioned earlier, was given shortly before the Jewish people entered and conquered Eretz Yisra’el. Viewed in this context, it’s clear that the misvot are to be performed in Eretz Yisra’el. Religious Jews the world over are known for scrupulous adherence to keeping personal misvot. They keep Shabbat, pray three times a day, lay tefillin, keep Kosher, etc. Observance of national misvot, however, is much less scrupulous. Only a small number of Jews make Aliyah and, of those Jews who do reside in Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), few seek the implementation of political reforms that would result in the Medinat being governed as a Jewish State, instead of its current, Westernized, Hellenized, and distinctly non-Jewish mode of governance. In this month of Elul, as we approach the High Holidays, may the Jewish nation endeavor to avoid the curses that the Torah describes in Parashat Ki Tavo, and elsewhere, by engaging in true Teshuvah (repentance) [תשובה] for its collective failure to keep all of the misvot of the Torah, including, and especially, the national misvot. As a part of its process of Teshuvah, may the Jewish nation undertake to reform Medinat Yisra’el so that the Medinat becomes a true Jewish state, as envisioned by the Torah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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. There are a number of laws distributed throughout Parasha Ki Teza which, on their face, may not seem to have any readily apparent connection. Those laws include: 1. The inheritance right of the firstborn. “If a man will have two wives, one beloved and one hated, and they bear him sons . . . he [may not change the order of inheritance to disinherit the son of the hated wife]. Rather, he must recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated [wife].” Debarim 21:15-17. 2. Returning lost property. “You shall . . . surely return [lost property] to your brother. . . . So shall you do for his donkey, . . . his garment, and . . . for any lost article of your brother that . . . you find. . . .” Debarim 22:1-3. 3. Dangerous conditions on real property. “If you build a new house, you shall make a fence on the roof [to prevent people from falling off the roof]” Debarim 22:8. 4. Farming operations. “You shall not sow your vineyard with a mixture. . . .” Debarim 22:9. 5. Collateral for loans. “One shall not take a lower or upper millstone as a pledge, for he would be taking a life as a pledge.” Debarim 24:6. 6. Collection of loans. “When you shall claim a debt of any amount from your fellow, you shall not enter his home to take security for it. . . . Debarim 24:10-13. 7. Payment of wages. “You shall not cheat a poor or destitute [employee]. . . . On that day, you shall pay his [wages.]” Debarim 24:14-15. 8. Charity. “When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forgot a bundle in the field, you shall not turn back to take it; it shall be [charity] for the convert, the orphan, and the widow. . . .” Debarim 24:19-22. 9. Weights and measures. “You shall not have in your pouch a weight and a weight – a large one and a small one. . . . A perfect and honest weight shall you have, a perfect and honest measure shall you have. . . . .” Debarim 25:13-16. The unifying theme that can be discerned from these pesukim is that the Torah has a preference for – and indeed presumes – the private ownership of property. The next logical question is: What is implied by the Torah’s preference for the private ownership of property? Ownership of property, by definition, means the legal right of an individual, without interference from others, to use or dispose of property which is owned by that individual, provided that such use or disposition does not infringe on another person’s legal rights with respect to the other person’s property. This definition, of course, is consistent with the command “Thou shalt not steal” [לא תגנב]. Shemot 20:13. The Torah prohibition against stealing is absolute; it is not limited to individuals who commit theft, but rather, applies to both individuals and to groups consisting of more than one individual. The fact that the Torah prohibits stealing leads, logically, to the question: How may property be acquired without violating the prohibition against theft? There are two, and only two, methods in which property may be acquired in the first instance. One is through a voluntary act – a sale or a gift. The other is through the use of force or through the threat of force. There is no material difference whether the force needed to acquire property is applied by a common street criminal or by the State, under an illusion of legitimacy which the State attempts to create through the enactment of laws. When a State takes property from a person by force or the threat of force, that taking constitutes theft, if the property which is taken is used for any purpose other than to achieve the legitimate ends of government. Although reasonable minds might differ as to what constitutes “a legitimate end of government,” it must be remembered that any and all property acquired by the State is acquired through the use, or threatened use, of force. Just as there are two, and only two, methods in which property may be acquired, there are two, and only two types of economic systems: the free market, the foundation of which is voluntary exchange, and Socialism, the foundation of which is the use, or threatened use, force. Thus, we see that just as the acquisition of property by way of voluntary transaction or by force are polar opposites, so too, the free market and Socialism are polar opposites. Rabbi Akiva Tatz wrote that “[f]ree will defines the human being. The human is a reflection of the Divine; just as [HASHEM] acts autonomously, we are free to express ourselves autonomously. That is not true of other created beings. . . . Only humans are free to choose what they do.” Akiva Tatz, Will, Freedom and Destiny: Free Will in Judaism, p. 15. In other words, an economic system which is based on free will – voluntary exchange – is a system which is consistent with Torah, and any system which is based on force or the threat of force, is a system which is inconsistent with Torah. Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) was founded in 1948 by Socialists. One of the fundamental tenants of Socialism is a rejection of G-d. According to Socialist doctrine, everything, including G-d and religion, must be subordinate to the State. Not surprisingly, Medinat Yisra’el, in its early years, was an openly Socialist state. Consistent with Socialist principles, the State regulated almost every aspect of the economy, including the monetary system. During the years 1978-1979, inflation, caused by the Israeli government’s manipulation of the money supply, averaged 77 percent. By 1984-1985, inflation peaked at 450 percent! U.S. president Ronald Reagan offered Medinat Yisra’el a $1.5 billon grant if Medinat Yisra’el would abandon Socialism and adopt free-market economic principles. The Histadrut, Medinat Yisra’el’s labor union, objected. U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz responded with the threat that if Medinat Yisra’el did not start implementing free-market economic policies, the United States would freeze all monetary transfers to Medinat Yisra’el. The threat worked. Medinat Yisra’el started to implement the Reagan administration’s free-market “recommendations.” The impact on the Israeli economy was both immediate and dramatic. Within one year, inflation fell from 450 percent to 20 percent. Although the economy in Medinat Yisra’el is much better now than it was in the 1980s, there is still much work to be done. Problems which still exist in the Israeli economy include: 1. Income and Sales Taxes. Income and sales (VAT) taxes are exorbitantly high, which in turn contribute to unnecessarily high rates of Jewish poverty. 2. Price controls, import taxes, and government-created monopolies. Price controls, import taxes, and government-created monopolies lead not only to prices which are above the market rate, they also cause shortages as well as the total absence and unavailability of some products. Many Jews from the former Soviet Union have personal experience with this aspect of Socialism. As with high taxes, price controls, import taxes, and government-created monopolies contribute to unnecessarily high rates of Jewish poverty. 3. Health care. State control of the health care system not only results in a loss of medical privacy, it is also causes waiting times to obtain treatment which are longer than those in a free market. State control of health care also results in a quality or level of care which is lower than that which would exist without State interference. 4. Employment. State regulation of employment contracts between private employers and their employees result in higher prices to consumers, as well as levels of customer service which are significantly lower than what would exist in a free market. 5. Regulation of Business. Businesses of all kinds are heavily and excessively regulated by the State, which result in higher prices and a reduced or complete unavailability of certain products and services. 6. Real Estate. The State owns more than 90% of all the land in Medinat Yisra’el. Title to those lands should be transferred to Jews, so the lands could be put to productive use in order to, among other things, make housing for Jews more affordable. 7. Fiscal and Monetary Policy. The fiscal and monetary policies which have been implemented by Medinat Yisra’el are the root-cause of a multitude of economic problems which continue to plague the Medinat, and thus should be reformed consistent with free market principles. The change from a non-Torah (Socialist) economy to an economy which is consistent with Torah began in the late 1980s, with a little help from the Reagan Administration. Much, however, still needs to be done to change the secular, Socialist government of Medinat Yisra’el to one which is based on, and follows, Torah principles, including the free-market principles which we find in Parasha Ki Teza. One way to effect a change from a State which is not based on Torah principles to one which is based on those principles is through the mass Aliyah of religious Jews who not only understand, but who also embrace, the free-market principles which we find in Tanakh and Talmud. May we all merit to being a part of the process of importing Torah into the government of our beloved Eretz Yisra’el. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  This week's Parashat piece, which is especially relevant to the ongoing conflict in Israel, is dedicated to the Jews who have been murdered, abducted, or otherwise harmed or threatened in the current war against our Arab enemies. The Torah commands: When you go out against your enemy, and you see a horse and chariot – a people more numerous that you – you shall not fear them, for HaShem, your G-d, is with you. . . . Debarim 20:1-4. There are at least two important messages in these pesukim. The first is that if the Jewish people have “bitahon” [ביטחון] (trust in G-d) and if they perform “hishtadlut” [השתדלות] (exertion of human effort), HaShem will go “with [the Jewish people], to fight for [the Jewish people] with [their] enemies, to save [the Jewish people].” We saw, in 1948 (War of Independence) and 1967 (Six-Day War) how, when the Jewish people do their part, HaShem responds in kind, just as promised in the Torah. The second is that the Jewish people should treat their enemies as enemies. The pesuk commands: “when you go out against your enemy” (italics added) to emphasize that war is being fought against an enemy, not a friend. The Midrash teaches that the Jewish people should, “Go against them as enemies! Just as they do not have mercy upon you, do not have mercy on them.” Tanchuma, Shofetim 15. In other words, when fighting a war, the Jewish people should fight to win, not show weakness, and should avoid taking half-measures in the mistaken belief that doing so is somehow righteous, effective, or compassionate. The Torah then lists three categories of people who are exempt from the obligation to serve in the military, which are: a man who has built, but not yet resided in, a new house; a man who has planted a vineyard and not yet redeemed it (in the fourth year, when fruit must be taken to Yerushalayim, or is redeemed and may be eaten for the first time); and a man who has betrothed a woman, but not yet married her. Debarim 20:5-7. Furthermore, as can be inferred from the structure and text of the exemptions, only men have an obligation to serve in the military; women are entirely exempt from military service. The Torah continues: When you draw near a city to wage war against it, you shall call out to it for peace. It shall be that if it responds to you in peace and opens for you [surrenders unconditionally], then the entire people found within it shall be as tribute for you, and they shall serve you. But if it does not make peace with you, but makes war with you, you shall besiege it. HASHEM shall deliver it into your hand and you shall smite [kill] all its males. . . . So shall you do to all the cities that are very distant from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. But from the cities of these peoples that HASHEM, your G-d, gives you as an inheritance, you must not allow any person to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them. . . . Debarim 20:10-17. We learn from these pesukim that there are two types of wars. The Torah distinguishes between wars against “all the cities that are very distant from you” and wars against “the cities of these people that HaShem gives” to the Jewish people as an inheritance. The latter category of war is known as a “milhemet misva” [מלחמת מצוה] (a mandatory war, or literally a “misva war” or a war which is a misva to wage). Wars which are included in this category include wars against “the cities of these people that HaShem gives” to the Jewish people, that is, wars against those who occupy Eretz Yisra’el and who claim, or seek to assert, that their legal right to Eretz Yisra’el is superior to that of the Jewish people, and wars against Amalek (defined as people who endeavor to exterminate the Jewish people). Mishneh Torah, Hilhot Melahim u’Milhamotem 5:1. The former category of war is known as “milhemet hareshut [מלחמת הרשות] (literally, a war for which HaShem has given “permission”, such as a war which is fought for the purpose of expanding the borders of Eretz Yisra’el or to magnify its greatness and reputation. Id., 5:2. Given that the Torah commands that the Jewish people dispossess, by force of arms, if necessary, those who seek to assert a claim to Erertz Yisra’al which is superior to that of the Jewish people, it follows that the Jewish people should not allow those same people to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. By logical extension, the Torah also forbids allowing those whom it requires be dispossessed of the Land from becoming citizens in the Land, and then potentially becoming a majority instead of a minority, voting to change the character of the government from that of a Jewish state to that of a non-Jewish state, and then subjecting Jews to being ruled in Eretz Yisra’el by the very non-Jews who should have been dispossessed of the Land. Parasha Shofetim concludes with the command regarding an unsolved murder of a Jew: If a corpse will be found in the Land that HaShem, your G-d, gives you to possess, fallen in the field, and it is not known who smote him, your elders and judges shall go out and measure toward the cities that are around the corpse. It shall be the city nearest the corpse, the elders of that city shall take a heifer, with which no work has been done, which has not pulled a yoke. The elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a harsh valley which cannot be worked and cannot be sown, and they shall axe the back of the heifer’s neck in the valley. . . . Debarim 21:1-7. There is not, of course, even the slightest reason to suspect that any of the elders were personally involved in the murder of the innocent Jew whose dead body was found in a field. Nevertheless, the Torah commands the elders to publicly proclaim that they have not spilled the blood of the innocent Jew who was murdered. Why, then, does the Torah require the elders to make a public proclamation denying any involvement in the murder of the innocent Jew? It is because the elders, in their role as political leaders, are responsible for governing Jewish society in accordance with the Torah, so that when, Heaven forbid, an innocent Jew is murdered, the elders, that is, the political leaders, can publicly – and truthfully – proclaim that they did everything within their power to prevent the shedding of innocent Jewish blood. Masekhet Sotah 38b. Today, we see the Israeli government failing, among other things, to exercise sovereignty over the entirety of Medinat Yisra’el (lands within the borders of the State of Israel), to incentivize non-Jewish Arabs to relocate outside of Medinat Yisra’el, and to take meaningful action against Arab terrorists who murder innocent Jews. May HaShem bless the Jewish people to merit the acquisition of leaders who possess “Yirat Shamayim” [יראת שמים] (fear of Heaven) and “bitahon” [ביטחון] (trust in G-d) and who will govern Medinat Yisra’el in accordance with the Torah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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. It is not surprising that the Torah often places related concepts in close proximity to each other. Parasha Re’e exemplifies this concept. Parasha Re’e opens with a blessing and a curse. “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing if you obey the commandments of the L-rd your G-d, which I command you this day; and a curse if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord you G-d.” Debarim 11:26-28. The Torah continues, a few short pesukim later, “For you shall pass over the Yarden to go to possess the land which the L-rd you G-d gives you, and you shall possess it and dwell in it. And you shall observe and do all the statutes and judgments which I set before you this day.” Debarim 11:31-32. The Jewish people were then commanded to “take possession [of the land] from them, before you, and you will take possession [ירשת] from them and settle in their land. . . .” Debarim 12:29. The Hebrew word which is used for the second command to “take possession” of the Land is [ירשת] means “inheritance.” Thus, the implication is that not only are the Jewish people commanded to take “possession” of the Land from its inhabitants, they are commanded to take legal title to the Land, by force, if necessary, so that they can pass the Land down to their descendants. Commenting on this pasuk, the Sages said that “The misva [for Jews] of [all generations to live] in Eretz Yisra’el is equal to all of the other commandments of the Torah.” Sifre, Re’e 80. The Torah, simply stated, is here telling the Jewish people that if they obey the commandments, they will be blessed; if not they will be cursed. The Torah then continues with the command to enter Eretz Yisra’el; to “possess,” that is conquer, and dwell in the Land; and to “observe and do all the statutes and judgments” in the Land. The Talmud states: [T]he Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Israel, even in a city that is mostly populated by idolaters [gentiles], and he should not reside outside of Eretz Israel, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Israel is considered as one who has a G-d, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Israel is considered as one who does not have a G-d. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.” Masechet Ketuvot, 110b. The misva of living in Eretz Israel is timeless; it is still the Halakha (Jewish law) today. The Code of Jewish Law, states that: “If [a husband] proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and [the wife] does not want to [go], [the husband] must divorce her. . . . [And if the wife] proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisrael] and [the husband] does not want to [go], he must divorce her.” Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 75:4. In Parasha Bereshit, HaShem tells Abram (before HaShem changed Abram’s name to “Abraham”) “I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojourns – the whole of the land of Canaan – as an everlasting possession; and I will be a G-d unto them.” [ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגריך את כל ארץ כנען לאחזת עולם והייתי להם לאלקים] Bereshit 17:8. As the great commentator Rashi explained, the phrase “and I will be a G-d unto them” means that, in Eretz Yisra’el, HaShem will be a G-d to the Jewish people, but any Jew who voluntarily resides outside of Eretz Yisra’el ) is as if he is without HaShem [ושם אהיה לכם לאלקים – אבל בן ישראל ה’הדר בחוצה לארץ כמו שאין לו אלוה]. Note: A person who was born outside of Eretz Yisra’el and who does not possess the ability, financial or otherwise, to provide for his family should he move to Eretz Yisra’el, is not considered to be “voluntarily” residing outside of Eretz Yisra’el. Furthermore, we find in Midrash Halakha the statement “Even though I exile you, continue to be marked with [perform] the misvot so that when you return to Eretz Yisra’el they [the misvot] will not be new to you.” Sifre, Eqeb 43. In other words, the reason a Jew performs misvot while outside of Eretz Yisra’el is not because he is commanded or obligated to do so, but rather, only so that he will know how to perform the misvot when he returns to Eretz Yisra’el! Statements, such as the following, can be found in many places in the Torah: “Behold, I [Moshe Rabbeinu] have taught you statutes and judgments . . . that you should act accordingly in the land. . . .” Debarim 4:5 (italics added). The Ibn Ezra explains the reason why the misvot can be performed only in Eretz Yisra’el. “For the L-ord knew that [the Jewish people] could not properly keep the misvot as long as they were in the land of others who ruled over them.” Ibn Ezra, Debarim 4:10. The Torah informs us that the Jewish people “are a people that shall dwell alone.” Bamidbar 22:9. Thus, we learn that the reason the Jewish people are to dwell alone – in Eretz Yisra’el – and why the misvot can properly be performed only in Eretz Yisra’el, is because the Jew, living as a minority in a majority gentile culture cannot help but be corrupted by that culture. “Dwelling alone” in Eretz Yisra’el contains two components: Aliyah and “driving out” the Arabs and any other people who claim to possess a right to Eretz Yisra’el which is greater than that of the Jewish people. One, without the other, is insufficient and, thus, will be ineffective. Lastly, there is the issue of the Jew who would rather not be “chosen,” that is, who wants to live outside of Eretz Yisra’el, who wants to live a so-called “normal” life, who does not want to be Jewish. The Torah is clear. “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing if you obey the commandments of the L-rd your G-d, which I command you this day; and a curse if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord you G-d.” Debarim 11:26-28. There is no third option. There is no opting-out. For a Jew, there is only “blessing” or “curse.” That’s it. “Jewishness,” just as certain other personal characteristics, is immutable: it cannot be changed. May every Jew rise to the challenge presented by the Torah and choose to be blessed. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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. A question which is often asked is: “Who is a Jew?” The usual answer is, “A person who was born to a Jewish mother or a person who converted to Judaism in accordance with Halakha.” A related, but different, question which could be asked, is: “What is the defining attribute of a Jew?” The answer to this question can only be: “The Torah.” We know this answer is correct because without the Torah, there could be no Halakha. Without Halakha, there could be no legitimate or authoritative answer to the question, “Who is a Jew?” In other words, without the Torah, there would be no Jews, no Judaism, and, of course, no Jewish people. The term “Zionism” means a “national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.” https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/a-definition-of-zionism. Thus, because the purpose of “Zionism” is to benefit “the Jewish people,” and because, without Torah, there could be no “Jewish people,” it follows that the term “secular Zionism,” that is, non-religious Zionism, is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. There is not, and by definition cannot be, any such thing as “secular Zionism.” Parasha Eqev begins: This shall be the reward when you harken to these ordinances, and you shall observe and perform them; HaShem, your G-d, will safeguard for you the covenant and the kindness that He swore to your forefathers. He will love you, bless you, and multiply you . . . in the land which He swore to your fathers to give to you. Debarim 7:12-13 (italics added). Parasha Eqev continues: Perhaps you will say in your heart, “These nations are more numerous than I; how will I be able to drive them out?” Debarim 7:17-19. In other words, HaShem is saying that if the Jewish people keep the Torah, including but not limited to, driving out the inhabitants from whom the Land is being taken, HaShem will bless the Jewish people “in the land,” that is, in Eretz Yisra’el, not in Brooklyn, Beverly Hills, Barcelona, or Bombay. Why is HaShem’s blessing for Torah observance seemingly limited to “in the land,” as opposed to other places in the world? Parasha Eqev continues – and repeats itself: “The entire commandment that I command you today you shall observe to perform, so that you may live and increase, and come to possess the Land that HaShem swore to your forefathers.” Debarim 8:1. One implication which can be derived from the portion of this pasuk which states, “you shall observe and perform, so that you may live and increase. . . .” suggests that a Jew might not live and might not increase outside of the Land. In other words, this pasuk is suggesting that the only true defense against anti-Semitism is for a Jew to make Aliyah, that is, to immigrate to, and reside in, Eretz Yisra’el. One question that might reasonably be asked is: What right do I, as a Jew, and the whole of the Jewish people, have to “drive out” the Arabs who once were a majority of the population in Eretz Yisra’el? Parasha Eqev answers: Do not say in your heart, when Hashem pushes them away from before you, saying, “Because of my righteousness HaShem brings me to possess this Land and because of the wickedness of these nations did HaShem drive them away from before you.” Not because of your righteousness and the uprightness of your heart are you coming to possess their Land, but because of the wickedness of these nations does HaShem, your G-d, drive them away from before you, and in order to establish the word that HaShem swore to your forefathers, to Abraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqov. And you should know that not because of your righteousness does HaShem, your G-d, give you this good Land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people. Debarim 9:4-5. Thus, we see that the Jewish right to possession of Eretz Yisra’el is superior to that of the Arabs simply because HaShem gave the Land to the Jewish people, because HaShem swore to our forefathers that the Jewish people would inherit the Land, and, lastly, “because of the wickedness of these [other] nations,” not because of any merit on our part. Additionally, recent history cements the Jewish right to Eretz Yisra’el in international law. In 1947, the United Nations, through a “Partition Plan,” created separate Jewish and Arab states in so-called “Palestine.” The Arabs, both within and without Eretz Yisra’el, rejected the Partition Plan and called for what an Arab League official referred to as “a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” The Arabs believed that they, with the British troops leaving, could exterminate the Jews and create an all-Arab state. The Arab plan failed miserably. Not only did the Arabs lose the war against the Jews, the failed Arab plan led directly to the creation of the modern State of Israel – Medinat Yisra’el. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs – mostly the educated and elite – fled to neighboring Arab countries. All the land that the Arabs could have had, if only they had accepted the U.N. Partition Plan, was now lost. After the 1948 war, entire cities and villages that were formerly Arab came under the control of the newly-created Jewish state. Not only did the Arabs in Eretz Yisra’el lose land in the 1948 war, they also transitioned from being a majority, to being a minority, of the population. Indeed, HaShem, in spectacular fashion, kept his promise to the Jewish people. A similar miracle occurred in 1967, during the 6-Day War. Hashem has given Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people. All we need to do is accept this gift by keeping the Torah and misvot. One issue which concerns many Jews who contemplate Aliyah is how to earn a living in Medinat Yisra’el. Unless these new immigrants – Olim Hadashim [עולים חדשים] – are retired and are receiving (foreign) retirement income, they will need to be able to continue earning a livelihood after making Aliyah. Although the particulars of the answer to this question will be different for different people, the Torah provides reassurance: HaShem “afflicted you [for forty years, in the wilderness] and let you hunger, then He fed you the manna [המן] . . . in order to make you know that not by bread alone does man live, [but] rather, by everything that emanates from the mouth of HaShem does man live.” Debarim 8:3, 8:6-10. Some potential Olim Hadashim [עולים חדשים] might wonder if it is safe to live in Medinat Yisra’el. Parasha Eqev answers this question as well: Hear O Yisra’el [שמע ישראל], today you cross the Yarden, to come and drive out the nations that are greater and mightier than you. . . . But you know today that HaShem, your G-d, . . . He will destroy them and He will subjugate them before you; you will drive them out and cause them to perish quickly, as HaShem spoke to you. Debarim 9:1-3. This, however, is not a promise of individual safety. Rather, it is a promise of collective safety. If the Jewish people follow the Torah and “drive . . . out” from Eretz Yisra’el those who refuse to accept Jewish sovereignty over the Land, HaShem will protect the Jewish people, as He has done many times before. We are living in momentous times. No longer do we stand on the threshold of the Messianic era. With the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty through the formation of Medinat Yisra’el, we have entered the Messianic era. The establishment of Medinat Yisra’el after the Holocaust; the return of the Jewish sovereignty after 2,000 years of exile; the revival of the Hebrew language, a language that heretofore had been not, for centuries, been widely used as a spoken language; the beginning of the ingathering of Jewish exiles from all parts of the globe; is not a coincidence. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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. Tanakh is, at one and the same time, the most popular book in history (more copies of Tanakh have been sold than of any other book), as well as the most politically-incorrect book in history. How can this be? The answer, although simple, is not easy for many of us mere mortals to accept. Many people, including, and perhaps especially, Jews who consider themselves to be religiously observant, have difficulty reconciling what Tanakh actually says and what they personally consider to be the “Jewish” or to be the “G-dly” way of doing things. In short, these individuals are trying to remake G-d in their image, rather accepting the Yoke of Heaven and thus conducting their affairs in accordance with the dictates of Tanakh. These individuals, although tragically in error, at least deserve to be understood; after all, they are in good company. HaShem did not allow Moshe Rabbeinu to enter Eretz Yisra’el, or even to be buried in Eretz Yisra’el, because Moshe considered himself to be an Egyptian-Jew, rather than a Jew whose home was in Eretz Yisra’el, but who just happened to have been born and raised in Egypt. In the opening paragraph of Parasha Va’ethannan, Moshe, talking to HaShem, said “I pray Thee, let me go over and see the good land that is beyond the Yarden. . . .” Debarim 3:25. HaShem responded, “Speak no more to Me of this matter. Go up to the top of the Pisga and lift up thy eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, and behold with thy eyes, for thou shalt not go over this Yarden.” Id., 26-27. The Midrash explains that HaShem said to Moshe, “Whoever acknowledges his homeland is buried in his homeland, but whoever does not acknowledge his homeland is not buried in his homeland.” Debarim Rabba 2:8. The Midrash further explains that when the daughters of Yitro said “An Egyptian man saved us from the shepherds, Shemot 2:19, “Moshe heard them and remained silent.” Id. But, one might say, acknowledging one’s peoplehood or acknowledging one’s national identity is equivalent to acknowledging one’s homeland. After all, Moshe killed an Egyptian who was attacking a Jew. That incident, among others, proved Moshe’s loyalty to the Jewish people. Surely that should constitute a sufficient acknowledgment by Moshe of his homeland. However, acknowledging one’s people is not the same as acknowledging one’s homeland. Moshe, like many Jews who today live outside of Eretz Yisra’el [חוץ לארץ], might have believed that his country of birth – rather than Eretz Yisra’el – was his homeland. When Yitro’s daughters said that “an Egyptian man saved us,” Moshe remained silent, not because he did not want to identify himself as a Jew, but perhaps because Moshe considered Egypt – not Eretz Yisra’el – to be his homeland. Instead of remaining silent, Moshe, when described as being an “Egyptian,” should have objected by saying, “Although I happen to have been born in Egypt, my homeland is Eretz Yisrael, even though I have never been there. The same politically-correct mistake persists in modern times. In 2019, Democrat Muslim U.S. congresswoman Ilhan Omar, in a social media post, implied that some Jews who were born, raised, and live in the United States have “dual-loyalty” to the United States and to Israel. Omar’s social media post was widely denounced as “antisemitic.” However, contrary to popular belief, Omar’s social media post was not antisemitic. It was merely a statement which, hopefully, at a minimum, is at least partially true. As we see from the incident involving Moshe Rabbeinu and Yitro’s daughters, Moshe’s sin, like the sin of many Jews who were born in America (and other diaspora countries) is that they believe their country of birth – rather than Eretz Yisra’el – is their home, even if, like Moshe Rabbeinu, they have never been to Eretz Yisra’el. Then there was King Sha’ul, who was commanded by HaShem to kill “Amaleq and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” I Shemu’el 15:3. However, “Sha’ul . . . had pity on Agog,” id., at 15:9, and substituted his “wisdom” for that of HaShem’s by failing to kill Agog, king of Amaleq, as well as some of Amaleq’s choicest animals. King Sha’ul’s attempt at political correctness, that is, at not doing as HaShem had commanded but, instead, substituting his value system for the value system of Tanakh, led to Jewish tragedies such as Haman, whom we read about on Purim, as well as Adolf Hitler, who was a spiritual descendant of Agog and Haman. In modern times, we see Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) shunning the requirements of Torah/Tanakh and, instead, engaging in political correctness by failing to exercise sovereignty over the entirety of Medinat Yisra’el and by attempting to pacify Arabs who currently reside in Israel. If Medinat Yisra’el were to reject political correctness and comply with the requirements of Torah/Tanakh, it would deny Israeli citizenship to Arabs who live in Medinat Yisra’el and, simultaneously, implement financial incentives which would encourage them to emigrate to the Arab country of their choice. Parashat Va’ethannan also repeats the Ten Commandments [עשרת הדברות], or, more accurately translated, the Ten Statements. A comprehensive discussion of how contemporary societies in general, and Medinat Yisra’el in particular, engage in political correctness through a rejection of various Torah commandments is beyond the scope of this article. However, we will briefly discuss one commandment. “You shall not steal [לא תגנב].” Debarim 5:17. This commandment seems fairly straightforward. Simply stated, it means one is forbidden to take property which does not belong to him. The implications of this commandment, however, are many. First, a commandment which forbids stealing property necessarily implies the existence of private property ownership. Thus, by this simple statement, the Torah forbids political or economic systems which seek to abolish, or even limit or restrict beyond what is needed for the orderly operation of society, the private ownership of property. Next, the Torah does not qualify the prohibition against stealing by limiting it to stealing which is committed by a single individual. Rather, the prohibition applies to both individuals and to groups consisting of more than one individual. Thus, since it is a Torah violation to abolish or needlessly restrict the ownership of private property, as well as a Torah violation for both individuals or groups of individuals to steal, it follows that laws such as taxation which exceeds what is needed for the legitimate functions of government (e.g., military, police, and the like), or laws which impose restraints on trade (import/export taxes, grants of monopoly privilege, employment laws which interfere with the ability of employers and employees to freely bargain for labor services, and central banking systems which allow the money supply to be inflated through fractional-reserve banking) all violate the Torah. Medinat Yisra’el expends significant resources to promote Aliyah, the immigration of diaspora Jews to Israel. However, the Aliyah “coin” has two sides: one side consists of encouraging diaspora Jews to immigrate to Israel. The other side consists of creating both a Torah and economic environment that encourages Jews to remain in Israel. Medinat Yisra’el, a nation-state which was founded by socialists, is a country that is still recovering from socialism. During the years 1978-1979, Israeli inflation, caused by government expansion of the money supply, averaged 77 percent. By 1984-1985, inflation peaked at 450 percent! U.S. president Ronald Reagan offered Israel a $1.5 billion grant if Israel would abandon socialism and adopt free-market economic principles. The Histadrut, Israel’s labor union, objected. U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz responded with the threat that if Israel did not start implementing free-market economic policies, the United States would freeze all monetary transfers to Israel. The threat worked and the Medinat, although being “dragged kicking and screaming,” started to implement the free-market “recommendations” that were suggested by the Reagan Administration. As a part of its economic restructuring, the Medinat, on January 1, 1986, introduced, the New Israeli Shekel (NIS), which replaced the hyper-inflated Shekel at a rate of 1,000:1. The impact on the Israeli economy which resulted from the implementation of free-market principles was immediate and dramatic. Within one year, Israeli inflation fell from 450 percent to 20 percent. Although the economy in Medinat Yisra’el is much better now than it was in the 1980s, there is still much work to be done. Each year, significant numbers of Jews who made Aliyah return to their diaspora countries because of economic conditions in Medinat Yisra’el. Additionally, a good number of Israeli-born Jews, many of whom are young men in their 20s, move to diaspora countries where they can better earn a livelihood. Sadly, they sometimes resort to marrying non-Jewish women in order to be able to legally remain in those foreign countries. These Jewish tragedies, which are caused in large part by the non-Jewish government of Israel (a government which happens to populated mostly by Jews), are completely avoidable. May Medinat Yisra’el be blessed to learn and apply the lessons of Tanakh, the most politically-incorrect book in history, and thereby become a Jewish nation, and to not continue being a nation, like any other, which just happens to (currently) be administered by a majority of Jews. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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 “Torah,” which, broadly defined, consists of the Written Law and the Oral Law, is the most politically-incorrect “book” (Hebrew: “sefer” [ספר]; plural “sefarim” [ספרים]) that now exists, or which has ever existed. Written Torah is composed of the Five Books of Moshe: Sefarim Bereshit [בראשית], Shemot [שמות], Vayyiqra [ויקרא], Bamidbar [במדבר], and Debarim [דברים]. The names of these sefarim are often mistranslated as “Genesis,” “Exodus,” Leviticus,” “Numbers,” and “Deuteronomy,” respectively. Of the Five Books of Moshe, all of which are politically-incorrect to some extent or another, Sefer Debarim [דברים] is the most politically-incorrect of all. In Biblical Hebrew, Sefer Debarim [ספר דברים] is referred to as “Mishneh Torah” [משנה תורה], meaning “repetition of the Torah.” However, Moshe Rabbeinu (Moshe our teacher [משה רבינו]) “did not merely repeat everything that HaShem had commanded, but reiterated how HaShem had commanded” performance of the misvot (commandments [מצוות]). Hirsch, Rav Samson Raphael, The Hirsch Chumash, 2 (italics original). “However, the repetition of the Torah and the explanation of the Torah do not constitute the [entirety] content of the book of Debarim.” Id., at 2-3 (italics original). We know this because “of the more than one hundred misvot [which] are contained in the book of Debarim, more than seventy are new [and not] contained in the preceding books.” Id., at 3 (italics original). In chapter 16 (vv. 1-17), the Torah reiterates the misvot of the festivals. In this reiteration, only פסח [“Pesah,” aka: “Passover”], שבועות [“Shavout,” aka: Festival of Weeks], and סוכות [“Sukkot,” aka: Festival of Booths (or Tabernacles)] are mentioned. When we compare this section to the section on the festivals in Vayyiqra 23, we immediately notice that Scripture here [in Sefer Debarim] does not repeat שבת [“Shabbat,” aka: Sabbath], ראש השנה [lit. “head of the year,” aka: יום תרועה (lit. “Day or Rejoicing” or Day of Shofar Blowing], יום כיפור [lit. Day of Atonement], [or] שמיני עצרת [lit. “Eighth [Day of] Assembly;” Festival which occurs on the day immediately following the seventh day of Sukkot)]. Id., at 4. In other words, Moshe Rabbeinu, in his Mishneh Torah, his repetition of the Torah which we refer to simply as “Sefer Debarim,” was communicating to the Israelites that they were about to enter a new a new phase, a new era, of Jewish history, that era being national existence and independence. After entering into Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people would no longer have HaShem’s Divine Presence, or miracles, to guide them. The Jewish people would now have to establish a national government and govern themselves, hopefully, in accordance with the Torah. Consistent with this transition away from the wilderness, when HaShem’s Devine Presence was always with the Jewish people, to an independent national existence in Eretz Yisrael, the words of Sefer Debarim, unlike the words contained in the other Four Books of the Torah, are not the direct words of HaShem, but rather, are the words of Moshe Rabbeinu, who was telling over to the Jewish people what HaShem had told him. What we are “witnessing” through the progression from the first Four Books of the Torah, to Sefer Debarim, and then through the rest of Tanakh, is nothing less than HaShem, our Father in Heaven, “raising” his Children, the Jewish people, from infants in Egypt, to teenagers in the Wilderness, to adults in Eretz Yisrael; that is, to adults who are expected to implement and live by the lessons taught to them by their Father, during their childhood. Just as many other young adults, the “young adults” who consisted of the Jewish people who crossed the River Yarden [נהר הירדן] and entered Eretz Yisra’el, either did not fully learn, or more likely, did not fully internalize or appreciate, the lessons that were given over to them by their Father. The Torah in general, and Sefer Debarim in particular, articulates values and a Code of Conduct for living which contradicts almost all of the concepts which are held dear by Western “civilization.” On a personal level, the Torah prescribes rules for marriage and family life; rules for the preservation of life, from young to old; rules for personal self-defense; and, among many others; rules relating to grooming, appearance, and mutilation of one’s body. On a national level, which is our current focus, we see that Moshe Rabbeinu – our teacher – taught us, the Jewish people, our Father’s rules for national Jewish governance. Like our Father’s rules for the governance of our individual lives, our Father’s rules for national governance likewise run counter to concepts which are held dear by Western “civilization.” Take, for example, “conquest.” The Torah commands the Jewish people to conquer Eretz Yisra’el. Then there is “democracy” and “equal rights.” The Torah both forbids the Jewish people to grant gentiles citizenship in Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) and commands the Jewish people to expel from Eretz Yisra’el those gentiles who claim a right to the Land. Despite clear warnings in the Torah and our Sages of what will happen if we, the Jewish people, do not heed these laws of national Jewish governance, Medinat Yisra’el, through its politicians and electorate, have failed to implement our Father’s lessons. For example, at Har Sinai, when the Torah was given to the Jewish people, HaShem said, Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Rather, you shall break apart their alters, smash their pillars, and cut down its sacred trees. Shemot 34:11-17. The commentator Maimonides (the Rambam) wrote: We were commanded to occupy the Land that HaShem gave our ancestors, Abraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqov. We must not abandon it to any other nation, or leave it desolate. HaShem said, “Clear out the Land and live in it, since it is to you that I am giving the Land to occupy.” Bamidbar 33:53-54. . . . Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvah 4. In Parashat Mas’e, we learn that “HaShem spoke to Moshe in the plains of Moab, by the Yarden, , near Yereho, saying, ‘Speak to the Children of Yisra’el and say to them: When you cross the Yarden [river] into Eretz Kena’an [Eretz Yisra’el], you shall drive out all of the inhabitants of the Land before you. . . .” Bamidbar 33:50-52. Likewise, in Parashat Shofetim, we are told that “But from the cities of these peoples that HaShem, your G-d gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any person to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them. . . .” Debarim 20:16-17. The Or HaChaim wrote that: Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Kena’anite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Kena’anite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Kena’anite] nations. Or HaChaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HaShem is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with Hashem driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HaShem’s Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. Just as the Torah promised, the Arabs are today a “snare among” the Jewish people because we have “seal[ed] a covenant with” them simply by allowing them to remain in Eretz Yisra’el. The reason which is often given for the failure to govern Medinat Yisra’el in accordance with the commands of the Torah is that to do so, that is, to limit citizenship to Jews and, among other things, to expel gentiles who claim a right to the Land, would somehow be “immoral.” This answer, however, is simply illogical and absurd, as it is our Father in Heaven, none other than HaShem Himself, who determines what is moral and what is immoral and it is HaShem himself that commanded the Jewish People to expel from Eretz Yisra’el all who contest Jewish ownership of, and sovereignty over, the Land. As human beings, we can, and should, try to understand HaShem’s decrees. However, our obligation is to abide by those decrees, regardless of whether we understand them. May we, the Jewish people, learn, accept, and implement HaShem’s will, just as it is written in The Most Politically-Incorrect Book Ever. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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. Parasha Mattot begins: And Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Yisra’el, saying, This is the thing which the Lord has commanded. If a man vow a vow to the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break from his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. Bamidbar 30:2-3. In Parasha Mas’e, we find a command that the Jewish people “shall take possession of the land [of Yisra’el] and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to possess.” Bamidbar 33:53. In contravention of the plain language of Parasha Mas’e, some claim that the “Three Oaths” require that the Jewish people not form a sovereign state in Eretz Yisra’el (the Land of Israel) prior to the coming of the Messiah. According to aggadahic legend, the Three Oaths are oaths that were compelled by HaShem. They are found in Shir ha-Shirim (Song of Songs), which is found in a portion of Ketuvim (Writings), which, in turn, is found in Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). The Three Oaths are expounded upon in Midrashic aggadah and later discussed in the Talmud, in Masechet Ketubot, 110b, 111a. The Three Oaths consist of two oaths for Yisra’el and one oath for the other nations. The two oaths which, according to Shir ha-Shirim, are applicable to the Jewish people are: (1) The Jewish people shall not go up to the Eretz Yisra’el en-masse. Rashi, an 11th century Jewish commentator, interpreted this “oath” as meaning that the Jewish people would not take Eretz Yisra’el by force. (2) The Jewish people will not rebel against the nations. The oath that HaShem made the nations swear was that they would not oppress Yisra’el “too much.” There are at least three reasons why the Three Oaths do not prohibit the Jewish people from forming (or maintaining) a sovereign state in Eretz Yisra’el. I. The Written Law Trumps Aggadah The Written Torah, divinely conveyed by HaShem commands that: the Jewish people “shall take possession of the land of [Yisra’el] and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to possess.” Bamidbar 33:53. The Writings (Ketuvim), written by mere human beings, are simply ineffective to contradict the Written Torah. The Three Oaths, which are aggadah, do not form any part of Jewish Law (Halakha). The Three Oaths are not found in the Shulhan Arukh (the Code of Jewish Law) or in any other authoritative source of Jewish Law. On the contrary, Maimonides, a 12th century Jewish commentator, held that the Three Oaths are merely “metaphorical” and wrote that “[i]t is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora at all times except: to study Torah; to marry; or to save [one’s property] from the gentiles. [After accomplishing these objectives,] one must return to Eretz Yisrael.” Mishneh Torah, Melachim 5:9. II. The Three Oaths Are Not Binding Because the Nations Oppressed Israel “Too Much” The oaths allegedly sworn by Yisra’el and the oath allegedly sworn by the nations are interdependent. That is, the violation of an oath by one relieves the other of its obligations. The nations violated their oath by oppressing Yisra’el “too much” during the Shoah (Holocaust), which resulted in the nullification of any obligation on the part of the Jewish people. Following World War II, the United Nations passed Resolution 181, which resulted in the formation of Medinat Yisa’el, the modern-day state of Israel. III. The Jewish People Did Not Violate the Oaths by Establishing the State of Israel Regardless of whether the nations oppressed Yisra’el “too much,” the Jewish people did not violate their “oaths.” The Three Oaths do not enjoin the Jewish people from having a sovereign state. Rather, they simply purport to enjoin the Jewish people from forming a state by force of arms or through rebellion. The Jewish people did not conquer Eretz Yisra’el by force, nor did the Jewish people rebel against the nations. As mentioned above, Medinat Yisra’el was established as a result of international consensus, which did not involve any use of force or rebellion on the part of the Jewish people. The fact that Medinat Yisra’el, immediately after its formation, successfully defended itself from attack by all surrounding Arab countries is irrelevant. The Three Oaths only proscribe conquering the Land by force or rebelling against the nations; they do not proscribe self-defense. Thus, we see that the Three Oaths do not, in any way, bear upon the legitimacy of the existence of the modern-day State of Israel. May all nations and peoples, Jew and Gentile alike, come to understand and accept that HaShem gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an inheritance and that the Jewish people are – for all time – the rightful owners of the entirety of Eretz Yisrael. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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. Peace. Almost everyone wants peace. Pacifist antiwar “doves” want peace. Members of the military – soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen – the very individuals who have the most to lose in the event of war, want peace. Most pro war “hawks,” those who believe that being prepared for war leads to peace, want peace. Perhaps the only influential portion of the population that may not actually want peace are those who will realize significant financial profits from war. “Peace” is a very important and central concept of Judaism. The Hebrew word for “peace” is “Shalom” [שלום], which is also a common greeting which means “hello.” Regarding the Hebrew language, Rabbi Benjamin Bleck explains: Hebrew is a holy language. Benjamin Blech, Preface, The Secrets of Hebrew Words (1991). In addition to being a holy language, Hebrew is a fascinating language. Like other languages, Hebrew words consist of letters. The name of the Hebrew alphabet is derived from its first two letters, “aleph” [א] and “bet” [ב], and thus is known simply as the “Aleph-Bet.” Not surprisingly, the English language word “alphabet” is derived from the Hebrew word “Aleph-Bet.” One amazing feature of the Hebrew language is that “root” words [שורש] [pl. שורשים], which often consist of three letters, function as “building blocks” for other words. Thus, it is not surprising that Hebrew words which share a common “root” word [שורש] also share a related concept or meaning. So too, it is with the Hebrew word “shalom,” which is spelled “ם-ו-ל- ש” (Hebrew is read “right-to-left,” not “left-to-right”). The root of the word “Shalom [שלום] is Shalem, which is spelled “ם-ל- ש” and which means “whole,” “complete,” “perfect,” “total.” Thus, we see that implicit in the concept of “peace” is the concept of “wholeness,” “completeness,” “perfection,” and “totality.” To understand the Torah’s meaning of “peace,” we now turn to Parasha Pinehas. The Jewish people were still in the wilderness, in a place called Shittim. Bil’am, having failed in his attempts to curse the Jewish people, devised a plot which was calculated to persuade Jewish men to engage in immoral acts with Moabite and Midianite women. The plot was successful. The resulting immorality brought a plague upon the Jewish people. According to the great Torah commentator Rashi, the women would ply the men with food and drink. When a man became inebriated and sought to cohabit with a woman, the woman would pull her Baal-peor idol from underneath her robe and insist that the man bow to it. One of the Jewish men who succumbed was Zimri, a leader of the tribe of Shimon. Zimri, in a shocking act of brazenness, brought his paramour to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and sinned with her in public and in the presence of Moshe and the elders. Moshe and the elders were so taken-aback by this public display of immorality that all they could do was weep. Pinehas, however, recalled the law that “a zealous one may slay” [קנאים פוגעין בו] a person who publicly violates the Torah prohibition against cohabiting with a gentile. Pinehas then killed both Zimri and Zimri’s paramour. And when Pinehas, the son of El’azar, the son of Aharon the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation and took a spear in his hand. He went after the man of Yisra’el, into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Yisra’el, and the woman through her belly. The plague was stayed from the children of Yisra’el. Those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand. Bamidbar 25:7-8. For this act of zealousness, Pinehas became the recipient of the first-ever “peace prize.” And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying, Pinehas, the son of El’azar, the son of Aharon the priest, has turned My wrath away from the children of Yisra’el in that he was zealous for My sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Yisra’el in my jealousy. Wherefore, say, behold, I give to him [Pinehas] My covenant of peace. Bamidbar 25:10-13. Not only did Pinehas kill Zimri to achieve peace, he received HaShem’s covenant of peace for doing so! Once again, we see that contemporary, Western philosophy, what might be called “conventional wisdom,” is at odds with the Torah. In modern times, the definition of “peace” is to compromise with evil, to make a deal with one’s enemy and hope that he doesn’t persist in his efforts to kill you. It means the Oslo Accords; it means not asserting full sovereignty over the entirety of Yerushalayim, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. It means not expelling the Arabs from Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), as commanded by the Torah. And it means trading terrorists for innocent civilian hostages, instead of dealing with terrorists in a manner consistent Pinehas’ treatment of Zimri and Zimri’s paramour. “Peace,” as we know from the Hebrew word “Shalom” [שלום], and its root “Shalem” [שלם], which as we recall means “whole,” “complete,” “perfect,” “total,” is a not a mixture of good and evil. Rather, compromising and making treaties with people who want to exterminate and annihilate you constitutes the exact opposite of peace. The Master of the Universe not merely expects but requires, that the righteous purge evil from this world. As the Rabbis taught, killing the wicked is analogous to offering sacrifices on the altar, which is a symbol of peace, “to teach that when the blood of the wicked is spilled, it is as if a sacrifice was offered.” Tanchuma, Pinehas 1. The only way to achieve true peace, that is, to achieve wholeness, completeness, perfection, is to eliminate evil from this world by totally defeating one’s enemies. Pinehas totally defeated an enemy who sought, through immorality, the spiritual destruction of the Jewish people, which explains why he received HaShem’s covenant of peace. Thus, we see that our task is to totally defeat the enemies of our time who seek the physical destruction of the Jewish people. May Medinat Yisra’el, as well as all of the Jewish people be blessed with Jewish leaders who will, like Pinehas, be worthy of HaShem’s covenant of peace. 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. HaShem, in His infinite wisdom, decreed that the 70 gentile nations should have a prophet, so that they would not be able to assert that if only they, like the Jewish people, could have communicated with HaShem through a prophet, they, like the Jewish people, would have been righteous. Bil’am, although lower in stature than Moshe, was that prophet. Parashat Balaq opens with Biblical Medinat Yisra’el (the Biblical State of Israel) advancing on the Kingdom of Moab, after it had defeated the Amorite kings Sihon and Og. Balaq, the King of Moab, fearing a military defeat because Moab was weaker than the Amorites, enlisted Bil’am to curse the Jewish people. King Balaq reasoned that Bil’am’s curse would assist Moab in defeating Biblical Medinat Yisra’el militarily. The Parasha then chronicles Bil’am’s repeated attempts to curse the Jewish people, attempts which were thwarted by Hashem’s insistence that Bil’am bless the Jewish people. The Torah is not merely a collection of nice stories. The word “Torah” [תורה], literally translated, means “to instruct.” As we learn from the Midrash, “The deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children.” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9. What the Midrash is teaching is that the purpose of the Torah is to teach us what we should do and what we should not do. Thus, our task is to ascertain how the lessons of Parashat Balaq apply to contemporary times. First, we see that Bil’am wanted to curse, but was instead forced by HaShem to bless, the Jewish people. From this, we can learn the very valuable lesson of taking at face-value the statements of someone who says they want to curse you, that is, the statements of someone who says they want to harm you. Although our Parasha, referring to the Jewish people, states that, “Blessed is he that blesses thee and cursed is he who curses thee,” Bamidbar 24:9, it is nevertheless incumbent upon us to not rely on miracles and thus to take those actions which are necessary to defend Medinat Yisra’el. Not only do Arab-Israelis repeatedly and continually say that they would like to abolish Medinat Yisra’el as a Jewish state and convert Eretz Yisra’el into Arab-Muslim state, they continually take actions which are calculated to achieve exactly that result. Thus, the only cogent course of action is to deny them Israeli citizenship and to incentivize them to emigrate to an Arab country. Second, our Parasha relates that Bil’am said the Jewish people are “a nation that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations.” Bamidbar 23:9. A nation that dwells alone cannot, by definition, dwell among other nations. In other words, Medinat Yisra’el, the only Jewish state in the world, cannot dwell alone if it continues to allow non-Jewish Arabs to dwell among the Jewish people in Medinat Yisra’el. As a corollary, it follows that the Jewish people cannot fully be a nation that dwells alone as long as a significant number of its members – Jews – reside in foreign lands. As we have previously discussed, it is incumbent upon all Jews, wherever they may reside, to make Aliyah (immigrate to Medinat Yisra’el), if it is possible for them to do so. Third, one might ask, “If Jews the world over were to make Aliyah, how would it be possible for Jews with different Minhagim (customs) to coexist in a geographic area as small as Medinat Yisra’el?” When speaking of the Jewish people, none other than Bil’am himself said, “How goodly are your tents, O Ya’aqov, and your dwelling places, O Yisra’el!” [מה-טבו אהליך יעקב משכנתיך ישראל]. Bamidbar 24:5. In its simplest meaning, this pasuk refers to the different tribes of Yisra’el all dwelling together, while at the same time maintaining their separate identities. According to the great commentator Rashi, this means the tents were arranged so that their entrances did not face each other, thereby maintaining the privacy of each family. Thus, we see, that Jews with different Minhagim, that is, different “tribes” of Jews can surely live together in the small geographic area that is Medinat Yisra’el. Furthermore, once non-Jewish Arabs who are currently living in Medinat Yisra’el emigrate to Arab lands, there will be all the more real estate available in Medinat Yisra’el for Jews who make Aliyah! שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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 Hebrew word “Huqqat [חקת], after which our Parasha is named, means “decree.” Indeed, the Parasha opens with, “And HaShem spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying, “This is the decree of the Torah [חקת התורה] which HaShem has commanded. . . .” Bamidbar 19:1-2. The Torah is not here speaking about just any decree, but rather, is speaking about a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה]. The quintessential example of a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה] is the Red Cow [פרה אדמה], which the Torah discusses immediately after introducing the concept of a “decree from the Torah” [חקת התורה]. The nature of the Red Cow [פרה אדמה] is puzzling, because it purifies those who, through contact with a corpse, became impure, while simultaneously rendering impure those who prepared its ashes. From this, the Sages derive that the meaning of a “decree from the Torah” [חקת התורה] is a decree that is beyond the ability of humans to logically understand. We often believe that we understand certain decrees from the Torah, because some decrees seem logical to us. However, an extremely important point to remember is that, as religious Jews, we do not do as the Torah commands, or refrain from doing that which the Torah forbids, simply because the Torah make logical sense to us. Rather, we obey Torah commands, first and foremost, because that is what HaShem has commanded us to do. Recall that when the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Har Sinai, we responded, “We will do and then we will hear (understand) [נעשה ונשמע],” Shemot 24:7, meaning that we will first obey the commandments of the Torah and then we will study the Torah to gain an understanding of those commandments. Do the decrees [חוקים] of the Torah regarding Eretz Yisra’el have anything in common with the decree [חוק] concerning the Red Cow? If so, what can we learn from Parashat Huqqat, about the concept of a “Two-State Solution,” or “Land for Peace,” both of which appear to make logical sense to a large number of Jews and Gentiles alike? First, we need to understand and accept that the Torah is not merely a collection of nice stories. The word “Torah” [תורה], literally translated, means “to instruct.” As we learn from the Midrash, “The deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children.” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9. What the Midrash is trying to teach is that we should learn from the events that are described in Tanakh and apply those lessons to our lives. The term “Two-State Solution,” simply put, means that Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) would allow Arabs who currently reside in Medinat Yisra’el to establish their own sovereign state on Jewish land. Why might Medinat Yisra’el agree to such a proposal? In a word, “peace,” or in a phrase, “Land for Peace.” Israeli-Arabs, however, are not interested is a sovereign state carved out of, and located next to, the Jewish state of Medinat Yisra’el. Rather, they desire the entirety of the lands controlled by Medinat Yisra’el. Consider the statement of an Arab-Israeli teacher on the subject of using Medinat Yisra’el’s democratic political system against the Jewish state in order to transform it into another, of many, Arab states: Today, I am in the minority. The state is democratic. Who says that in the year 2000 we Arabs will still be the minority. Today I accept the fact that this is a Jewish state with an Arab minority. But when we are the majority, I will not accept the fact of a Jewish state with an Arab majority. Na’ama Saud, a teacher from the Israeli Arab village of Araba; May 28, 1976. Fast-forward almost a half century. A Deputy Israeli Religious Affairs Minister publicly mused that, if it were possible, he “would send all of the [Israeli-]Arabs . . . to Switzerland where they could live wonderful lives.” Deputy Minister Matan Kahana, June 14, 2022. The deputy minister then dismissed the idea, stating “I guess they [Arab-Israelis] are meant to live on this land, in some way or another.” Deputy Minister Kahana’s desire to expel Arabs from Medinat Yisra’el is, however, much more than just a pie-in-the-sky wish. It’s actually a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה] – no different than the Red Cow [פרה אדמה]. Both the Torah and Halakha require that all Gentiles who claim a right to Eretz Yisra’el which is superior to that of the Jewish people must be expelled from the Land. Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you. Shemot 34:11-17. Regarding non-Jews who live in Eretz Yisra’el, the Halakha – Jewish law – recognizes two classes of people: those who claim an ownership or similar interest in Eretz Yisra’el and those who do not claim any such interest. Regarding the former, the Torah is not merely referring to ancient civilizations who just happened to be occupying Eretz Yisra’el prior to the arrival of the Jewish people; rather, the Torah is referring to any people – for all time – who claim a legal right to Eretz Yisra’el. According to the Or HaChaim: “You are to drive out all of the inhabitants of the land. . . .” Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Canaanite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Canaanite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Canaanite] nations. Or HaChaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 informs us that since HaShem is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HaShem driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HaShem’s Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you. Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12. Ibrahim Sarsur, who is an Arab former member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) of the supposedly Jewish state of Israel, a former leader of the Islamic Movement's Southern Branch and, a member of the Shura Council, responded to Deputy Minister Kahana, stating: Matan Kahana’s pitiful words, in addition to being fascist and disgusting, prove two important things: One, there is still a very high percentage of Zionists who believe that ethnic cleansing is the solution to the Jewish problem. Two, his recognition of the fact that the Palestinian nation is a fact, and that it will continue to exist in its homeland forever. Ibrahim Sarsur, June 15, 2022. Sarsur has also been quoted as being supportive of “redeeming” Jerusalem and creating a “Palestinian” state in preparation for the creation of an Islamic caliphate in all of “Palestine” and beyond. Id. Not only did Deputy Minister Kahana, albeit likely inadvertently, reject the Torah’s command to expel the Arabs from Medinat Yisra’el, he also provided Sarsur and his ilk with an opening to claim that, contrary to Tanakh, HaShem did not give Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an eternal inheritance. Also noteworthy is the hypocrisy which is displayed by Saesur when he accuses Kahana of being “fascist and disgusting” and of supporting “ethnic cleansing” for wanting to expel Arabs from Eretz Yisra’el, and then, practically in the next breath, stating that he supports the creation of a Palestinian state, in preparation for the creation of an Islamic caliphate in all of “Palestine” and beyond. As an aside, expelling Arabs from Eretz Yisra’el would neither be “fascist,” or “disgusting,” nor would it constitute “ethnic cleansing.” That discussion, however, is for another day. Returning to the subject of the Two-State “Solution,” since we know that “[t]he deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children,” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9, and because we know we are supposed to learn from Jewish history as recorded in Tanakh, it would be appropriate for us to see if there is any precedent in Tanakh where a nation that was defeated by Yisra’el sought to reacquire land through a Two-State “Solution.” After receiving the Torah at Har Sinai, the Jewish People, who had become the Nation of Israel – the Biblical form of the modern-day Medinat Yisra’el – set off on their journey to Eretz Yisra’el, the land that HaShem had promised them. In order to arrive at their destination, Biblical Medinat Yisra’el needed to pass through several kingdoms (countries). The most direct route was through the Kingdom of Edom. Toward the end of Parasha Huqqat, we learn that the King of Edom denied a request by Biblical Medinat Yisra’el to peaceably pass through his country. Although disappointed, Biblical Medinat Yisra’el accepted Edom’s refusal to grant their request for passage and looked for an alternative route. An alternative route was found through the Kingdoms of Ammon and Bashan. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el asked the King of Ammon for permission to peaceably pass through his country. The King of Ammon, like the King of Edom, denied Biblical Medinat Yisra’el’s request for passage. But unlike the King of Edom, the King of Ammon used his military forces to attack Biblical Medinat Yisra’el. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el defended by going on the offensive and, in so doing, conquered the territory, including the cities and towns, which then constituted the Kingdom of Ammon. The King of Bashan also attacked Biblical Medinat Yisra’el and was likewise defeated. After the war, the former lands of Ammon and Bashan became part of Biblical Medinat Eretz Yisra’el. There was no immediate request that, in exchange for “peace,” Biblical Medinat Yisra’el would return to Ammon and to Bashan the land which Biblical Medinat Yisra’el had captured during the war. However, some 300 years later, Ammon proposed “Land for Peace,” stating that it would once again wage war against Biblical Medinat Yisra’el if Biblical Medinat Yisra’el did not “return” to Ammon the land which Biblical Medinat Yisra’el had captured in battle. Shoftim 11:13, 23-24. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el refused; Ammon attacked Biblical Medinat Yisra’el and was once again defeated in battle. Thus, we see that Tanakh rejects the idea of “Land for Peace.” Exercising full and complete sovereignty over the entirety of Eretz Yisra’el, including over lands which Medinat Yisra’el has captured in wars which were waged to secure Eretz Yisra’el, is nothing more than the logical extension of a full and complete rejection of the idea of “Land for Peace.” It is no coincidence that the decree [חקת] of the Red Cow [פרה אדמה] is discussed at the beginning of Parasha Huqqat and that the foundation is laid toward the end of Parasha Huqqat for Yisra’el’s rejection of the Two-State Solution and the concept of “Land for Peace.” Although some may contend that there is no obvious, logical reason or purpose for rejecting offers of “Land for Peace,” Tanakh clearly teaches otherwise. May all of Yisra’el, and especially the political leaders of Medinat Yisra’el, have the strength, wisdom, and good judgment to truly trust HaShem and His Torah, and to apply Jewish sovereignty to, and expel Arabs from, the entirety of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and any other lands with which HaShem may bless the Jewish people. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson 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 last week’s Parashah, we discussed, among other things, the twelve spies [מרגלים], whom the Torah refers to as “great men” [אנשים]. These great men [אנשים] had studied Torah at the foot of Moshe Rabbeinu and were Rabbis, leaders of their respective tribes. After having reconnoitered Eretz Yisra’el in preparation for the military invasion that was to follow, ten of these great Rabbis issued a joint psak Halakha [פסק הלכה] (ruling on Jewish law) which held that because a military invasion of Eretz Yisra’el would likely result in the loss of life, the doctrine of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש], a doctrine that permits (and, in some situations requires,) one to violate a Torah commandment (misva [מצוה]) in order to save life, allowed the Jewish people to decline to perform the misva [מצוה] of Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל] (the Torah commandment to settle the Land of Eretz Yisra’el). This psak Halakha [פסק הלכה] of the spies, the great men [אנשים] who reconnoitered Eretz Yisra’el, was erroneous for at least two reasons. First, prosecuting a war to Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל] is a milchemet misva [מלחמת מצווה], a war mandated by the Torah. So that the exception does not “swallow the rule,” the doctrine of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש], which allows a person to violate a Torah commandment in order to save life, may not properly be applied in a manner which would have the effect of completely excusing compliance with a Torah commandment, such as the obligation to make war, which, by its very nature, involves danger to human life. Second, there are three situations in which the doctrine of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש] may not be applied to permit violation of a Torah commandment. One of those situations is idolatry. The Talmud states: [T]he Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisra’el, even in a city that is mostly populated by idolaters [gentiles], and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisra’el, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisra’el is considered as one who has a G-d, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisra’el is considered as one who does not have a G-d. As it is stated: “[The purpose of the Exodus was] to give to you the land of Kena’an, to be your G-d.” T.B. Masechet Ketuvot, 110b, quoting Vayyiqra 25:38. Because the purpose of the Exodus was to give the Jewish people Eretz Yisra’el and because “anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisra’el is considered as one who does not have a G-d,” it follows that a refusal to Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל] by who one has the opportunity to do so, is a rejection of the Torah, a rejection of G-d himself, and, thus, constitutes a form of idolatry. Therefore, because idolatry is one of the sins that a person may not commit to save a life, it follows that the doctrine of pikuah nefesh [פקוח נפש] may not be applied to excuse a failure to Yishuv Eretz Yisra’el [ישוב ארץ ישראל]. Thus, we see that the psak Halackha [פסק הלכה] of the spies, the anashim [אנשים] who reconnoitered Eretz Yisra’el, was erroneous. In Parashat Qorah, we find three additional Halakhic disputes: First, Qorah, a very accomplished and learned man, alleged that he, not Aharon, should have been appointed Kohen Gadol. Qorah reasoned that because leadership of the nation had gone to Moshe, as the son of Levi’s firstborn, Amram, he, Qorah, as the son of Levi’s second-born, Yitzhar, should have been appointed Kohen Gadol. Second, the first-born of all the tribes collectively challenged the tribe of Levi, alleging that they, not the Levites, should have the privilege of serving in the Mishkan. Third, the tribe of Reuven, as represented by Datan, Aviram, and On, claimed that the privilege of royalty should be belong to them, as offspring of Ya’akov’s firstborn, and not to the tribe of Yehudah. As with the spies, we see from our Parashat that the claims of Qorah, the first-born, and the tribe of Reuven, all lacked merit. Because prophecy existed during the time of Moshe, the spies, Qorah, and the tribes, it is not too difficult for us to determine what HaShem wanted from the Jewish people. Now, without the benefit of prophecy, it is often much harder to ascertain what HaShem wants from the Jewish people. Not surprisingly, then, there still remain many factions within the Jewish people and many disagree with others on matters of Halakha. The question, then, is: What criteria should a person use when selecting a Rabbi who will rule for him on Halakhic issues? There can, of course, be no “one size fits all” answer to this question. However, a few guidelines might be helpful. 1. Basic qualifications. Be sure the person whom you are considering for the position of “your rabbi” has sufficient education, knowledge, and wisdom to function as “your rabbi.” 2. Connection to HaShem. Because we no longer have prophecy, be very skeptical of any rabbi or movement that claims to have any special connection to HaShem. 3. Ability to teach. The word “rabbi” means “teacher.” Be sure that any candidate for the position of “your rabbi” can, and will, help you learn and grow. Be very careful to not select a rabbi merely for his oratory skills or charisma. Common-sense. Don’t “check your common-sense” at the door of the Beit Midrash. In other words, don’t accept anything that doesn’t make sense. It’s true that a particular pasuk, Halakha, or piece of Gemara may not make sense when first studied. When this occurs, study more; ask your rabbi to teach you. When you choose someone to be “your rabbi,” make sure this person can – and will – take the time, not only to help you learn, but also to help you understand, Torah. שבת שלום Shabbat Shalom! Copyright © The Israel Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
By: HaRav Menashe Sasson מאת: הרב מנשה ששון  The Festival of Shavu’ot [שבועות] is celebrated following the counting for seven weeks (49 days) of the omer, and begins 50 days after the Pesah [פסח] (Passover) seder. Thus, the Festival of Pesah [פסח], which commemorates the Exodus from Egypt; the Counting of the Omer; and the Festival of Shavu’ot [שבועות], which commemorates the giving of the Torah on Har Sinai [הר סיני]; are properly viewed not as separate events or holidays, but rather, as the beginning of a process, which ultimately culminates many years later, with the Israelites preparing for a war of conquest, followed by an invasion of Eretz Yisra’el (Land of Israel). The word “Shavu’ot [שבועות]” means “weeks,” as in the seven weeks between the Festival of Pesah [פסח] and Festival of Shavu’ot [שבועות]. In the English language, the holiday of Shavu’ot [שבועות]” is often referred to as the “Festival of Weeks.” This explanation, however, begs the obvious question: Why is the holiday which commemorates the giving of the Torah named for the period of weeks which immediately preceded the holiday? The answer is because the word “Shavu’ot [שבועות]” also means “oaths.” While at Har Sinai [הר סיני], HaShem said to the Jewish people that they shall be to HaShem a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation [ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש].” Shemot 19:6. The Jewish people famously responded: “All that HaShem has spoken, we will do [כל אשר-דבר יהוה נעשה].” Shemot 19:8. Thus, we have the “oaths” of the Jewish people to do all that HaShem has commanded. “Shavu’ot” is also the name of a book in the Mishnah, and is the sixth volume in Masekhet Nezikin (which deals primarily with oaths) in the Talmud. As an aside, the Christian religion, which was founded during the Second Temple period, in about the year 3760 on the Jewish calendar, celebrates a holiday known as “Pentecost,” which is celebrated 50 days after Christian holiday of Easter. The name “Pentecost,” which is Greek in origin, means “fifty.” The name of the Christian holiday “Easter” is derived from the Greek word “pascha.” Just as Easter is a holiday which is an adaptation of the Jewish holiday of Pesah, so too, Pentecost is a Christian holiday that is derived from an adaptation of Shavu’ot. The meaning and rituals associated with the Christian holidays of Easter and Pentecost are, however, very different from those of the Jewish holidays of Pesah and Shavu’ot. Returning to Shavu’ot and the giving of the Torah, we learn from the Talmud why the Torah was given on Har Sinai [הר סיני]: As Rav Ḥisda and Rabba, son of Rav Huna, both said: What [is the reason it is called] Mount Sinai? [It is because it is] a mountain upon which hatred [sina] for the nations of the world descended [because they did not accept the Torah]. דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: מַאי ״הַר סִינַי״? הַר שֶׁיָּרְדָה שִׂנְאָה לְאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלָי Masekhet Shabbat 89a. The Talmud continues: And what is [the mountain’s true] name? Horeb is its name. And [that] disputes [the opinion of] Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said: Mount Sinai is its name. And why is it called Mount Horeb? [It is because] destruction [ḥurba] of the nations of the world descended upon it. וּמָה שְׁמוֹ? ״חוֹרֵב״ שְׁמוֹ. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: ״הַר סִינַי״ שְׁמוֹ. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא ״הַר חוֹרֵב״ — שֶׁיָּרְדָה חוֹרְבָּה לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלָי Masekhet Shabbat 89b. In other words, HaShem was not happy with the Gentile nations, who had been offered and rejected the Torah prior to it being given to the Jews. The Gentile nations, for their part, reacted to the Torah with hatred because the Torah, the most politically-incorrect book in history, set moral standards which the Gentile nations rejected. Thus, antisemitism was born. As we can see in modern times, those things that the Torah commands are precisely what the Gentile nations, especially Western nations, as a whole, reject. For example, the Torah mandates self-defense, while many in the Gentile nations move toward criminalizing self-defense and increased levels of gun control. The Torah mandates capital punishment for certain crimes, while many Gentile nations have either abolished, or many in those nations seek to abolish, the death penalty. The Torah forbids homosexual relationships, while many in Gentile nations where it is still illegal, seek to legitimize homosexual marriage. The Torah forbids abortion as a means of birth control, while many in the Gentile nations seek to expand the availability of abortion on demand. The Torah forbids a man from wearing a woman’s clothes, while many in the Gentile nations promote pharmaceutical and surgical efforts to alter a person’s gender. And then there is Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel). HaShem gave Eretz Yisra’el (the Land of Israel) to the Jewish people as an inheritance. HaShem brought the Israelites out of Egypt; took them to Har Sinai [הר סיני] and gave them the Torah; and then prepared and commanded them to invade and militarily conquer Eretz Yisra’el. and HaShem brought us out of Mizrayim [Egypt] with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders, and HaShem brought us to this place [Eretz Yisra’el], and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. וַיּוֹצִאֵ֤נוּ יְהֹוָה֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם בְּיָ֤ד חֲזָקָה֙ וּבִזְרֹ֣עַ נְטוּיָ֔ה וּבְמֹרָ֖א גָּדֹ֑ל וּבְאֹת֖וֹת וּבְמֹפְתִֽים׃ וַיְבִאֵ֖נוּ אֶל־הַמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וַיִּתֶּן־לָ֙נוּ֙ אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָֽשׁ Debarim 26:8-9. As noted above, the source of Gentile hatred of the Jewish people, that is, the source of antisemitism, is none other than the Torah, which was given at Har Sinai [הר סיני]. Antisemitism exists and, indeed is prevalent, in almost every country. Hardly a day goes by when we don’t read in the news about a crime that was committed against a Jew simply because the victim is Jewish, or a crime committed against Jewish property, such as vandalism of a Beit Knesset (synagogue). Sadly, however, at this particular point time, the most prevalent and most serious incidents of antisemitism, in terms of injuries and deaths, occur in none other than Medinat Yisra’el, the modern-day State of Israel. News from Medinat Yisra’el contains what seems to be never-ending reports of attacks against Jews, whether on public transportation or on the streets of Israel, at entrances to the Old City in Jerusalem, on the roadways and towns of Judea and Samaria, and, of course, the almost constant threat of rockets fired at Israel from Gaza. As Jews, we have little, if any, ability to control or prevent antisemitic attacks on Jews who are in Gentile lands. We do, however, have the ability to prevent antisemitic attacks on Jews in Medinat Yisra’el. “All” it would take (it won’t be easy, of course) is a Jewish-Israeli electorate that would, at the ballot box, insist that the Jewish State abandon its current – failed – policy of pacifism and appeasement, which attempts to integrate Gentiles into the Jewish state and Jewish society and, instead, adopt and implement the Torah as the Jewish Constitution. Only then will we be the Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation, which is intended by HaShem. חג שמח 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. Sefer Bamidbar [במדבר] begins with Parashat Bamidbar [במדבר]. The Hebrew word “bamidbar [במדבר]” means “in the desert” or “in the wilderness.” Parashat Bamidbar [במדבר] begins with a discussion of the taking of a census of the Jewish people in the desert or wilderness of Sinay, which perhaps is the reason Christians have renamed and given Sefer Bamidbar [במדבר] the name “Numbers.” The Ramban gave three reasons for the census: (1) To document the miraculous growth of the Jewish people, who had descended to Misrayim as a family of 70 individuals; (2) For each Jew to be recognized as an individual; and (3) To prepare for the conscription of Jews into a Jewish military and the subsequent military invasion that would be necessary to conquer the Land upon Jewish entry into Eretz Yisra’el. Why was a military offensive necessary to conquer Eretz Yisra’el when the Jewish people crossed the Yarden river [נהר הירדן]? The answer is simple: Because the inhabitants of the Land would not willingly accept that HaShem, who created the world, can give His Land to the people of His choosing, and that He had decreed that the Jewish people were to be – and are – the rightful owners of Eretz Yisra’el. HaShem, in His infinite wisdom, knew that the occupants of the Land would not voluntarily relinquish their control over Eretz Yisra’el. Thus, HaShem had the Jewish people prepare for war. Not only did HaShem have the Jewish people prepare for war, He commanded them to expel the inhabitants of the land and to 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. Regarding non-Jews who live in Eretz Yisra’el, the Halakha – Jewish law – recognizes two classes of people: those who claim an ownership or similar interest in Eretz Yisra’el and those who do not claim any such interest. Regarding the former, the Torah is not merely referring to ancient civilizations who just happened to be occupying Eretz Yisra’el prior to the arrival of the Jewish people; rather, the Torah is referring to any people – for all time – who claim a legal right to Eretz Yisra’el. According to the Or HaChaim: “You are to drive out all of the inhabitants of the land. . . .” Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Canaanite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Canaanite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Canaanite] nations. Or HaChaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 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. Long before the founding of Medinat Yisra’el (the modern-day State of Israel), Arabs who reside in the Land (as well as many who reside outside the Land) have asserted a legal right to the Land which they assert is superior to that of the Jewish people. Regardless of what may have occurred prior to 1948, there can be no serious disagreement that the State of Israel came into existence in 1948, as the result of a United Nations resolution. See, U.N. Resolution 181 (1947 resolution for the partition of “Palestine” into a separate Arab state and a separate Jewish state). Notwithstanding its passage by the U.N., Israeli-Arabs rejected the resolution. Following the miraculous outcome of Six-Day War [מלחמת ששת הימים] in 1967, a war which was reminiscent of the war which ensued following the Jewish nation’s initial entry into the Land under the command of Yehoshua [יהושע], the State of Israel controlled Gaza; the Sinai Peninsula; Judea and Samaria, including the Old City and Temple Mount in Jerusalem; and the Golan Heights. Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister of Israel, was the highest-ranking Israeli military officer during the Six-Day War [מלחמת ששת הימים]. Three weeks after the war ended, Rabin, during an acceptance speech which was given when he received an honorary degree at Hebrew University, gave the following explanation for the success of the Israeli military: Our airmen, who struck the enemies’ planes so accurately that no one in the world understands how it was done and people seek technological explanations or secret weapons; our armoured troops who beat the enemy even when their equipment was inferior to his; our soldiers in all other branches . . . who overcame our enemies everywhere, despite the latter’s superior numbers and fortifications — all these revealed not only coolness and courage in the battle but . . . an understanding that only their personal stand against the greatest dangers would achieve victory for their country and for their families, and that if victory was not theirs the alternative was annihilation. Sachar, Howard M., A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, 660 (1976). What Rabin apparently failed to appreciate was that, notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts of the Israeli military, against all odds, the party who was ultimately responsible for the 1967 victory was not the Israeli military; rather, it was none other than HaShem himself. The losses sustained in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a mere six years later, might reasonably be interpreted as a Heavenly rebuke for the lack of awareness of the Source of All Blessing which Rabin, and other like-minded individuals, expressed following the Six-Day War [מלחמת ששת הימים]. Notwithstanding the timeless commands to “drive out all of the inhabitants of the land” and to not “seal a covenant” (make a treaty) with them, the modern-day government of the Medinat, like its predecessors some 3,000 years before, have failed to heed Devine instruction. As we learn in last week’s Parashat, HaShem instructed, “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and do them, then I will give you rain in due season and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. . . .” Vayyiqra 26:3-4. “But if you will not harken to Me and will not do all of these commands, and if you shall despise My statutes, or if your soul abhor My judgments so that you will not do all of My commandments. . . ,” Vayyiqra 26:14, there will be Devine consequences. We are, and have been, experiencing those Devine consequences in the form of Arab-Israeli domestic terrorism. Instead of expelling non-Jews who claim a legal right to Eretz Yisra’el and who seek to secure that alleged right by means of terrorism, the Medinat fights domestic terrorism through the use of, among other things, state-of-the-art surveillance technology (which, allegedly, the Medinat has also used to unlawfully invade the privacy of law-abiding Israeli Jews); “Administrative Detention,” where Arabs (and sometimes Jews, as well) have been jailed without being charged with a crime, have been denied access to legal counsel, and have been denied judicial review of their detention (due process of law); and selective enforcement (and non-enforcement) of laws, such as the enforcement of certain laws against Israeli Jews, but not against Israeli-Arabs (apparently) out of a fear of Arab civil unrest). Notwithstanding the Medinat’s longstanding (since its founding in 1948), anti-Torah, policy of attempting to assimilate Arab-Israelis into a Jewish State, including, but not limited to, appointing an Arab to the Israeli Supreme Court, its efforts to stop domestic Arab terrorism have, largely but not surprisingly, been unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Israel’s political class has adopted undemocratic parliamentary procedures which disqualify political opponents who advocate Torah-based changes to the Medinat’s anti-Torah policies from running for political office. This anti-Torah political mismanagement of Medinat Yisra’el has had an impact not only on the physical safety and wellbeing of individual Jews and on the Jewish nation as a whole, but also on their spiritual wellbeing. Unlike other religions, the Jewish people alone have been given a special land and have been commanded to dwell alone in that land. “Now, therefore, if you will obey My voice, indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own treasure from among all peoples: for the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Shemot 19:5-6. As Moshe Rabbeinu explained: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the L-rd my G-d commanded me, that you should act accordingly in the Land wither you go to possess it.” Debarim 4:5. In other words, HaShem, the Creator who owns the entire earth, gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people. The United Nations, in its resolution 181, merely acknowledged, albeit perhaps unwittingly, this gift from HaShem to the Jewish people. It should, but unfortunately does not, go without saying that it is impossible for a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” to dwell as a minority in a nation that belongs to others. If the Jewish people are to be a light unto the nations, a holy nation which sets an example for all of mankind, it must be free of the corrupting influence of the other nations. It must also be free of any threat to its sovereignty, which includes any threat that a non-Jewish minority might one day become the majority. Another task of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, as envisioned by Tanakh, is that of preparing for the Redemption. Referring to the Redemption, the Talmud states: Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction [in a verse addressing God’s commitment to redeem the Jewish people. In the verse: “I the Lord in its time I will hasten it”] (Isaiah 60:22), it is written: “In its time,” [indicating that there is a designated time for the redemption,] and it is written: “I will hasten it,” [indicating that there is no set time for the redemption.] Rabbi Alexandri explains:] If they merit [redemption through repentance and good deeds] I will hasten [the coming of the Messiah.] If they do not merit [redemption, the coming of the Messiah will be] in its designated time. אמר רבי אלכסנדרי רבי יהושע בן לוי רמי כתיב (ישעיהו ס, כב) בעתה וכתיב אחישנה זכו אחישנה לא זכו בעתה Masekhet Sanhedrin 98a. Stated differently, if the Jewish people “walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and do them,” Vayyiqra 26:3, Redemption will come “in haste,” Masekhet Sanhedrin 98a, meaning “[t]oday, if you harken to His voice.” Tehillim 95:7. “But if you will not harken to Me and will not do all of these commands, and if you shall despise My statutes, or if your soul abhor My judgments so that you will not do all of My commandments. . . ,” Vayyiqra 26:14, Redemption will come “in its time,” meaning, at the latest possible time, near the year 6000 (2240 on the Gregorian calendar) and with great suffering. The Talmud even goes so far as to tell us how we can know when the coming of the Redemption is near: And Rabbi Abba says: You have no [more] explicit [manifestation of the] end [of days] than this [following phenomenon,] as it is stated: “But you, mountains of Israel, you shall give your branches, and yield your fruit to My people of Israel, [for they will soon be coming]” (Yehezqel 36:8). [When produce will grow in abundance in Eretz Yisrael, it is an indication that the Messiah will be coming soon.] Rabbi Eliezer says: [You have no greater manifestation of the end of days] than this [following phenomenon] as well, as it is stated: “For before these days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for beast; nor was there peace from the oppressor to him who exits and to him who enters” (Zekharya 8:10). [When there are no wages for work and no rent paid for use of one’s animal, that is an indication that the coming of the Messiah is at hand.] ואמר רבי אבא אין לך קץ מגולה מזה שנאמר (יחזקאל לו, ח) ואתם הרי ישראל ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל וגו' רבי (אליעזר) אומר אף מזה שנאמר (זכריה ח, י) כי לפני הימים (האלה) [ההם] שכר האדם לא נהיה ושכר הבהמה איננה וליוצא ולבא אין שלום מן הצ Masekhet Sanhedrin 98a. We can see, from both the calendar and from simply looking at the produce of Eretz Yisra’el, that the End of Days are drawing near. However, the Jewish people currently do not merit Redemption “in haste,” that is, “today,” because we are not today governing Medinat Yisra’el in the manner which has been commanded by HaShem. The solution, that is, the path to Redemption “in haste,” as opposed to “in its time,” is completely within our control. May the Jewish people use the democratic processes of the Medinat to elect Jewish leaders in the Medinat who will lead us from conquest to redemption by: 1. Replacing Medinat Yisra’el’s current laws with Jewish law which respect and protect Jews and the Jewish nation, rather than their enemies; and 2. Using the great technological assets of the Medinat to identify, capture, and expel those who claim a right to Eretz Yisra’el which is greater than that of the Jewish people. 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 root of the Hebrew word “Behuqqotay” [בחקתי] or [בחוקותי] is “hok” [חק] or [חוק], which means “law” or “statute.” “Behuqqotay” means “in My statutes.” A related word “hoka” [חוקה] means “constitution.” Thus, we see that the Torah – HaShem’s statutes – is the “The Jewish Constitution.” Likewise, the Shema, “Hear Yisra’el, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One [שמע ישראל, יי אלהיני יי אחד],” is the Jewish Pledge of Allegiance. Parashat Behuqqotay begins with HaShem saying, “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and do them, then I will give you rain in due season and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. . . .” Vayyiqra 26:3-4. In other words, HaShem is telling the Jewish people that if they live according to the Torah, that is, according to The Jewish Constitution, then HaShem will bless them; He will give the Jewish people rain when rain is needed and make “the land” productive. The land to which HaShem is referring is not, of course, Boston, Brussels, Berlin, Barcelona, Beijing, or Bombay; “the Land” is Eretz Yisra’el. How do we know that HaShem is referring to Eretz Yisra’el? We know this because HaShem just told us in Parashat BeHar Sinay 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. Returning to Parashat Behuqqotay, we find that HaShem, after telling the Jewish people that He will bless them if they live according to the Torah, then proceeds to give the Jewish people an admonition [תוכחה], telling them that He will punish them if they fail to comply with the commands of the Torah. “But if you will not harken to Me and will not do all of these commands, and if you shall despise My statutes, or if your soul abhor My judgments so that you will not do all of My commandments. . . .” Vayyiqra 26:14. The admonition [תוכחה] then continues, setting forth five increasingly severe levels of punishment for continued disobedience. Vayyiqra 26:14 – 26:43. The defining characteristic of the Jew, and of the Jewish people as a whole, is – and must be – the Torah. It is the Torah that makes the Jew a Jew, and it is the Torah that makes the Jewish people a nation. Without the Torah, there would be no Jew, no Jewish people or nation, and, by logical extension, without the Torah, there could be no Jewish state. In its May 14,1948, Declaration of Independence, the State of Israel committed to implementing a written constitution no later than October 1, 1948. Although the State of Israel has yet to draft, let alone ratify or implement, a written constitution, it has adopted provisions of law known as “Basic Laws.” Israel’s Basic Laws do not meet the definition of a constitution, but nevertheless are regarded as quasi-constitutional in nature. Included in those Basic Laws is a provision which declares the State of Israel to be a “Jewish State.” The State of Israel, however, having failed to adopt the Torah as its constitution, is not a “Jewish State,” but rather, as currently constituted, is little more than a “state for Jews, Arabs, and others.” If the State of Israel to be a Jewish State, it must adopt the Torah as its constitution and then pass and enforce laws that are not inconsistent with the Torah. The mere suggestion that the State of Israel should govern itself in accordance with the Torah would, however, be met with considerable opposition, both from within and without Israel and from within and without the Jewish people. But before dismissing the idea out-of-hand, let us consider how well (or not) the supposedly Jewish state, which has been in existence since May 14, 1948, has performed the fundamental task of protecting Jewish-Israelis from Arab-Israeli terrorism. Under the current system, terrorism against Jews by Israeli-Arabs has persisted, and even flourished. This is true notwithstanding – and in all likelihood because of – the fact that the State of Israel has extended full rights of citizenship to Israeli-Arabs, including voting rights; government employment and welfare benefits; national health care; and education, from grade school through university. The Jewish Constitution (aka: the Torah) commands that the Jewish people conquer the Land and expel the conquered inhabitants, and enjoins the Jewish government 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 HaChaim: “You are to drive out all of the inhabitants of the land. . . .” Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Canaanite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Canaanite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Canaanite] nations. Or HaChaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52. Likewise, Abarbanel said: Shemot 34:11-12 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 State of Israel has failed to heed both the Jewish Constitution (aka: the Torah), as well as the Rabbis’ interpretation and explanation thereof. True to the words of Parashat Behuqqotay, “But if you will not harken to Me and will not do all of these commands, and if you shall despise My statutes, or if your soul abhor My judgments so that you will not do all of My commandments. . . ,” Vayyiqra 26:14-43, HaShem brings punishment, in the form of Arab-Israeli terrorism, upon the Jewish people. The State of Israel is a country where any Jew, from anywhere in the world, is welcome to immigrate. The Israeli “law of return,” which is a statutory right for Jews to immigrate to Israel, is a central feature of Israeli immigration and citizenship law. Many Jews who would immigrate to Israel might do so to escape antisemitism in their country of origin. However, when it is more dangerous for a Jew to live in Israel than it is for him to remain in exile [גלות], the reason for him to make Aliyah [עליה] (immigrate to Israel) is negated. Likewise, when it is more dangerous for a Jewish immigrant to remain in Israel than it is for him to return to a foreign country where he has a legal right to reside, the incentive for a Jew who has made Aliyah [עליה] to remain in Israel is placed at-risk. Furthermore, Arab-Israelis who would commit terrorist acts against Jewish-Israelis have made no secret of the fact that they would like to permanently alter the Jewish character of the State of Israel: Today, I am in the minority. The state is democratic. Who says that in the year 2000 we Arabs will still be the minority. Today I accept the fact that this is a Jewish state with an Arab minority. But when we are the majority, I will not accept the fact of a Jewish state with an Arab majority. Na’ama Saud, a teacher from the Israeli Arab village of Araba; May 28, 1976. Under the current system, which extends voting rights to all Israeli citizens, Jewish and Arab alike, there is no legal impediment to Arab-Israelis expanding their electoral influence and then voting to change the name of the “State of Israel” to, G-d forbid, the “State of Palestine.” If that were ever to occur, it would then be but a small step to repeal the Israeli Law of Return; deny Jews the rights of citizenship; and even expel Jews from Eretz Yisra’el, just as Arabs have expelled Jews from Arab lands. These undesirable events, all of which the Torah and Rabbis have provided ample warning, can be avoided only if the Jewish people of Eretz Yisra’el make the Torah their constitution and use it to govern themselves. Doing so will not be easy, however, HaShem has promised that He will bestow abundant blessings upon us if we, the Jewish people, follow 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 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.
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.
|
THE ISRAEL FOUNDATION
