2 Elul 5774
Baruch Dayan Emet, Aharon Sofer has been found a niftar. Baruch Hashem, that his body will now be brought to kevurah and his parents now know his fate. Preliminary reports say that he might have fallen over a cliff. He was not found in the area where he was last seen, but farther away in another direction.
While we've been davening for Aharon, a"h and condemning the failed policies of the Israeli government vis a vis Hamas, ISIS is approaching the Golan. They have reportedly kidnapped UN peacekeepers and have executed 250 Syrian soldiers.
Russia has invaded Ukraine. And the Ebola virus just isn't letting up.
"...who will live and who will die; who will die at his predestined time and who before his time;...."
28 August 2014
27 August 2014
Birthpangs of Mashiach?
1 Elul 5774
Rosh Chodesh Bet
I was thinking about how I've never seen a conflict like this that was interspersed with so many ceasefires and calls for ceasefire. The stopping and starting - on again, off again - character of this latest war made me think of labor contractions (otherwise known as "birthpangs").
I wondered what it would look like if I could graph a timeline of the ceasefires, so I went about collecting the data. And let me tell you, it wasn't easy to tell when it was ceasefire or not because more often than not, firing went right on during the ceasefires.
I couldn't figure out how to make a graph, but from this chart that I made and pictured above, it is clear that the duration of the ceasefires were getting longer, while the interval between them tended generally towards getting shorter. This reflects the character of contractions as labor progresses.
Maybe this is another sign to encourage us - to show us that we really have entered into the time period known as "the birthpangs of Mashiach."
_____________________
Note: * On the chart above indicates proposed ending date and duration.
Rosh Chodesh Bet
I was thinking about how I've never seen a conflict like this that was interspersed with so many ceasefires and calls for ceasefire. The stopping and starting - on again, off again - character of this latest war made me think of labor contractions (otherwise known as "birthpangs").
I wondered what it would look like if I could graph a timeline of the ceasefires, so I went about collecting the data. And let me tell you, it wasn't easy to tell when it was ceasefire or not because more often than not, firing went right on during the ceasefires.
I couldn't figure out how to make a graph, but from this chart that I made and pictured above, it is clear that the duration of the ceasefires were getting longer, while the interval between them tended generally towards getting shorter. This reflects the character of contractions as labor progresses.
Maybe this is another sign to encourage us - to show us that we really have entered into the time period known as "the birthpangs of Mashiach."
_____________________
Note: * On the chart above indicates proposed ending date and duration.
Is the World of Sheker Ready to Fall?
1 Elul 5774
Rosh Chodesh Bet
In the past, lies, generally speaking, had to contain some kernel of truth to be swallowed. But, today, the big lies seem to be completely disconnected from reality.
Hamas leaders stand in the rubble of destroyed cities with none of their demands as yet fulfilled and declare victory over Israel. The Israeli government announces a big win for the IDF as the southern towns sit empty and everyone waits to see when the quiet will break once again. The public believes none of it - on either side.
It's clear to the whole world that there are no winners here. I hope that means the World of Sheker is getting ready to fall for good!
Rosh Chodesh Bet
In the past, lies, generally speaking, had to contain some kernel of truth to be swallowed. But, today, the big lies seem to be completely disconnected from reality.
Hamas leaders stand in the rubble of destroyed cities with none of their demands as yet fulfilled and declare victory over Israel. The Israeli government announces a big win for the IDF as the southern towns sit empty and everyone waits to see when the quiet will break once again. The public believes none of it - on either side.
It's clear to the whole world that there are no winners here. I hope that means the World of Sheker is getting ready to fall for good!
26 August 2014
We're Moving Into a New Phase of the Conflict
30 Menachem Av 5774
I don't know if you've been keeping up with the matzav today, but, as could have been expected for Rosh Chodesh Elul - damage and injuries have increased to a level not yet seen on this side of the conflict.
The morning began with a direct missile hit on a house in Ashkelon which injured 59 people.
A rocket landed in an Ashdod kindergarten playground. Six people had to be treated for hysteria.
A rocket exploded on a road in S'derot damaging a number of cars in the area. One person was treated for hysteria.
A rocket struck a house in Eshkol killing (updated) two and injuring six - two seriously.
That's as of 6:50 pm. And those are just the missiles that scored hits.
A few minutes ago, it was announced that Israel has agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire which is scheduled to go into effect "tonight." All this time, Israel has been negotiating under fire.
However, it's not over until HASHEM says it's over. With the month of repentance just beginning, I'm guessing that it's only gonna get worse from here. People are gonna wake up to the fact that it was HASHEM protecting us all this time and not Kipat Barzel!
I don't know if you've been keeping up with the matzav today, but, as could have been expected for Rosh Chodesh Elul - damage and injuries have increased to a level not yet seen on this side of the conflict.
The morning began with a direct missile hit on a house in Ashkelon which injured 59 people.
A rocket landed in an Ashdod kindergarten playground. Six people had to be treated for hysteria.
A rocket exploded on a road in S'derot damaging a number of cars in the area. One person was treated for hysteria.
A rocket struck a house in Eshkol killing (updated) two and injuring six - two seriously.
That's as of 6:50 pm. And those are just the missiles that scored hits.
A few minutes ago, it was announced that Israel has agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire which is scheduled to go into effect "tonight." All this time, Israel has been negotiating under fire.
However, it's not over until HASHEM says it's over. With the month of repentance just beginning, I'm guessing that it's only gonna get worse from here. People are gonna wake up to the fact that it was HASHEM protecting us all this time and not Kipat Barzel!
The Feiglin Plan for Gaza
30 Menachem Av 5774
Rosh Chodesh Elul AlephShared on Moshe Feiglin's Facebook page...
PM Netanyahu did not accept my proposal for an emigration basket for the Arabs of Gaza. Instead, an emigration basket is now being put together for the Jews of the towns bordering on Gaza. Who knows? Maybe Tel-Avivians who tire of the rockets will also request government aid to migrate elsewhere. Why not?
It is history's Law of Connected Vessels. The question is not if people will be forced to emigrate. The question is simply who those people will be...
(Jerusalem Post: Likud MK Feiglin Proposes Paying Arabs to Leave Gaza)Or to put it another way...
...you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their temples, destroy their molten idols, and demolish their high places. You shall clear out the Land and settle in it, for I have given you the Land to occupy it.
...But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you settle. And it will be that what I had intended to do to them, I will do to you. (Bamidbar 33:52-56)
Israelis flee in droves from Hamas fire
25 August 2014
Gaza District, Palestine
Rosh Chodesh Elul Aleph
It has come to my attention that there are maps showing the alottment of land given to the twelve tribes of Israel with the Gaza area labeled as Philistine territory. If one didn't know better, one would think that the land had been designated for them by G-d, rather than to shevet Yehudah.
Furthermore, there are actually good Jews who believe that Gaza is not part of Eretz Yisrael and this erroneous thinking caused no small amount of confusion among good Jews everywhere when the regime in Israel decided to expell all Jews from that area in 2005.
Let's go back just a bit and find out more about this people who contests our right to this land to this day.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica) Philistine, one of a people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine in the 12th century bc, about the time of the arrival of the Israelites. According to biblical tradition (Deuteronomy 2:23; Jeremiah 47:4), the Philistines came from Caphtor (possibly Crete). They are mentioned in Egyptian records as prst, one of the Sea Peoples that invaded Egypt in about 1190 bc after ravaging Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria. After being repulsed by the Egyptians, they occupied the coastal plain of Palestine from Joppa (modern Tel Aviv–Yafo) southward to the Gaza Strip. The area contained the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistine confederacy (Gaza, Ashkelon [Ascalon], Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron) and was known as Philistia, or the Land of the Philistines. It was from this designation that the whole of the country was later called Palestine by the Greeks.
The Philistines expanded into neighbouring areas and soon came into conflict with the Israelites, a struggle represented by the Samson saga (Judges 13–16) in the Old Testament. With their superior arms and military organization the Philistines were able (c. 1050) to occupy part of the Judaean hill country. They were finally defeated by the Israelite king David (10th century), and thereafter their history was that of individual cities rather than of a people. After the division of Judah and Israel (10th century), the Philistines regained their independence and often engaged in border battles with those kingdoms.
By the early part of the 7th century, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, Ashdod, and probably Gath were vassals of the Assyrian rulers; but during the second half of that century the cities became Egyptian vassals. With the conquests of the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II (605–562) in Syria and Palestine, the Philistine cities became part of the Neo-Babylonian empire. In later times they came under the control of Persia, Greece, and Rome.
There are no documents in the Philistine language, which was probably replaced by Canaanite, Aramaic, and, later, Greek. Nor is much known of the Philistine religion, since all their gods mentioned in biblical and other sources have Semitic names and were probably borrowed from the conquered Canaanites. Until their defeat by David, the Philistine cities were ruled by seranim, “lords,” who acted in council for the common good of the nation. After their defeat, the seranim were replaced by kings.
The Philistines long held a monopoly on smithing iron, a skill probably acquired in Anatolia. At sites occupied by the Philistines at an early period, a distinctive type of pottery, a variety of the 13th-century Mycenaean styles, has been found.The first thing that pops out immediately is that Tel-Aviv, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Gat - all major Israeli cities today - were occupied by the Philistines no less than Gaza City and yet no one today would imply that these areas are not part of Eretz Yisrael. (More on that later.)
The second thing that pops out is the confirmation that the name Palestine is indeed a reference to the Philistines and that it was not the Romans who first used it in reference to Eretz Yisrael, but the Greeks, and then, of course, the Romans perpetuated that lie for another two thousand years, right up until the present time.
The final item of interest is the fact that the Philistines were a "non-people" from the very beginning. Having neither a language nor a religion of their own, they "borrowed" from surrounding peoples who had actually developed their own cultures. I find that to be very significant.
Now, about Gaza not being part of Eretz Yisrael, besides the argument I made above about the rest of the Philistine territory being accepted by all as being Eretz Yisrael today, I'll prove to you that it is so from the Torah.
(B'reishit 26) And there was a famine in the land, aside from the first famine that had been in the days of Abraham, and Isaac went to Abimelech the king of the Philistines, to Gerar. And the Lord appeared to him, and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land that I will tell you. Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you, and I will bless you, for to you and to your seed will I give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham, your father. ...And Isaac dwelt in Gerar.Furthermore, Yitzchak had been offered as a korban to Hashem and as such was not allowed to leave the borders of Eretz Yisrael. That's why Hashem told him specifically not to go down to Egypt as his father had done before him.
So, there you have the irrefutable proof that the so-called land of the Philistines - Gaza - IS Eretz Yisrael.
One has to wonder, though, how it is they possess such power even to the present day; even to the fact that the Greeks and Romans, right up to the United Nations, prefer to call this entire land by their name. I think you'll be amazed, as I was.
Avraham Avinu had some dealings with the Philistines...
(B'reishit 21) Now it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol his general said to Abraham, saying, "God is with you in all that you do. And now, swear to me here by God, that you will not lie to me or to my son or to my grandson; according to the kindness that I have done with you, you shall do with me, and with the land wherein you have sojourned." And Abraham said, "I will swear." And Abraham contended with Abimelech about the well of water that the servants of Abimelech had forcibly seized. And Abimelech said, "I do not know who did this thing, neither did you tell me, nor did I hear [of it] until today."
And Abraham took flocks and cattle, and gave them to Abimelech, and they both formed a covenant. And Abimelech said to Abraham, "What are these seven ewe lambs, which you have placed by themselves?" And he said, "For these seven ewe lambs you shall take from my hand, in order that it be to me for a witness that I dug this well." Therefore, he named that place Beer sheba, for there they both swore. And they formed a covenant in Beer-sheba, and Abimelech and Phicol his general arose, and they returned to the land of the Philistines.Wait a minute! Weren't we told never to make a covenant with any of the people living in the land? I found some information at a website called The Strange Side of Jewish History to be very enlightening...
A medrash (Bereishis Rabba 54:5) seems to indicate that the resilience of the Plishtim was on account of an act of Avraham Avinu that wreaked harm upon his descendants. Of course, we must try to understand this according to Avraham’s unfathomable madreigah.
“The Holy One said to him (Avraham), ‘You gave him seven sheep; by your life, I will delay the joy of your sons for seven generations (in Egypt). You gave him seven sheep; corresponding to that, they will kill seven tzaddikim among your offspring, and they are: Shimshon, Chofni and Pinchas, Shaul and his three sons. You gave him seven sheep; corresponding to that, they will destroy seven sanctuaries of your sons, and these are: the [original] Ohel Moed, [the mishkan at] Nov, Gilgal, Givon and Shiloh, and the two Batei Mikdash. You gave him seven sheep; corresponding to that, my aron will circle the fields of the Plishtim for seven months.”
In a similar vein, Rashi (Shoftim 1:21) states that Avraham’s treaty with Avimelech prevented Klal Yisroel from gaining possession of Yerushalayim until Dovid HaMelech’s reign.
Commenting on the verse, “The sons of Binyamin did not disinherit the Yevusi who dwelled in Yerushalayim” (Shoftim 1:21), Rashi writes, “[The Yevusi] were descendants of Avimelech and [the Jewish people] did not disinherit [the Yevusi] because of the oath [Avraham had made] until Dovid [HaMelech] came, because [Avimelech’s] grandson was still alive and [Avraham] had sworn [a peace treaty also with Avimelech’s] great-grandson and his grandson.”
Rashi’s statement seems puzzling: why should there be a connection between Yerushalayim in the middle of Eretz Yisroel and Eretz Plishtim in Gaza towards the southwest?
Actually, this question is a geographical misconception. Although the southern border of Gaza lies on Egypt’s border, its northern tip is about thirty miles south of Yerushalayim. As the crow flies, Yerushalayim is only 48 miles northeast of modern Gaza City and, in olden times, when Gaza stretched north to Ashdod, it was even closer. In fact, Gaza was part of shevet Yehuda – if the Jews could only get their hands on it.And somehow, the world, on some soul-level has always known that and this is the reason, when they wanted to deny our right to the land, they named it for the Philistines, who held the power that they lacked. And now, we can understand better why Yerushalayim is the sticking point to every agreement the regime tries to make with these present-day P'lishtim.
Extrapolating from the medrashim and Rashi, one could argue that the tenacity of the Plishtim and Gaza’s subsequent residents also stems from Avraham’s covenant with Avimelech.
It's more than a little interesting that it was David HaMelech who finally defeated the Philistines and it will, apparently, be his offspring Mashiach Ben David who will be the one to finish them off in the future. From the same source as above...
THE RADAK’S (1160–1235) WARNING
Commenting on how the Plishtim plugged up Yitzchak’s wells the Radak writes, “All these episodes about digging the wells and giving them names are to tell us that, in the part of Eretz Yisroel that he had a hold on, he dug wells as he pleased without objections. All this was a forewarning concerning what Hashem had set aside for his descendants.
“But the land of the Plishtim, even though it is part of Eretz Yisroel, was not held in the hands [of the Patriarchs] and therefore [the Plishtim] quarreled with them about the border, and all this was to inform [the Patriarchs’ descendants] that not all [of Eretz Yisroel] would be held in their hands. Even though it was apportioned, it would not be held until the end, in the days of Moshiach, like the land of the three nations – the Keini, the Knizi and the Kadmoni” (Bereishis 26:23).Now, we can see why the Erev Rav regime is helpless to do anything with Hamas and this just points up how close we really are to the revelation of Mashiach Tzidkeinu as everyone knows this situation cannot go on much longer.
Getting a Head Start on Elul 5774
29 Menachem Av 5774
Erev Rosh Chodesh Elul
Today is a Yom Kippur Katan before Rosh Chodesh Elul which begins the 40 days of repentance before Yom Kippur itself. In order to get a head start on Elul 5774, take a look at this wonderful article from the OU's Jewish Action magazine...
Why Is It So Hard to Change? The Six Obstacles to Teshuvah
by Abraham J. Twerski | September 19, 2012 in Jewish Living
“Of course a person should do teshuvah, but I am a bit puzzled. I observe Shabbos, I keep kosher and taharas hamishpachah. I daven every day, I attend a Daf Yomi shiur and I am honest in my business dealings. What exactly should I do teshuvah for?”
People may not actually say this, but some certainly think this way. Yet King Solomon said, “For there is no man so fully righteous that he always does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Even the greatest tzaddik is not free of sin. How, then, can a person who is quite far from being a perfect tzaddik not feel a need to do teshuvah?
Several psychological defense mechanisms tend to discourage an individual from changing, from doing teshuvah. The obstacles to teshuvah are denial, rationalization, trivializing, projection, habituation and ego.
1} Denial
Throughout Tanach, the prophets repeatedly exhorted the Jewish people to abandon their errant behavior, but as is evident from the Scriptures, they were not very successful. Isaiah explains why. “Surely you hear, but you fail to comprehend; and surely you see, but you fail to know. This people is fattening its heart, hardening its ears and sealing its eyes, lest it see with its eyes and hear with its ears and understand with its heart, so that it will repent and be healed” (Isaiah 6:9-10). No psychology text can improve on Isaiah’s description of denial. Because people are intent on doing whatever they wish, they resort to denial, one of the best-known defense mechanisms so that they are unaffected by the reality of what they see and hear.
We are creatures of habit, and we are comfortable when we can do things without the need to exert much effort. Change is uncomfortable, and in order to avoid this discomfort, our minds block out those realizations that would call for change. The natural state of all matter—including human beings—is inertia, but one must force himself to overcome inertia in order to grow and change.
2} Rationalization
Denial enables a person to maintain the status quo. When reality threatens to overcome denial, the mind employs other defense mechanisms to reinforce the denial—such as rationalization. One of the themes in Proverbs is the tendency to rationalize. Ramchal says, “If a person is confronted with one’s laziness, one will doubtless come back with many quotations culled from the sages and the Scriptures and with intellectual arguments, all supporting, according to his misguided mind, his leniency with himself” (Mesillas Yesharim, Chapter 6).
Denial is not always possible, so the mind is very clever in rationalizing; in other words, justifying one’s actions by giving logical-sounding reasons for them. The Torah stresses the gravity of speaking lashon hara, for example, which requires both teshuvah vis-à-vis Hashem and forgiveness from the victim. Oftentimes one who speaks lashon hara may attempt to justify his behavior by claiming “But it’s the truth!” Defamatory speech is lashon hara, even if it is true.
3} Habituation
The Talmud says that when a person does a forbidden act several times, it loses its opprobrium. Habituation enables one to think that these transgressions are permissible. His conscience is lulled into thinking, It’s really not so terrible. Thus, even though the morning minyan begins promptly at 6:30 am and ends at 7:05, there are some minyannaires who habitually show up at 6:45 and leave before everyone else. They are so accustomed to arriving late and davening at breakneck speed, they see nothing wrong with it.
4} Projection
One who projects onto another will not be able to do genuine teshuvah. Sins committed against another person are not forgiven on Yom Kippur unless one has obtained forgiveness from the offended individual. The defense mechanism of projection turns things around: I did not offend him. He offended me. He should really be apologizing to me.
5} Trivializing
The tendency to trivialize halachah is another impediment in the road to teshuvah. I missed Minchah, but I was so busy at the office. Anyway, it’s not a big deal. Or, I chatted with my friend during the Reading of the Torah, but doesn’t everybody? (This is the only sin for which the Shulchan Aruch says, “There is no forgiveness.”)
6} Ego
Inasmuch as teshuvah for an offense against another person requires that one make amends and ask forgiveness, there is ego resistance to humbling oneself, apologizing and making restitution where required.
One of the axioms of human behavior is that a person will always choose to do that which is most comfortable for him. We find that an addict will not agree to change until he hits “rock-bottom,” i.e., that the pain incident to the addiction is greater than the pleasure it provides. This is equally true of the non-addict. Therefore, oftentimes individuals only agree to change when they have reached rock-bottom.
But what can constitute rock-bottom for the non-addict? A person who contemplates his life goals and sees that his behavior is jeopardizing his reaching those goals may reach rock-bottom. But this requires giving serious thought to defining one’s goals and purpose in life. Confronting death can usually lead to such introspection. I recently attended the funeral of a great talmid chacham. A man next to me said somewhat somberly, “Reb Z. is taking along with him much Torah and mitzvos. What will I be taking along?”
The first chapter in Mesillas Yesharim is entitled “A Person’s Obligation in His World.” The theme of Mesillas Yesharim is the refinement of one’s character. Changing one’s character traits is a major challenge and is usually met with great resistance. Many times real change won’t happen until one realizes that unless one does so, his life is meaningless.
Uncompromised honesty is necessary to see through the psychological defenses that are a barrier to teshuvah. Rosh Hashanah, the Ten Days of Penitence and Yom Kippur are days in which one should be inspired to evaluate the meaning of one’s life. Only when we are aware that we need “fixing” will we do teshuvah.
The founder and medical director emeritus of Gateway Rehabilitation Center in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, Rabbi Abraham Twerski, MD, is one of the country’s leading experts on drug and alcohol rehabilitation. He is the author of numerous books and his column is regularly featured in Jewish Action.
This article was featured in Jewish Action Fall 2012.
Erev Rosh Chodesh Elul
Today is a Yom Kippur Katan before Rosh Chodesh Elul which begins the 40 days of repentance before Yom Kippur itself. In order to get a head start on Elul 5774, take a look at this wonderful article from the OU's Jewish Action magazine...
Why Is It So Hard to Change? The Six Obstacles to Teshuvah
by Abraham J. Twerski | September 19, 2012 in Jewish Living
“Of course a person should do teshuvah, but I am a bit puzzled. I observe Shabbos, I keep kosher and taharas hamishpachah. I daven every day, I attend a Daf Yomi shiur and I am honest in my business dealings. What exactly should I do teshuvah for?”
People may not actually say this, but some certainly think this way. Yet King Solomon said, “For there is no man so fully righteous that he always does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Even the greatest tzaddik is not free of sin. How, then, can a person who is quite far from being a perfect tzaddik not feel a need to do teshuvah?
Several psychological defense mechanisms tend to discourage an individual from changing, from doing teshuvah. The obstacles to teshuvah are denial, rationalization, trivializing, projection, habituation and ego.
1} Denial
Throughout Tanach, the prophets repeatedly exhorted the Jewish people to abandon their errant behavior, but as is evident from the Scriptures, they were not very successful. Isaiah explains why. “Surely you hear, but you fail to comprehend; and surely you see, but you fail to know. This people is fattening its heart, hardening its ears and sealing its eyes, lest it see with its eyes and hear with its ears and understand with its heart, so that it will repent and be healed” (Isaiah 6:9-10). No psychology text can improve on Isaiah’s description of denial. Because people are intent on doing whatever they wish, they resort to denial, one of the best-known defense mechanisms so that they are unaffected by the reality of what they see and hear.
We are creatures of habit, and we are comfortable when we can do things without the need to exert much effort. Change is uncomfortable, and in order to avoid this discomfort, our minds block out those realizations that would call for change. The natural state of all matter—including human beings—is inertia, but one must force himself to overcome inertia in order to grow and change.
2} Rationalization
Denial enables a person to maintain the status quo. When reality threatens to overcome denial, the mind employs other defense mechanisms to reinforce the denial—such as rationalization. One of the themes in Proverbs is the tendency to rationalize. Ramchal says, “If a person is confronted with one’s laziness, one will doubtless come back with many quotations culled from the sages and the Scriptures and with intellectual arguments, all supporting, according to his misguided mind, his leniency with himself” (Mesillas Yesharim, Chapter 6).
Denial is not always possible, so the mind is very clever in rationalizing; in other words, justifying one’s actions by giving logical-sounding reasons for them. The Torah stresses the gravity of speaking lashon hara, for example, which requires both teshuvah vis-à-vis Hashem and forgiveness from the victim. Oftentimes one who speaks lashon hara may attempt to justify his behavior by claiming “But it’s the truth!” Defamatory speech is lashon hara, even if it is true.
3} Habituation
The Talmud says that when a person does a forbidden act several times, it loses its opprobrium. Habituation enables one to think that these transgressions are permissible. His conscience is lulled into thinking, It’s really not so terrible. Thus, even though the morning minyan begins promptly at 6:30 am and ends at 7:05, there are some minyannaires who habitually show up at 6:45 and leave before everyone else. They are so accustomed to arriving late and davening at breakneck speed, they see nothing wrong with it.
4} Projection
One who projects onto another will not be able to do genuine teshuvah. Sins committed against another person are not forgiven on Yom Kippur unless one has obtained forgiveness from the offended individual. The defense mechanism of projection turns things around: I did not offend him. He offended me. He should really be apologizing to me.
5} Trivializing
The tendency to trivialize halachah is another impediment in the road to teshuvah. I missed Minchah, but I was so busy at the office. Anyway, it’s not a big deal. Or, I chatted with my friend during the Reading of the Torah, but doesn’t everybody? (This is the only sin for which the Shulchan Aruch says, “There is no forgiveness.”)
6} Ego
Inasmuch as teshuvah for an offense against another person requires that one make amends and ask forgiveness, there is ego resistance to humbling oneself, apologizing and making restitution where required.
One of the axioms of human behavior is that a person will always choose to do that which is most comfortable for him. We find that an addict will not agree to change until he hits “rock-bottom,” i.e., that the pain incident to the addiction is greater than the pleasure it provides. This is equally true of the non-addict. Therefore, oftentimes individuals only agree to change when they have reached rock-bottom.
But what can constitute rock-bottom for the non-addict? A person who contemplates his life goals and sees that his behavior is jeopardizing his reaching those goals may reach rock-bottom. But this requires giving serious thought to defining one’s goals and purpose in life. Confronting death can usually lead to such introspection. I recently attended the funeral of a great talmid chacham. A man next to me said somewhat somberly, “Reb Z. is taking along with him much Torah and mitzvos. What will I be taking along?”
The first chapter in Mesillas Yesharim is entitled “A Person’s Obligation in His World.” The theme of Mesillas Yesharim is the refinement of one’s character. Changing one’s character traits is a major challenge and is usually met with great resistance. Many times real change won’t happen until one realizes that unless one does so, his life is meaningless.
Uncompromised honesty is necessary to see through the psychological defenses that are a barrier to teshuvah. Rosh Hashanah, the Ten Days of Penitence and Yom Kippur are days in which one should be inspired to evaluate the meaning of one’s life. Only when we are aware that we need “fixing” will we do teshuvah.
The founder and medical director emeritus of Gateway Rehabilitation Center in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, Rabbi Abraham Twerski, MD, is one of the country’s leading experts on drug and alcohol rehabilitation. He is the author of numerous books and his column is regularly featured in Jewish Action.
This article was featured in Jewish Action Fall 2012.
24 August 2014
Aliyah - Is It A Mitzvah?
29 Menachem Av 5774
Erev Rosh Chodesh Elul
Just because a mitzvah cannot be performed - for whatever reason - that does not nullify the mitzvah. If a Jew has no access to tefillin, the laying of tefillin does not cease to be a mitzvah. If a Jew cannot find an etrog, arba minim does not cease to be a mitzvah.Why then do we want to pretend that yishuv Eretz Yisrael is not a mitzvah - escpecially in a time period when its gates are wide open to every Jew on the planet.
Just as it's true that there were periods in our history when yishuv Eretz Yisrael was an impossbile dream for most of world Jewry, it's just as true that there were always a handful of Jews who managed it. Our Holy Land was never completely bereft of Jews. And how much more so now, should there be no question of the validity of the mitzvah. Truly, there is nothing preventing any Jew from fulfilling it except the real desire to do so.
While the Ramban included yishuv Eretz Yisrael on his list of the 613 mitzvot, the Rambam has been famously (yet erroneously) quoted as not considering it as such since he did not include it in his own list.
But, consider this. Most recipes begin by telling you to mix a list of ingredients. Rarely do they tell you first to get out a bowl and spoon. That's a given, is it not? What are you going to mix your ingredients in, if you don't use a bowl and spoon? It might sound silly to your ears, but it's the same with the 613 mitzvot. They were meant to be performed in Eretz Yisrael, so it's simply a given that the recipe for fulfilling all the other mitzvot begin with yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Until then, it's all a mental exercise.
נערך על ידי הרב
The Vilna Gaon says there are several thousand (!) mitzvot m’doraita, and the technical question of how to settle that with the mesorah that counts 613 (Makot 23b) provides some interesting pilpulim but there’s no Nafka Mina (practical ramification) whatsoever (מעלות התורה, עמ' סו במהד' י-ם, תשנ"א). Everyone agrees there must be a menora in the Beit HaMikdash, but there’s no difference whether it’s 1 of the 613 or included in the mitzva of "v’asu li mikdash" (see Sefer Hamitzvot, shoresh 12)! Everyone agrees one must believe in Hashem but many don’t consider it one of the 613 (see Ramban on mizva 1).
Only the Megilat Esther, who is not considered by any accounts a posek, suggests that maybe the reason the Rambam doesn’t count mitzvat yishuv haAretz as a mitzva is because it’s not applicable during galut (and the Rambam only counts mitzvoth which apply in all times, Sefer HaMitzvot, shoresh 3). This is only one of many possible reasons suggested - although for those living in America it is obviously popular! It is clearly wrong (something I would never say about any opinion of a rishon on any issue, but the Megilat Esther can hardly be considered a halachic authority, surely not a rishon - there is not even one (!) halacha in his name brought in the entire Shulchan Aruch and not everyone who lived in the period of rishonim has that status). The mistake of the Megilat Esther is self-evident in the Rambam himself in hil. Avadim 8,8, where the Rambam takes the trouble to state explicitly that the mitzvat to live in Eretz Yisrael is in all generations, also during galut, even if the Land is in the hands of the gentiles!
Additionally, in hil. Mlachim 5, 12, the Rambam says "a person should always live in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city of gentiles, and not in chu"l even in a Jewish city". The Rambam should have sufficed with his opening statement ("a person should always live in Eretz Yisrael), yet again he goes out of his way to give an example ("even in a city of gentiles, and not in chu"l even in a Jewish city", clearly referring to the period of galut), where we (or the Megilat Esther!) may have thought otherwise!
Another unquestionable proof regarding the Rambam’s opinion is in hilchot Mlachim 7, 14, that the only p’tur (exemption) from the Israeli army (in milchemet r’shut- an optional war) for one who planted a vineyard (and didn’t redeem it in the fourth year) or one who built a house (and has yet to dedicate it) is if they ‘re in ErY. As usual, the Rambam takes his halachot straight from the Talmudic sources, in this case from the Yrushalmi Sotah 8, 4, which explains the reason is because only in ER.Y is planting a vine and building a house a mitzva, that of yishuv ErY. This exemption from the army is a halacha m’doraita, and there is no other way to explain the Rambam but that he holds mitzvat yishuv ErY is a mitzvah d’oraita.
I personally think that it is not kavod to the Megilat Esther even to quote his opinion which he clearly did not check up in the Mishneh Torah, where the Rambam’s consistent shita (see footnote 1 ) is that it’s a mitzva D’oraita 2 in all times, explicitly contradicting the Megilat Esther’s suggested explanation of the Rambam.
[Ironically, today with the advent of the State of Israel, even the Megilat Esther who was often cited as the opinion who justifies living in chu"l, apparently holds that the mitzvah has returned! For he opines that according to the Rambam there is no mitzvah until the Land is in our hands ("… after we were exiled, this mitzvah is not practiced until the coming of the Machiach… that conquering the Land is a mitzvah when we are not subjected to non-Jewish rule". And as the Rambam himself writes, hil. Tshuva 9, 2; Milachim 12, 2, we know we are in the times of mashiach if we have an independent state, and we’re not under foreign rule. In other words, today, even the Megilat Esther would agree, for even if the mashiach has yet to come, we are already in what the Rambam terms (ibid) "the days of Mashiach"!].
If so, why doesn’t the Rambam count aliya as one of his 613 mitzvot? The following are several, among many explanations:
1. The Chatam Sofer (shu"t Yoreh De’ah, 234): the chova to live in Aretz is based on the exceptional kdusha here, and there is therefore no need to call it "just" a mizva.
2. The Avnei Nezer (shu"t Orach Chaim, vol. II, 535, 8) says its included in the mitzva of kibbush haAretz ("haCharem Tacharimem").
3. Rav Kook quotes the Or haChayim (end of p. Nitzavim), that living in Aretz encompasses all of the mitzvot in the Torah, and need not be counted as "only" one mitzvah (shoresh 4).
4. Eretz Chemda (R. Shaul Yisraeli, p.33): it’s included in "v’achalta v’savata uverachta et Hashem Elokecha al haAretz haTova" if we thank Hashem for (literally: "on") the Land which He gave us, we obviously must be here!
5. The Gadol of Minsk: Shoresh 2 of the Rambam’s rules for what he counts in the 613 and what not: Inferred Mitzvot aren’t among the 613. For example: all agree with the gmara in Ktuvot 72a, that it’s asur m’doraita for a married woman not to cover her hair, yet no opinion counts it as a mitzva because it’s so pashut, the Torah infers it as a given ("when a Sotah is brought to the Mikdash, her hair is then uncovered"- inferring that it obviously was covered, as is obvious to any tzanu’a women in modest countries (not America!- to this very day). So too, anyone who reads the Tanach sees that it is obviously addressing Am Yisrael who is living in Eretz Yisrael. Ex.: Even when Moshe or Y’hoshua are on the east bank of the Jordan river, it’s still called "ever haYarden" (="the other side of the Jordan"), because the reader is living on the west bank, in Eretz Kna’an. Similarly, the western wind is called "yam" (literally: "from the sea") even in Egypt where "the sea" is north- not west! Because for the reader, who is expected to be living in Israel, west is called "from the sea" (see Rashi, Shmot, 10’ 19). 3 It is inferred as a "given" and need not be commanded as 1 of the 613.
6. Rav Yissachar Teichtel, Em haBanim Smecha (p. 151): It’s a basic necessity for our national survival to have Eretz Yisrael, just as there’s no mitzva to breathe because it’s simply a necessity, and the Rambam himself (Sefer haMitzvot, aseh 153) infers this point.
In addition to the Megilat Esther, the other common halachic opinion cited for not making aliya is the opinion of R. Chaim HaKohen in Tosafot Ktuvot 110b who is quoted as if there is no mitzvah today to live in Israel because it’s difficult to fulfill the mitzvoth haTluyot baAretz.
On the other hand, the ba’alei haTosafot in Gittin 8b, Bab Kama 80b, and many other places, agree with Ramban that it’s a mitzva today. See also the Mordechai at the end of Ktuvot who goes so far as to say that the printed edition of Tosafot citing R. Chaim, is just "a miscopy of a mistaken student". A proof can be drawn from the fact that the Tosafot on this part of Ktuvot is edited by R. Shimshon of Shantz (see Ktuvot 90a) who himself led the aliya of 300 rabbanim, who risked their lives under dire conditions to fulfill this mitzva. The Shla (Sha’ar haOtiot 75b) adds that the quote from R. Chaim is illogical, as if we should run away from the mitzvot hatluyot baAretz (!), for there’s no reason we can’t fulfill them today. On the contrary, we are supposed to run after mitzvot, not away from them! The Chida (Yosef Ometz 52) suggests that he must be referring to the time when there was a machloket which year was shmitta, an uncertainty which was already decided several hundred years ago! Alternatively, the Chayei Adam (Chochmat Adam, sha’ar Mishpitei HaAretz, 11, 3) suggests that it is referring to times when people did not know how to fulfill the agricultural mitzvoth, something which surely doesn’t apply today when consumers can easily buy produce with rabbinic supervision that the trumot and ma’asrot etc. have already been tithed.
Additionally, it’s wrong to pit R. Chaim HaKohen against the other rishonim as if they are two equal but conflicting opinions. The Pitchei Tshuva (Even haEzer 75, 5) points out that between the two opinions, the Shulchan Aruch as well as " all the poskim Rishonim vAchronim" hold like the Ramban in this issue. In other words, the sugya has already been decided several hundred years ago. In my opinion it’s even unwise and uneducational to spend so much time on the rejected minority opinions of this particular Tosafot (which we saw even contradicts other Tosafot) and Megilat Esther because it lends legitimicy to the da’at yachid as if it were a legitimate halachic opinion which can be relied upon (see the klalei psika of the Shach on Yoreh De’ah 110, that such a minority opinion isn’t even considered an opinion). Since when do we learn halacha from the Megilat Esther (or even the Rambam, for that matter)? Since their time (about 750 years ago), the universally accepted Shulchan Aruch and Rama have been published and are the definitive halachic decision. They hold that aliya is a mitzvah in all times (Even haEzer 75,3, Orach Chaim 248,4). The only time you’ll hear someone pasken like a rejected da’at yachid against the Shulchan Aruch regarding any mitzvah m’doraita (!) is when he’s fishing for that yearned-for excuse to live in the beloved gashmi’ut of America.
Regarding the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein in his Igrot Moshe (Ev. Ha. ,I, 102) , his chiddush that it’s a mitzva d’oraita but not a chova is exactly that, an innovative chiddush not mentioned by the previous generations. There are over 30 rishonim and achronim who davka explicitly use the word chova or "issur dirat chutz laAretz" (prohibition to live in chu"l) for ex. Rashi Yvamot 64a, Ramban (Aseh 4), Ran (end of Ktuvot), Ra’avad (ibid), Sifre Dvarim (11, 10), Chatam Sofer (above), Gra, Chazon Ish, Avnei Nezer, R. Ya’akov Emdin, etc. etc. (compiled in MeAfar Kumi by my friend, R. Tzvi Glatt HYD in an entire chapter on the topic, pp. 66-70). The klal in halacha is "kol hamishaneh, yado al hatachtona = whoever leaves the accepted opinion, the burden of proof is upon him to prove why he left the accepted opinion, to differ. See the aforementioned sources and you will see that the norm is to say that it’s a chova. Not only the rishonim, but even Chazal themselves use this term, Sifre Dvarim 11, 10, "Coming to Eretz Yisrael is an obligation".
Rav Ovadia Yosef also rejects R. Moshe’s opinion based on the fact that if it were just optional, why would we break up a great marriage, or write a contract on Shabbat for yishuv haAretz? If it’s just optional, the gmara would say in such situations: "just don’t opt for that option and stay married, or don’t m’chalel Shabbat!
R. Avraham Shapira, former Chief Rabbi and Rosh Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav, adds that there is no such thing as an optional mitzvah. If you eat, you are obligated to "bench". If you wear a four-cornered garment, you are obligated in tzitzit. So too, if you "live", you’re obligated to live in Eretz Yisrael. Chazal stress this as well in the Mechilta (midrash halacha on Shmot 23, 13), "and all that I told you to do you must observe", this teaches that there is a prohibition to refrain from doing any positive commandment. 4
If one follows all of the leniencies and stringencies of R. Moshe (e.g. his prohibition against using liquid soap on Shabbat) and the Satmar Rebbi (e.g. that a mechitza must reach the ceiling), then this approach is acceptable. But why utilize their opinion on a mitzvah d’oraita which is "equated with the rest of the mitzvot put together" (Sifre Dvarim Re’eh 12 (=midrash halacha), and Tosefta Avoda Zara 5, 2), just because it’s convenient?! Would they be so lenient regarding not observing Shabbat, Brit Milah, Avoda Zara, Talmud Torah, and Tzedaka, which are similarly "equated with the rest of the mitzvot put together"?
In addition, elsewhere, the Rambam writes (Igeret haRambam, p. 64, Mossad HaRav Kook edition) that even if there were two Jewish states, one is obligated to live in that which is "more Jewish". Kal vaChomer if one lives in a non-Jewish state, he must leave and live in a Jewish state. That’s how we know about the Kuzari nation, because R. Hasdai ibn Shiprut inquired one thousand years ago to the land of Kuzar, saying, "we heard that there’s a Jewish State there, and if so, we all should live there! 5
Another common halachic excuse cited for not making aliya is that it’s difficult to make a living in Israel. Nevertheless, here too, upon examination of the sources, we see that this does not apply today.
No one says "if you can’t make a living you’re exempted" from aliya. To the contrary, all agree that only if you have to beg for a living then you’re patur. There’s a big difference! I published an article in Tchumin (Torani Journal, vol. 22, תחומין כב (תשס"ב), עמ' 355-368) bringing the sources on the topic. The Rambam adds that even during famine (!) when one is allowed to temporarily leave, he shouldn’t do so, for Machlon and Chilyon (Meg. Ruth) were punished with death for leaving during such circumstances (hil. Milachim 5, 9).
The legendary R. Ya’akov Emdin, Sulam Beit-El, p. 14, summarized the issue well when he wrote (more than 200 years ago) "it is truly a recurrent riddle on the holy people of Israel. Regarding other mitzvoth they are extremely strict… spend great sums and make the effort to observe them as meticulously as possible. But why are they lazy and degrade this beloved mitzvah (of aliya), the peg upon which the entire Torah hangs?!"
R. Hillel m’Shklov, a primary student of the Vilna Gaon (Kol haTor p. 534), complains about even the very religious, who twist and turn and even go so far as to revive the rejected opinion that there’s no mitzva today of yishuv Eretz Yisrael, that they are simply the modern day version of the cheit hamraglim, who were the very learned leaders of Israel, yet they were blinded by the yetzer to live in chutz laAretz!
^ 1. וכן בהל' מכירה יד, ח; שמיטה ד, כז; שבת ו, י-יא; אישות יג, יט ועוד.
^ 2.כדמוכך מהמקורות הנ"ל. הגר"מ פיינזטיין, אגרות משה, יו"ד ג, קכב, דוחה את האפשרות שמדובר על מצוה דרבנן, משום שאין זה הגיוני שיתקנו רבנן גזירה כזאת בתקופה שקשה כל כך לגור בארץ, וגם אם תיקנו, זה לא היה תקיף.
^ 3.להוכחות נוספות והרחבה, עיין במאמרי, "ארץ ישראל יסוד התורה", עלוני ממרא 106, ניסן תשמ"ט, עמ' 97-133.
^ 4.עיין בשפתי חכמים על רש"י שם שמסביר על פי זה מדוע מצוות עשה דוחה מצוות לא-תעשה, כי כל עשה הוא גם לא תעשה!
^ 5.האגרת מופיעה בע' 5 בהקדמה למהד' וילנה, תרס"ה.
Erev Rosh Chodesh Elul
Just because a mitzvah cannot be performed - for whatever reason - that does not nullify the mitzvah. If a Jew has no access to tefillin, the laying of tefillin does not cease to be a mitzvah. If a Jew cannot find an etrog, arba minim does not cease to be a mitzvah.Why then do we want to pretend that yishuv Eretz Yisrael is not a mitzvah - escpecially in a time period when its gates are wide open to every Jew on the planet.
Just as it's true that there were periods in our history when yishuv Eretz Yisrael was an impossbile dream for most of world Jewry, it's just as true that there were always a handful of Jews who managed it. Our Holy Land was never completely bereft of Jews. And how much more so now, should there be no question of the validity of the mitzvah. Truly, there is nothing preventing any Jew from fulfilling it except the real desire to do so.
While the Ramban included yishuv Eretz Yisrael on his list of the 613 mitzvot, the Rambam has been famously (yet erroneously) quoted as not considering it as such since he did not include it in his own list.
But, consider this. Most recipes begin by telling you to mix a list of ingredients. Rarely do they tell you first to get out a bowl and spoon. That's a given, is it not? What are you going to mix your ingredients in, if you don't use a bowl and spoon? It might sound silly to your ears, but it's the same with the 613 mitzvot. They were meant to be performed in Eretz Yisrael, so it's simply a given that the recipe for fulfilling all the other mitzvot begin with yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Until then, it's all a mental exercise.
Frequent Questions about Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael
נערך על ידי הרב
The Megilat Esther, R. Chaim in Tosafot, and R. Moshe Feinstein
Although it’s a famous question, the issue of whether Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is one of the 613 mitzvot is just about the most irrelevent of all the so important aspects of Er.Y. It’s usually raised by those looking for an excuse to justify their not making aliya, and if that’s the best they can come up with, it proves the point better than anything!
Although it’s a famous question, the issue of whether Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is one of the 613 mitzvot is just about the most irrelevent of all the so important aspects of Er.Y. It’s usually raised by those looking for an excuse to justify their not making aliya, and if that’s the best they can come up with, it proves the point better than anything!
The Vilna Gaon says there are several thousand (!) mitzvot m’doraita, and the technical question of how to settle that with the mesorah that counts 613 (Makot 23b) provides some interesting pilpulim but there’s no Nafka Mina (practical ramification) whatsoever (מעלות התורה, עמ' סו במהד' י-ם, תשנ"א). Everyone agrees there must be a menora in the Beit HaMikdash, but there’s no difference whether it’s 1 of the 613 or included in the mitzva of "v’asu li mikdash" (see Sefer Hamitzvot, shoresh 12)! Everyone agrees one must believe in Hashem but many don’t consider it one of the 613 (see Ramban on mizva 1).
Only the Megilat Esther, who is not considered by any accounts a posek, suggests that maybe the reason the Rambam doesn’t count mitzvat yishuv haAretz as a mitzva is because it’s not applicable during galut (and the Rambam only counts mitzvoth which apply in all times, Sefer HaMitzvot, shoresh 3). This is only one of many possible reasons suggested - although for those living in America it is obviously popular! It is clearly wrong (something I would never say about any opinion of a rishon on any issue, but the Megilat Esther can hardly be considered a halachic authority, surely not a rishon - there is not even one (!) halacha in his name brought in the entire Shulchan Aruch and not everyone who lived in the period of rishonim has that status). The mistake of the Megilat Esther is self-evident in the Rambam himself in hil. Avadim 8,8, where the Rambam takes the trouble to state explicitly that the mitzvat to live in Eretz Yisrael is in all generations, also during galut, even if the Land is in the hands of the gentiles!
Additionally, in hil. Mlachim 5, 12, the Rambam says "a person should always live in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city of gentiles, and not in chu"l even in a Jewish city". The Rambam should have sufficed with his opening statement ("a person should always live in Eretz Yisrael), yet again he goes out of his way to give an example ("even in a city of gentiles, and not in chu"l even in a Jewish city", clearly referring to the period of galut), where we (or the Megilat Esther!) may have thought otherwise!
Another unquestionable proof regarding the Rambam’s opinion is in hilchot Mlachim 7, 14, that the only p’tur (exemption) from the Israeli army (in milchemet r’shut- an optional war) for one who planted a vineyard (and didn’t redeem it in the fourth year) or one who built a house (and has yet to dedicate it) is if they ‘re in ErY. As usual, the Rambam takes his halachot straight from the Talmudic sources, in this case from the Yrushalmi Sotah 8, 4, which explains the reason is because only in ER.Y is planting a vine and building a house a mitzva, that of yishuv ErY. This exemption from the army is a halacha m’doraita, and there is no other way to explain the Rambam but that he holds mitzvat yishuv ErY is a mitzvah d’oraita.
I personally think that it is not kavod to the Megilat Esther even to quote his opinion which he clearly did not check up in the Mishneh Torah, where the Rambam’s consistent shita (see footnote 1 ) is that it’s a mitzva D’oraita 2 in all times, explicitly contradicting the Megilat Esther’s suggested explanation of the Rambam.
[Ironically, today with the advent of the State of Israel, even the Megilat Esther who was often cited as the opinion who justifies living in chu"l, apparently holds that the mitzvah has returned! For he opines that according to the Rambam there is no mitzvah until the Land is in our hands ("… after we were exiled, this mitzvah is not practiced until the coming of the Machiach… that conquering the Land is a mitzvah when we are not subjected to non-Jewish rule". And as the Rambam himself writes, hil. Tshuva 9, 2; Milachim 12, 2, we know we are in the times of mashiach if we have an independent state, and we’re not under foreign rule. In other words, today, even the Megilat Esther would agree, for even if the mashiach has yet to come, we are already in what the Rambam terms (ibid) "the days of Mashiach"!].
If so, why doesn’t the Rambam count aliya as one of his 613 mitzvot? The following are several, among many explanations:
1. The Chatam Sofer (shu"t Yoreh De’ah, 234): the chova to live in Aretz is based on the exceptional kdusha here, and there is therefore no need to call it "just" a mizva.
2. The Avnei Nezer (shu"t Orach Chaim, vol. II, 535, 8) says its included in the mitzva of kibbush haAretz ("haCharem Tacharimem").
3. Rav Kook quotes the Or haChayim (end of p. Nitzavim), that living in Aretz encompasses all of the mitzvot in the Torah, and need not be counted as "only" one mitzvah (shoresh 4).
4. Eretz Chemda (R. Shaul Yisraeli, p.33): it’s included in "v’achalta v’savata uverachta et Hashem Elokecha al haAretz haTova" if we thank Hashem for (literally: "on") the Land which He gave us, we obviously must be here!
5. The Gadol of Minsk: Shoresh 2 of the Rambam’s rules for what he counts in the 613 and what not: Inferred Mitzvot aren’t among the 613. For example: all agree with the gmara in Ktuvot 72a, that it’s asur m’doraita for a married woman not to cover her hair, yet no opinion counts it as a mitzva because it’s so pashut, the Torah infers it as a given ("when a Sotah is brought to the Mikdash, her hair is then uncovered"- inferring that it obviously was covered, as is obvious to any tzanu’a women in modest countries (not America!- to this very day). So too, anyone who reads the Tanach sees that it is obviously addressing Am Yisrael who is living in Eretz Yisrael. Ex.: Even when Moshe or Y’hoshua are on the east bank of the Jordan river, it’s still called "ever haYarden" (="the other side of the Jordan"), because the reader is living on the west bank, in Eretz Kna’an. Similarly, the western wind is called "yam" (literally: "from the sea") even in Egypt where "the sea" is north- not west! Because for the reader, who is expected to be living in Israel, west is called "from the sea" (see Rashi, Shmot, 10’ 19). 3 It is inferred as a "given" and need not be commanded as 1 of the 613.
6. Rav Yissachar Teichtel, Em haBanim Smecha (p. 151): It’s a basic necessity for our national survival to have Eretz Yisrael, just as there’s no mitzva to breathe because it’s simply a necessity, and the Rambam himself (Sefer haMitzvot, aseh 153) infers this point.
In addition to the Megilat Esther, the other common halachic opinion cited for not making aliya is the opinion of R. Chaim HaKohen in Tosafot Ktuvot 110b who is quoted as if there is no mitzvah today to live in Israel because it’s difficult to fulfill the mitzvoth haTluyot baAretz.
On the other hand, the ba’alei haTosafot in Gittin 8b, Bab Kama 80b, and many other places, agree with Ramban that it’s a mitzva today. See also the Mordechai at the end of Ktuvot who goes so far as to say that the printed edition of Tosafot citing R. Chaim, is just "a miscopy of a mistaken student". A proof can be drawn from the fact that the Tosafot on this part of Ktuvot is edited by R. Shimshon of Shantz (see Ktuvot 90a) who himself led the aliya of 300 rabbanim, who risked their lives under dire conditions to fulfill this mitzva. The Shla (Sha’ar haOtiot 75b) adds that the quote from R. Chaim is illogical, as if we should run away from the mitzvot hatluyot baAretz (!), for there’s no reason we can’t fulfill them today. On the contrary, we are supposed to run after mitzvot, not away from them! The Chida (Yosef Ometz 52) suggests that he must be referring to the time when there was a machloket which year was shmitta, an uncertainty which was already decided several hundred years ago! Alternatively, the Chayei Adam (Chochmat Adam, sha’ar Mishpitei HaAretz, 11, 3) suggests that it is referring to times when people did not know how to fulfill the agricultural mitzvoth, something which surely doesn’t apply today when consumers can easily buy produce with rabbinic supervision that the trumot and ma’asrot etc. have already been tithed.
Additionally, it’s wrong to pit R. Chaim HaKohen against the other rishonim as if they are two equal but conflicting opinions. The Pitchei Tshuva (Even haEzer 75, 5) points out that between the two opinions, the Shulchan Aruch as well as " all the poskim Rishonim vAchronim" hold like the Ramban in this issue. In other words, the sugya has already been decided several hundred years ago. In my opinion it’s even unwise and uneducational to spend so much time on the rejected minority opinions of this particular Tosafot (which we saw even contradicts other Tosafot) and Megilat Esther because it lends legitimicy to the da’at yachid as if it were a legitimate halachic opinion which can be relied upon (see the klalei psika of the Shach on Yoreh De’ah 110, that such a minority opinion isn’t even considered an opinion). Since when do we learn halacha from the Megilat Esther (or even the Rambam, for that matter)? Since their time (about 750 years ago), the universally accepted Shulchan Aruch and Rama have been published and are the definitive halachic decision. They hold that aliya is a mitzvah in all times (Even haEzer 75,3, Orach Chaim 248,4). The only time you’ll hear someone pasken like a rejected da’at yachid against the Shulchan Aruch regarding any mitzvah m’doraita (!) is when he’s fishing for that yearned-for excuse to live in the beloved gashmi’ut of America.
Regarding the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein in his Igrot Moshe (Ev. Ha. ,I, 102) , his chiddush that it’s a mitzva d’oraita but not a chova is exactly that, an innovative chiddush not mentioned by the previous generations. There are over 30 rishonim and achronim who davka explicitly use the word chova or "issur dirat chutz laAretz" (prohibition to live in chu"l) for ex. Rashi Yvamot 64a, Ramban (Aseh 4), Ran (end of Ktuvot), Ra’avad (ibid), Sifre Dvarim (11, 10), Chatam Sofer (above), Gra, Chazon Ish, Avnei Nezer, R. Ya’akov Emdin, etc. etc. (compiled in MeAfar Kumi by my friend, R. Tzvi Glatt HYD in an entire chapter on the topic, pp. 66-70). The klal in halacha is "kol hamishaneh, yado al hatachtona = whoever leaves the accepted opinion, the burden of proof is upon him to prove why he left the accepted opinion, to differ. See the aforementioned sources and you will see that the norm is to say that it’s a chova. Not only the rishonim, but even Chazal themselves use this term, Sifre Dvarim 11, 10, "Coming to Eretz Yisrael is an obligation".
Rav Ovadia Yosef also rejects R. Moshe’s opinion based on the fact that if it were just optional, why would we break up a great marriage, or write a contract on Shabbat for yishuv haAretz? If it’s just optional, the gmara would say in such situations: "just don’t opt for that option and stay married, or don’t m’chalel Shabbat!
R. Avraham Shapira, former Chief Rabbi and Rosh Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav, adds that there is no such thing as an optional mitzvah. If you eat, you are obligated to "bench". If you wear a four-cornered garment, you are obligated in tzitzit. So too, if you "live", you’re obligated to live in Eretz Yisrael. Chazal stress this as well in the Mechilta (midrash halacha on Shmot 23, 13), "and all that I told you to do you must observe", this teaches that there is a prohibition to refrain from doing any positive commandment. 4
If one follows all of the leniencies and stringencies of R. Moshe (e.g. his prohibition against using liquid soap on Shabbat) and the Satmar Rebbi (e.g. that a mechitza must reach the ceiling), then this approach is acceptable. But why utilize their opinion on a mitzvah d’oraita which is "equated with the rest of the mitzvot put together" (Sifre Dvarim Re’eh 12 (=midrash halacha), and Tosefta Avoda Zara 5, 2), just because it’s convenient?! Would they be so lenient regarding not observing Shabbat, Brit Milah, Avoda Zara, Talmud Torah, and Tzedaka, which are similarly "equated with the rest of the mitzvot put together"?
In addition, elsewhere, the Rambam writes (Igeret haRambam, p. 64, Mossad HaRav Kook edition) that even if there were two Jewish states, one is obligated to live in that which is "more Jewish". Kal vaChomer if one lives in a non-Jewish state, he must leave and live in a Jewish state. That’s how we know about the Kuzari nation, because R. Hasdai ibn Shiprut inquired one thousand years ago to the land of Kuzar, saying, "we heard that there’s a Jewish State there, and if so, we all should live there! 5
Another common halachic excuse cited for not making aliya is that it’s difficult to make a living in Israel. Nevertheless, here too, upon examination of the sources, we see that this does not apply today.
No one says "if you can’t make a living you’re exempted" from aliya. To the contrary, all agree that only if you have to beg for a living then you’re patur. There’s a big difference! I published an article in Tchumin (Torani Journal, vol. 22, תחומין כב (תשס"ב), עמ' 355-368) bringing the sources on the topic. The Rambam adds that even during famine (!) when one is allowed to temporarily leave, he shouldn’t do so, for Machlon and Chilyon (Meg. Ruth) were punished with death for leaving during such circumstances (hil. Milachim 5, 9).
The legendary R. Ya’akov Emdin, Sulam Beit-El, p. 14, summarized the issue well when he wrote (more than 200 years ago) "it is truly a recurrent riddle on the holy people of Israel. Regarding other mitzvoth they are extremely strict… spend great sums and make the effort to observe them as meticulously as possible. But why are they lazy and degrade this beloved mitzvah (of aliya), the peg upon which the entire Torah hangs?!"
R. Hillel m’Shklov, a primary student of the Vilna Gaon (Kol haTor p. 534), complains about even the very religious, who twist and turn and even go so far as to revive the rejected opinion that there’s no mitzva today of yishuv Eretz Yisrael, that they are simply the modern day version of the cheit hamraglim, who were the very learned leaders of Israel, yet they were blinded by the yetzer to live in chutz laAretz!
^ 1. וכן בהל' מכירה יד, ח; שמיטה ד, כז; שבת ו, י-יא; אישות יג, יט ועוד.
^ 2.כדמוכך מהמקורות הנ"ל. הגר"מ פיינזטיין, אגרות משה, יו"ד ג, קכב, דוחה את האפשרות שמדובר על מצוה דרבנן, משום שאין זה הגיוני שיתקנו רבנן גזירה כזאת בתקופה שקשה כל כך לגור בארץ, וגם אם תיקנו, זה לא היה תקיף.
^ 3.להוכחות נוספות והרחבה, עיין במאמרי, "ארץ ישראל יסוד התורה", עלוני ממרא 106, ניסן תשמ"ט, עמ' 97-133.
^ 4.עיין בשפתי חכמים על רש"י שם שמסביר על פי זה מדוע מצוות עשה דוחה מצוות לא-תעשה, כי כל עשה הוא גם לא תעשה!
^ 5.האגרת מופיעה בע' 5 בהקדמה למהד' וילנה, תרס"ה.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)