Is There a Real Partner for Peace ?

A recent article published  in the Jerusalem Post (Abbas: 'Not a single Israeli' in future Palestinian state), quoting the remarks of Mahmoud Abbas:  “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands,” must compel us to honestly ask the question: is this really the partner for peace that we have been waiting for?

Since the inception of the modern day State of Israel, efforts at forging a lasting peace with its Arab neighbors has always been among the top priorities. Though true peace is a great and noble ideal, we must not become blinded by its “siren song” and refuse to see the reality as it exists in front of our eyes. Peace is not a one sided decision or state of mind. Rather, peace is the state of affairs that exists between two individuals or societies when they live harmoniously with mutual understanding and respect between one another.

                We must remember that peace needs to start from the ground up and cannot and will not be successful with grand slogans from pontificating politicians. I believe that if we take an objective look at the state of affairs in the Palestinian Authority and in the character of its leader Mahmoud Abbas, we will see that the basic foundation for peace, i.e. mutual understanding and respect, is far from in place. In addition to glorifying terrorists by according them official military funerals and proudly listing their murderous activity, the Palestinian Authority continues to educate its youth to hate and demonize both Jews and the State of Israel. The next generation of children are educated in PA schools regarding the right of Arab return to all of Palestine, completely negating any Jewish right to the Land of Israel. The tragedies of the Holocaust are continuously distorted and a glowing admiration is expressed for the exploits of Hitler in PA literature and school books.  All of the above, coupled with the Palestinian Authorities Charter which calls for the “armed liberation of all of Palestine” and “elimination of Zionism in Palestine,” leads me to believe that mutual respect and understanding is considerably lacking. To say the least.

                Furthermore, the character of Mahmoud Abbas, the man who is supposed to be our partner in peace, should be seriously questioned. This is the man who wrote his doctoral thesis on “The Connection Between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 – 1945”, in which he claimed that the Zionists “created the myth of six million murdered Jews,” dubbing it “a fantastic lie.” (Morris, Benny, Exposing Abbas. The National Interest, May 19, 2011) In addition, Abbas repeatedly refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, going as far as to say on a live television broadcast "You can call yourselves whatever you want, but I will not accept it."  (palwatch.org)  Is such a person really capable of creating peace, mutual understanding and respect with a nation and a people which he constantly vilifies? 

It seems that beginning with the signing of the Oslo Accords until today, the political establishment in the State of Israel is suffering from the “battered spouse syndrome” in regards to the issue of peace in the region. Just like in an abusive relationship where a victim who is abused over a long period of time eventually comes to believe that they are responsible for their own abuse, so too the political establishment believes that the conflict in the region is intrinsically its fault. However, we need to remember that the Arab riots of 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-1939 all occurred before the establishment of the State of Israel. Furthermore, it was not the Jews but the Arabs who rejected the United Nations Partition Plan and went to war in 1948, and the liberation of Judea and Samaria only occurred because in 1967 Jordan proceeded to attack Israel.

The political establishment in Israel needs to realize that it never a good decision to stay in an abusive relationship. Giving the abuser 20% of your home as appeasement will not engender mutual understanding and respect, but will in fact only encourage the abuser to continue their actions. Negotiating for peace is a noble endeavor, but unfortunately, without a real partner in the end nothing lasting will be accomplished.

“Do not be Overly Righteous”-The Challenges of Stringency in Jewish Practice

One of the most divisive issues facing the Jewish world today is the place of Chumrot (religious stringency) in our daily lives.  On the one hand it is undeniably accepted and proper to create a “fence” around the commandments, as did our Sages in times of old in order so that a person should not fall prey to sin, as is written in Ethics of our Fathers “And make a safety fence around the Torah” (Chapter 1:1 ). However, on the other hand, the Torah clearly states, “The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it.” (Devarim 13:1).  Additionally it is written, "Do not be overly righteous” (Ecclesiastes 7:16.). How are we supposed to reconcile these two conflicting interpretations?

Maimonides writes in The Laws of the Rebellious Ones 2:9, “A court has the authority to issue a decree to forbid something which is permitted and have its decree perpetuated for generations to come.” However, he then writes that while this is holds true, if the Sages declare that their rabbinic enactment is to be considered equal to a Torah prohibition, then they are transgressing the verse  “…you shall not add to it.”  This explanation from Maimonides helps us to reconcile our question brought above in regards to how one must balance Chumrot: it is permitted and commendable to make stringencies, but it must be clear and known at all times that it is a stringency and not the law itself. Unfortunately, the failure to comprehend this distinction can lead to devastating conclusions.  

While very much a contemporary issue for our modern times, much has been written and discussed on this topic by leading Jewish thinkers throughout the ages. More than twenty years ago, Rav Solovetchik commented on this phenomenon of adding stringencies and wrote,  “On the one hand the young Talmidei Chachamim(Torah Scholars)  of America occasionally tend towards exaggerated extremism which is frightening in its arrogance; frequently, they move in the opposite direction and agree to concessions and the path of least resistance. In a word they are perplexed in the pathways of Judaism, and this perplexity is the product of an imperfect grasp and experience of the world.” (Al Ahavat HaTorah pg 408) Sadly, this trend is not limited to the United States, and has not slowed down with the passage of time but rather it has intensified on both ends. The exaggerated extremism Rav Solovetchik decries, expressed in the stringencies that are now passed as law, has today surpassed even the wildest of imaginations. And the path of least resistance as referred to above can easily be applied to modern day rabbinic leaders who at times fail to combat this growing trend with a strong voice.

Furthermore, Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin writes that there can be dangerous consequences when practicing stringencies which fall beyond the letter of the law.  He writes quite clearly that in some cases, a person’s intense desire to draw close to God through enacting stringencies can lead to behavior that is against Halacha (Jewish Law). He points out that the entire episode of the rebellion of Korach, which ended in disaster and destruction, was motivated by a pure desire to come close to God. Rabbi Berlin points out that the significance of the commandment of tzitzit (fringes) preceding that of the story of Korach is to allude to the fact that this commandment should preclude such behavior. As the verse states, “and you will see them (tzitzit) and you will remember all of the commandments of Hashem your G-d, and perform them…” The very essence of donning the white and blue strands of tzitzit is to serve as a material reminder for all Jews – those practicing according to letter of law as well as those trying to reach beyond-- to remain within the normative boundaries of halakha(Jewish law). Most symbolically to our discussion, the blue threads of tekhelet (fringes) allude to those who are yearning for the heavens, who wish to elevate their level of religious commitment with the addition of stringencies, Rabbi Berlin reminds them that they must not allow their yearning to lead them to transgress the normative law. (Ha’amek Davar, Bemidbar 15:39.) 

Having established that boundaries are required and that stringencies must be taken on with care, what then is the appropriate course for those who are motivated to practice above the letter of the law? How can they determine the proper circumstances in which to fulfill this worthy aspiration?  Rav Shlomo Aviner provides a rubric which, I believe if followed correctly, will ensure that going beyond the letter of the law will not impinge upon the law itself. First and foremost, he writes, a person must follow the letter of the law and do all that is required, avoiding the negative commandments and observing the positive ones.  Only after fulfilling these baseline requirements, a task which is no simple matter, should a person begin to accept stringiness upon themselves.

With that in place, even once the decision is made to accept a stringency there are still two more conditions that must be taken into account. Rav Aviner writes that first and foremost, a person must consider whether or not the stringency in one matter will lead to a leniency in another. He explains that if a person is stringent and meticulous to perform the command of rebuking ones fellow, until the point where he embarrasses him publicly, this is no longer stringency but rather a leniency in “loving thy neighbor.” I would like to cite additional sources from the Talmud which support the stringency/leniency conundrum which Rav Aviner brings above. The Talmud illustrates the concept of “a pious fool” with the following two examples: A woman is drowning, and a man with the ability to save her does not do so because it is improper to look at a woman. Similarly, a small child is drowning and a person delays saving him until he removes his tefillin (since jumping into the water while wearing tefillin is disrespectful towards them). By the time he has removed the tefillin, the child too has drowned (Sotah 21b). The common denominator of these examples is a lack clear understanding of what is actually required of a person in a given situation, and the fallacy of inappropriate stringencies leading into horrendous miscarriages of action.

The second condition, according to Rav Aviner, is that if a person wishes to practice beyond the letter of the law they must first make sure that they are doing it with the pure motivation to draw close to God and not for any egocentric reasons. Rav Shlomo Volbe in his work Alei Shur, asks if our motivation to go beyond the letter of law has pure motivations, then why is it that the vast majority of stringencies are between man and God and not also between man and his fellow? He writes, “We must ask ourselves why He would only expect that premium level of service in our Chalav Yisrael milk, and Glatt Kosher meat, and not expect the same level of premium service in our level of charitable giving, true love and support of other Jews even those with views that differ from ours, meticulous care to go beyond the letter of the law in our business dealings and monetary interactions…” (Alei Shur, V.II, page 152) A true desire to cleave close to God would reflect itself in all dimensions of spiritual service, both between man and his Creator -- and no less important -- between man and his fellow.

By taking to heart the message of the blue tekhelet (fringes), we should remember that those who are yearning for the heavens should not let that yearning lead us to transgress any of the other multiple dimensions of Divine service. And with this we should merit to “...walk in all the way that the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess.” (Devarim 5:33)

Birkat Hamazon-Noticing the Little Things- Parshat Eikev 5773.

It shall be as a consequence (Eikev) of your listening to these judgments and keeping and performing them, that the Lord your God will keep for you the covenant and the kindness that he swore to your forefathers. (Devarim 7:12) Rashi, the classical Biblical commentator writes on this verse, “If you will listen to the “light/little” Mitzvot that a person tramples with his heel (Eikev), the Lord will keep etc, He will keep his promise to you.”

The Kotzker Rebbi, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, poses a question:  Is it possible to say about the Jewish people that they trample underfoot some of the mitzvoth (commandments)? Does it not say in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of our Fathers)2:1 “be as careful with a light mitzvah(commandment) as with a heavy one, for you do not know the reward.” He answers that the only commandment that a person literally tramples with his heels in order to fulfill is the commandment of settling the Land of Israel. While walking and working the soil of the holy land is of a biblically ordained nature, unfortunately many Jews consider this a light mitzvah which can be ignored. Therefore the Torah, says the Kotzker, lets us know that if a person properly observes the commandment that one fulfills with his heel -- walking upon the soil of the land of Israel – God will likewise keep His promise to do good as it says “The Lord your God will keep for you the covenant and the kindness”. (Parperaot Latorah vol5 pg 63).

In addition to this interpretation, I think that even the surface level understanding of Rashi’s comment also sheds light on a very important point. Rashi hones in on a very common phenomenon in religious practice, that of only focusing on the big commandments at the exclusion of the little ones.  Another similar issue linked to the above is that the commandments that we perform most often may be habitually performed by rote without the sufficient concentration that they deserve.

 One prime example of this is the recitation of Birkat Hamazon (the Blessing after the Meal) first mentioned in this week’s Torah reading. The Torah writes, “For the LORD your God brings you to a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths, springing forth in valley and hills; A land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates; a land of olive-trees and honey; A land where you will eat bread without scarceness, you will not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you may dig brass. And you will eat and be satisfied, and bless the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you.” (Devarim 8:7-10).

There is a very interesting connection between Birkat Hamazon and the 9th day of Av, which we observed just a few weeks ago. Every year, the Jewish people commemorate this day as a national day of mourning, similar to the way in which an individual mourns for their closest relatives. The one exception between the customs of mourning a close relative and mourning the Beit Hamikdash (Temple) is that on Tisha Bav (9th day of Av ) we do not eat, an otherwise permitted practice during a individual’s mourning period.

Rav Nachman Kahana, Rabbi of Chazon Yechezkel in Jerusalem and author of the Mei Menuchot series, asks a question on this practice. He notes that the whole situation seems to be problematic; if the 9th day of Av is supposed to be a day of mourning, then why do we fast if Jewish mourning practices do not call for fasting?  His answer is a penetrating insight into the abovementioned Birkat Hamazon. He writes:

 “The first chapter of the Blessing after the Meal we acknowledge that it is Hashem who provides sustenance for all things He created, and concludes with the blessing: “Blessed are You Hashem who sustains all.” In the next paragraph we offer praise to God for the basic foundations of our Jewish lives; the gift of Eretz Yisrael, the Exodus from Egypt, Brit Mila (the sacred, eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people), the gift of life and for the food that sustains us all. This chapter includes the verse in this week’s Parsha, “And you will eat and be satisfied, and bless the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you.” The concluding blessing is, “Blessed are You God for the land and for our sustenance.” Chapter Three is our prayer to God that He deal compassionately with His people Israel, and His city Yerushalayim and Zion, and restore the Davidic Monarchy and Beit Hamikdash. It concludes with the blessing, “Blessed are You God who in His compassion rebuilds Yerushalayim. Amen.”

The above three chapters have the halachic status of a Torah based mitzvah. The fourth chapter is a later rabbinic addition to commemorate the burial of the defenders of the great city of Beitar, following the destruction of Yerushalayim. It too deals with the appearance of the Mashiach and ultimate redemption of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael. Our holy rabbis, in their wisdom, declared that Tish’a Be’Av and its "satellite" days of mourning over Yerushalayim (17th of Tamuz, 3rd of Tishrei, 10th of Tevet) should be days when we refrain from eating. Because eating would require us to recite Birkat Hamazon, and that permits us in some small way to identify with the Bet Hamikdash and Eretz Yisrael.”

Rabbi Kahana concludes by remarking that “Birkat Hamazon (the Blessing after the Meal) is so thoroughly Eretz Yisrael (The Land of Israel), that I often wonder why it is not deemed to be a part of the agricultural commandments which are only observed in the land of Israel.”

In addition to the above explanation, I would like to suggest an alternative one. I believe that the reason the Blessing after the Meal is not deemed to be a part of the land agricultural commandments -- which are only observed by those in the Land of Israel -- can be explained as follows.  It can be said that the entire idea of the Blessing after the Meal can be divided into two functions; one is to fulfill the beginning part of the verse, “And you will eat and be satisfied, and bless the LORD your God.” The second, and equally important, function is to recognize that God has bestowed upon us, “the good Land which He has given you.” The reason that the Blessing after the Meal is not deemed to be a part of the agricultural commandments is because by its very recitation, those residing outside of the Land are supposed to awaken to the fact that they are living in an imperfect situation. As Rav Yaakov Emden writes in the introduction to the siddur (prayer book), “Do not intend to settle down outside of the land of Israel, g-d forbid. That was our ancestor’s sin, despising the desirable land, which caused us eternal weeping. And this sin has stood against us throughout our bitter exile. Not just one enemy has risen up against us, but peace and tranquility have eluded us in every generation. We have been persecuted; we have toiled but found no rest; we have been forgotten like the dead, all because we have completely forgotten about living in the land of Israel.” Therefore, if the Blessing after the Meal was considered an agricultural commandment recited only in the Land of Israel, it would be missing one of its integral functions.

Similarly, the above explanation of why the Blessing after the Meal is not considered an agricultural commandment can also shed light why the Rabbis decreed fasting on Tisha Ba’av, a stringency which is not normally associated with a day of mourning. Since one of the functions of Birkat Hamazon is to instill in the Jews that they are living in an imperfect situation, on Tisha Ba’av -- a day of national mourning whose entire focus is on the loss of the Temple and our subsequent exile -- we do not need this additional reminder of  this fact. The day of Tisha Ba’av itself is mourning personified.

Through the merit of taking to heart and appreciating the “light/little ” commandments, and recognizing that we are still not all home, may we witness the day “…when the Lord will return the captivity of Zion, we will be like dreamers. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter and our tongue with glad song.” (Psalm 126,1-2)

Response to -theYeshiva Bochur on Equal Service

I was taken aback by the opinions expressed in the recent op-ed article posted on Arutz Sheva titled  “A Yeshiva Bochur Reacts to the Equal Service Bill," and felt that it demanded a response. And as Rav Soloveitchik quoted Eliahu the son Berachel of Old, "I will speak that I may find relief; for there is a redemptive quality for an agitated mind in the spoken word and a tormented soul finds peace in confessing."(The Lonely Man of Faith p. 6).  I so wanted the author to use this podium as an opportunity to expound on the unique values and contributions of the rich and vibrant hareidi life in Israel and throughout the world, but I found the article instead to be a reaffirmation of the very stereotypes that the author set out to change.

I agreed with Yeshiva Bochur at the outset of his article. As a religious Jew, the beginning paragraphs relating to the discrimination he experiences based on his dress resonated deeply within me. As he writes, “The pervasive and incessant fear of the hareidi-religious, albeit unfounded and baseless, is openly visible…. They fear me – not because they know me. They fear my outward appearance, immediately discarding my non-intimidating and friendly smiling persona but rather immediately judging the contents of my character by the appearance of my clothes.” This phenomenon of judging and hating based on external features, dress or appearance is deplorable—always has been, and always will be. With so many anti-Semites in the world, we Jews should not be adding any more members to their ranks and this practice is one of the biggest challenges we face in the Jewish world today.

However, from that point onwards, I found that Yeshiva Bochur and I diverge on almost every other principle point mentioned.  The author starts by pontificating (his word, not mine), “I am a Jew who dresses as Jews did for centuries, believes as Jews believed for Millennia and devotes my life to the eternal Torah.”

Though I, too, believe in the power of Mesorah (Jewish Tradition), I do also believe that things need to be kept in proper perspective. Religious mode of dress, while an integral element of Jewish lifestyle, has not stayed stagnant throughout the 2000 years of our people’s history. The Kohen Gadol (High Priest) did not wear a black coat nor tie, and certainly the classic fedora style hat would not have been a part of his wardrobe. From our teacher Moshe, to the Tannaic sages, to the Rambam (Maimonides), Jews have dressed differently depending on their geographical location, but that did not define their belief in the foundations of Judaism.

Not only does Yeshiva Bochur’s sentiment reinforce the public’s perceptions about the hareidi view of the need for conformity in religious dress, it also serves to highlight the common misconception of religious Judaism's being more a set of stale ritualistic practices than what it truly is, a diverse and vibrant religious and spiritual journey.

Another problematic statement reads, “At the age of 16, yeshiva students acquire far more knowledge than a student attains in 3-4 years at university. At 20, they surpass a Ph.D., gauging this by the number of hours of class work, numbers of books analyzed, and level of complexity of the material.”

The statement is ignorant at best and arrogant at worst. The very notion itself is problematic, because any scholar who dedicates himself to learning with the sole aim of the acquisition of knowledge is entirely missing the point of what Torah study is about. It is not only the knowledge a person gains through the study, but what the study does to the person engrossed in it.

As Rav Solovetichik writes, "Torah study, aside from being an intellectual, educational endeavor, enlightening the student and providing him with the information needed to observe the law, is a redemptive cathartic process - it sanctifies the personality. It purges the mind of unworthy desires and irreverent thoughts, uncouth emotions and vulgar drives." ("Torah and Humility") In addition, the Midrash writes, "If a person tells you there is wisdom among the nations of the world, believe him. If a person tells you there is Torah among the nations of the world, do not believe him." (Eichah Rabbah 2:13) Maimonides goes so far as to write that when a person sees a wise man from among the nations of the world, they should recite the blessing:”Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has given from His wisdom to flesh and blood.”(Laws of Blessings 10:11).

Clearly, both the Midrash and Rambam see value in the knowledge that can be gained outside the realm of Torah, and so Yeshiva Bochur should not so cavalierly discount the intellectual achievements of college graduates and holders of Ph.D.’s. The idea that only Jews have wisdom, and that that wisdom is only from the Torah, is a concept which is at odds with the Torah itself.

The author then continues to expound upon the virtues of simplicity of the hareidi lifestyle. He writes, “We emulate Rav Shimon Bar Yochai who would rather live on paltry rations of a particular food from a particular tree and live in a cave for decades learning Torah…” First, it is my opinion that a person should be free to choose any lifestyle that they wish, so long as it does not infringe on someone else’s. Therefore, if it is a person’s preference to eat “paltry rations” and to not join the workforce, so be it, but this only holds true if they can afford those rations by their own labor. To insist that one should pay so that the other can study Torah is misguided.

Maimonides writes, “Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he should involve himself in Torah study without doing work and derive his livelihood from charity, desecrates [God's] name, dishonors the Torah, extinguishes the light of faith, brings evil upon himself, and forfeits the life of the world to come, for it is forbidden to derive benefit from the words of Torah in this world….. All Torah that is not accompanied by work will eventually be negated and lead to sin. Ultimately, such a person will steal from others.” I believe that Maimonides’ words speak for themselves.

I implore Yeshiva Bochur to view this not as a war, but rather as an opportunity.
And finally, the author writes, “You will not win this war against us. Don't start one...”

I implore Yeshiva Bochur to view this not as a war, but rather as an opportunity. It is an opportunity to realize that Torah scholars are of the up most importance to the national life of the Jewish people. It is an opportunity to break down the walls that separate one Jew from another and to integrate with the broader community in order to show the less religiously-observant the beauty and relevance of Jewish life.

And it is an opportunity fulfill the words of the Midrash Tanchuma Mishpatim 2, “He who is proper and fears sin, should involve himself in the needs of Israel… He should share their burden and suffer with them in times of trouble. He who acts in this manner sustains the world…“

Because if this opportunity is not seized, then the outcome could be catastrophic. The Midrash continues, “On the other hand ,he  who refrains from sharing their burden and repairing their breaches acting as if he were Terumah (tithe) separated from the dough, destroys the world, as it is written “But an Ish Terumot (a man set aside) destroys it”(Proverbs 29:4). (Resheit Chachma Perek Hadinin p.257a)

It is my fervent hope that the days and weeks ahead see cooperation and resolution from Jews of all religious camps, and that together we will truly deserve the praise “And who is like your nation, Israel? One nation in the Land.” (Samuel 1, 15:19)

Parshat Va’etchanan 5773- Buying the Baby Carriage

                 This week’s Parsha begins with Moshe Rabbanue entreating Hashem to be allowed to enter the Land of Israel. The Pasuk writes “I entreated Hashem at that time, saying: O Lord God, you have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand… Please let me cross over and see the good Land that is on the other side of the Jordan, this good mountain and the Lebanon. (Devarim 3:23-25)

                

                 The question that arises here is as follows: we know that in Parshat  Chukat after the incident of Mei Merivah, Moshe was told that he was not going to be able to enter the Land. Why did Moshe Rabbanue wait until this week’s Parsha  to entreat Hashem to be allowed to enter the Land?

                I believe that a story that the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yona Metzger, shared on the occasion of the 63^rd anniversary of the State of Israel will help shed some light on this question. There were once two Chasidim who would leave their families and travel to visit their Rebbe every year from Rosh Hashana until Yom Kippur.  One year when they were on their way they became delayed, and the inn that they normally stayed at was full by the time they got there. The innkeeper advised them to continue down the road to another inn, where a woman and her husband rented rooms for travelers. The gracious hostess invited them in, prepared a meal and got to talking. She inquired as to the nature of their trip, and the Chassidim responded that they were traveling to spend the High Holy Days with their Rebbi. Being unfamiliar with the term, she asked  “What is a Rebbe?” They replied simply – a Rebbi is a Tzadik (a righteous individual), and whatever a Tzadik decrees God fulfills.

The next morning before sending them on their way, the innkeeper asked the travelers to request a blessing from the Rebbi for her and her husband to merit children after years of a childless marriage. Of course, they answered in the affirmative and continued on their journey. A few days later, the innkeeper bought a baby carriage. A curious neighbor asked her if congratulations were in order? She replied, "Not yet, but I got a blessing from a Rebbi and “whatever a Tzadik decrees God fulfills.”  

      

                A year later the same two Chassidim traveled to meet their Rebbi for the High Holy Days and they decided top once again frequent the inn of the childless couple. When they arrived and the innkeeper opened the door, they saw that she was holding a baby. They asked if this was her child, and she replied that it was, saying, "Of course what the tzadik decrees God fulfills.” One of the Chassidim was overjoyed, but the other was quite forlorn. For ten years he had been traveling to the Rebbe for a blessing for a child and still he was childless. Yet this woman, who has never even heard of a Rebbi, asks one time and receives the greatest gift! They decide to continue on their way and to ask the Rebbi after Yom Kippur how this can be.

The conversation went something like this: “Rebbe how is it that your blessing for a child came to fruition for the simple innkeeper, and did not work for me, a Chassid who every year comes and asks you for a blessing?” The Rebbe replied, “Tell me honestly, did you ever go buy a carriage?"

                A blessing is not a magic wand that you wave and gifts appear, a blessing needs a space in this world to land. This woman of simple faith believed with all her heart that what a Tzadik decrees and God fulfills, and so she did her part went out to buy a baby carriage.  This action was the necessary effort for the blessing to take effect.

                The same thing is true regarding our question about the timing of Moshe Rabbanue’s request. Between the episode of Mei Merivah and our Parsha,  Moshe Rabbanue appoints a successor, in the person of Yehoshua Ben Nun(Numbers 27:18). He was commanded to wage war against the people of Midyan, which he successfully accomplished  (Numbers 31:1-2),  and so begins the process of  distributing the Land of Israel by delineating its borders (Numbers 34:1-2). After all of these actions that Moshe completed, he felt that now would be the proper time to entreat Hashem to be allowed to enter the Land. After he showed with concrete action his full desire to enter the Land, only then did he feel it was appropriate to ask Hashem for that privilege.  Sadly, even after all of his efforts, Moshe Rabbanue’s request was denied.

                However, for the last 2,000 years we the Jewish People have been yearning for the day when we could come back home. We came back home-- we bought the baby carriage. We built towns and cities, we created the infrastructure, we brought home our brothers and sisters from the far flung reaches of the world.  Because of this undying yearning, this desire and enormous human effort, there was a place for the blessing to land in our world.  And we should all merit to fulfill the words of the Mussaf Shemona Esre of Shabbat,  "May it be your will… that You bring us up in gladness to our Land, and plant us within our boundaries.”

Tisha BAv- The Lessons of Jerusalem 5773

                    Every year, one of the greatest challenges going into Tisha BAv is the statement of the Gemara Yerusalmi  “A generation in which the Temple is not built is considered to be one in which it was destroyed"(Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:10).  The Gemara also tells us that, the people at the time of the destruction  studied Torah, observed the mitzvot and performed good deeds. Their great failure was in sinat chinam- baseless hatred. It was internal strife and conflict that ultimately brought about the Temple's destruction( Yoma 9b). The logical conclusion that one must take from these two Gemarot, is that if in our days the Temple is still not rebuilt, then our generation is still suffering from the ills of sinat chinam, which was the cause of the original destruction. The Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda of Berlin) ,in his introduction to the book of Berishiet, writes that the cause of sinat chinam during the time of the Second Temple was  that people believed that they had a monopoly on Avodat Hashem. He says that when people saw others worshipping Hashem in the way that they deemed unfitting, they would declare them to be heretics.  These people were not doing anything wrong, on the contrary they were finding their own unique expression in serving Hashem but since it did not fit into what was thought to the “right” world view, it was deemed heretical, which ultimately led to in fighting amongst the Jews and the destruction of the Temple. As the Netziv writes that Hashem cannot stand “Tzadikim” like these and because of this the Temple was destroyed.

                 The question that should confront us each and every year, is how are we going to change this year, so that the Temple will be re-built speedily in our days? Rav Kook writes that, "If we were destroyed, and the world with us, due to baseless hatred, then we shall rebuild ourselves, and the world with us, with baseless love — ahavat chinam. (Orot HaKodesh vol. III, p. 324)  

                How are we able to develop this trait of ahavat chinam, which if we are successful in that endeavor will bring about the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple? I believe that the answer can begin with the gemara in Meschet Ta’anit . The gemara writes that – “Whoever mourns for Jerusalem will merit sharing in her joy” Ta’anit 30b).  After a cursory glance of this  Gemara it begs the question , why did the Sages say that those who mourn Jerusalem will merit seeing it 'in its joy'? It would be more consistent to say that they will merit seeing Jerusalem, restored and rebuilt. After all, the mourning is because of the destruction of the city?

                Rav Kook in Mo’adei HaRe’iyah explains as follows, the Sages knew that when the city of Jerusalem would again be rebuilt everyone alive at the time would witness the rebuilding of the city. Even those people who did not mourn, or realize that there was anything lacking in its destruction, would see it rebuilt.  Therefore, the Sages are telling us, it is true that many people will see Jerusalem rebuilt, however only those who mourned for its destruction, will “merit sharing in her joy” feeling the joy and excitement of its rebuilding.

 

                 Though Rav Kook has explained why the Sages chose the words that they did, it is still puzzling why the Gemara wrote “Whoever mourns for Jerusalem” and not “whoever mourns for the Temple”? I believe that within the identity of the city of Jerusalem, there are fundamental lessons that need to be internalized, without which rebuilding the Temple will be a very daunting task. 

                The Gemara in Bava Kama 82b lists ten Mitzvot ,which were not practiced in the city of Jerusalem, including making the declaration of an "ir ha-nidachat" (idolatrous city), etc. The reason given in the Gemara for this unique status was that Jerusalem, unlike all other portions of The Land of Israel, was not divided amongst any of the tribes.

               The Gemara Yoma 12a continues in a similar theme and writes that houses may not be rented out in Jerusalem because "it (Jerusalem) is not theirs." Meaning, the halakha that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes means, in a practical sense, that Jerusalem does not belong to us. The status of Jerusalem transcends the individual , is not the private property or personal acquisition of any person in Israel, but rather is a part of Klal Yisrael collectively.

               Secondly,  the Gemara in Yoma (ibid.) continues and says that Jerusalem can never have the status of an "ir nidachat" because the Torah, in teaching this law, uses the word "arekha" (your cities) - and Jerusalem is not included in this collective term since it was not given to any of the tribes. Although Jerusalem belongs to Klal Yisrael, it is nevertheless not altogether and completely theirs: it has a special status and is not part of "arekha" - the collection of cities. Jerusalem is God's city, the dwelling place of the Shekhina: "This is My resting place forever and ever."

               Rav Aharon Lichtenstein  says that  the messages that are being conveyed in the above Gemarot are as follows. “The fact that Jerusalem belongs to no individual, issues to us a call to elevate ourselves above the egoism symbolized by private acquisitiveness. We need to rise above the prevailing idea that "What is mine, is mine; and what is yours, is yours" - which, as we remember, is termed in Avot as "the philosophy of Sodom." Thus, one aspect of Jerusalem is elevation above considerations of promoting our own personal interests - both material and spiritual. The fact that Jerusalem was not given to any one specific tribe lends it a dimension of completeness and unity. The unity of Jerusalem is a result not of a negation and nullification of differences but rather of a complex combination of the different tribes.”

             As mentioned above the Netziv was of the opinion that the Chet of sinat chinam, was because people thought that they had a monopoly on religious worship, and that anyone who did not follow their views was a heretic. The city of Jerusalem is coming to teach us that we need to rise above the false perception that we own the truth, and to realize that as Rav Aharon Lichtenstein,   writes “. Lest any particular group wish to claim exclusive rights to Jerusalem, we need to declare in response: Jerusalem was not given to any of the tribes. We need to rise above spiritual imperialism which comes to impose one model only. … “The unity of Jerusalem is a result not of a negation and nullification of differences but rather of a complex combination of the different tribes.” (Holiday Journal, Yom Yerushaliyim VBM)

                   Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi in the end of his book the Kuzari  states that "Jerusalem will not be rebuilt until the Jewish people will yearn for it with an utmost longing; until they cherish its very stones and dust”. It is not enough just to mourn and long for the re-building and redemption  of the physical city of Jerusalem, we must also desire to implant within ourselves the lessons of this holy city. Only with the message of Jerusalem routed firmly in our hearts will we be able to undertake the monumental task of rebuilding ourselves, and the world with us, through ahavat chinam.

Parshat Devarim 5773- Unadulterated Service of Hashem

The entire Sefer of Devarim is --amongst other things-- one long speech of Moshe Rabbanue to the Jewish People, recapping the previous four books of the Torah as well as Moshe rebuking the Jewish people for their previous misdeeds. This week’s Parsha is always read on the Shabbat immediately preceding the Ninth of AV, the day on which both of the Temples were destroyed and the beginning of the exile of the Jewish people.  The Gemara in Mesechet Tannit 29a tells us that the root and source of the destruction of the Temple started out with the sin of the meraglim who did not want to go into the land of Israel, “ You wept in vain; I will establish for you weeping for all generations” . 

In the middle of Moshe’s summary of this tragic episode, he interjects that "The Lord became angry with me as well, because of you saying, “you too shall not come there (the land). (Devarim 1:37) All of the commentators are troubled by this verse, because as we know Moshe was not permitted to enter the land of Israel not because of the sin of the meraglim (spies), but rather because he hit the rock at Mei Merivah as found in Parshat Chukat. The Or Hachayim Hakodesh offers a very interesting explanation for the interjection found in this Pasuk. He writes that the correct answer is based on Chazal’s statement that Hashem established the day of Tisha Bav as a day of weeping for all generations and the temple was destroyed on that day. Our Sages also say that the Beit Hamikdash would never had been destroyed had Moshe entered the land, and built it. This is what Moshe meant when he said "The Lord became angry with me as well, because of you saying, “you too shall not come there (the land)."  For had the sin of the meraglim not taken place, and had the Jews entered the land of Israel immediately, Moshe would have possibly entered with them and built the Beit Hamikdash. Since the Jewish people would have been on such a high spiritual level, the Temple would never have been destroyed and the last 2,000 years of Jewish history would have been a completely different story.  

There are many opinions as to what exactly the sins of the meraglim were, and how we should go about trying to repair the damage that they caused. The Zohar in volume 3 pg 158 and the Shela Hakodesh in his pirush on Parshat Shelach, explain that the sin of the meraglim stemmed from the fact that in the desert they were the tribal leaders of the Jewish people. They understood that when the Jews entered the land, they would no longer hold their previous leadership positions, and thus, the meraglim preferred to remain in the desert in order to maintain their positions of power.

 The Baal HaTanya in Likuti Torah provides a different opinion and writes that the meraglim wished to stay on the level of those who lived in the desert, the consumers of manna, and an overall divine experience. Free from the need to worry about their physical needs, they were able to engage in spiritual pursuits. The Holy One, Blessed be He, saw to it that they had food as well as clean (and even fresh) clothes. The meraglim thought that such would not be the case in the Land of Israel; they sensed that life in Israel would not see manna falling from Heaven - and that they would have to work in the fields to make a living. Therefore, they reasoned, they would not be able to devote themselves to spiritual pursuits. What would become of Torah?(Parshat Shelach 28:2)

This explanation of the Baal HaTanya begs the question, how was this claim a sin? Their claim is seemingly justified because living a natural life in the Land of Israel would make it more difficult to stay on the spiritual levels that they enjoyed in the dessert. Furthermore, the claim was not brought because of personal interests but rather for the “sake of Heaven”?

The  Gemara in Mesechet Berachot  10a seems to offer us the explanation for how the meraglim could sin even when it was for the “sake of Heaven”. The Gemara recounts a story where the prophet Isaiah goes to visit the ailing King Hezekiah.  Isaiah tells the King to “Instruct your household for you shall die; and you shall not live” (Isaiah 38:1). The Gemara writes that the meaning of “for you shall die; and you shall not live” is that the king will die in this world, and not live in the world to come.  The king questioned the prophet, “What have I done that I deserve a punishment such as this?" Isaiah responded to him “because you did not get married and have children”, negating completely a positive commandment in the Torah. We know that King Hezekiah was a righteous man and he must have had a good reason for this behavior. He answered Isaiah, “the reason why I did not fulfill this commandment is because I saw with divine inspiration, that if I would my son that came after me, he would be a wicked king."  Isaiah responds, “You have no reason walking in the pathway of the Almighty.”

The essence of this above Gemara is also the understanding of the sin of the meraglim.  In the first chapter of the Mesilat Yesharim,Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato writes about Avodah Temeima,  the pure unadulterated  service of Hashem. The question could be asked, is there any type of service of Hashem that is not pure? The above Gemara tells us, yes there is. When a person wants to serve Hashem in the manner that they deem fit, regardless of whether or not it contradicts what Hashem deems fit, that is the definition of impure service of Hashem. This is the reason why the second explanation of the sin of the meraglim is so tragic. To quote Rav Nachman Kahana, "the meraglim were more deeply steeped in the knowledge of Torah than any of the Torah giants in whose shadows we walk today, and their spiritual level was far above any tzadik who we wish to emulate, and yet they still fell prey to impure service of Hashem."

The truth is that the claims of the meraglim were completely unfounded; they believed that the spiritual level of the Jewish people would suffer when they entered the Land, but the exact opposite is true. The Chesed LeAvraham writes in Nahar 21, Ein HaAretz, that the physical fruits of the Land of Israel, have the same spiritual status of the Manna. He explains that that is the reason why there was no manna in the Land of Israel because “The fruits of Eretz Yisrael come from holiness, and the spirituality that was fitting for the manna attached itself to these holy fruits.”

Furthermore, the Chatam Sofer writes,“In my humble opinion , Rav Yishmael (berachot 35b) only applies the verse of “you shall gather your grain (Devarim 11:14) In the Land of Israel when the majority of Israel dwells in the Land…the very act of tilling the Land fulfills the Mitzvah of Settling the Land….It is like saying “I will not don tefillin because I am studying Torah.” So too one must not say I will not gather my grain because I am studying Torah. It is also possible that other trades which involve social welfare are included in this Mitzvah.”( Chiddushei Chatam Sofer, Sukkah 36a). This means that not only is it permissible to work fields in the Land of Israel, it is in fact a Mitzvah!

The sin of the spies can be simplified into very basic terms: they believed that they knew better than the Creator of the world. They wanted to serve Hashem the way that  they deemed fit, not in the way that He desired.  May we merit fulfilling what is read in Shemonah Esre every Shabbat “Purify our heart, to serve you in truth.”