Parshat Va'Etchanan

Details

Category: Torah Portion

Published on Wednesday, 06 August 2014 18:31

Written by The Hebron Fund

Hits: 3276

Parshat Va'Etchanan
By: Rabbi Moshe Goodman, Kollel Ohr Shlomo, Hebron

??"?

????? ?????

Seeking the Holy Presence in Our Holy Land 

"??????? ??? ????????"

"May it be Your Will HaShem our God and the God of our ancestors, that You lead us toward peace, guide our footsteps toward peace... May You rescue us from the hand of every foe... Blessed are You, HaShem, Who hears prayer." (Wayfarer's Prayer)

One of the most basic principles of our Torah is the safeguarding of life, to such a level that danger to one's life exempts one from all the mitzot of the Torah, save idolatry, illicit sexual relations, and murder. For this very reason, our People were compelled to leave the Land of Israel when conquered by enemies, and for this reason the return to our Land by the masses was detained for close to two thousand years.

Nevertheless, we find that many Sages risked their lives to come to the Land from Talmudic times (R. Zeira for example - Ktubot 112a) till the birth of the State of Israel (for example - it took R. Obadia of Bartenura 2 years and 4 months (!) to come from Italy after many dangers). If so, what does halacha say about settling the Land versus danger?

One of the earliest halachic discussions on this matter revolves around the Mishnaic/Talmudic ruling that a husband or wife is able to compel their spouse to move to the Land of Israel, and the question asked is: does this rule apply even when there is danger involved in this move? According to Tosfot and others, the ability to compel a spouse to move to the Land does not apply in times of danger, however the ability to compel a spouse to stay in the Land does apply since their merit in settling the Land will protect them. Differing with this opinion is the opinion of the Rambam, Rif, and Rabeinu Yeruham who maintain that the ability to compel a spouse to move to the Land is even in times of danger. The Shulhan Aruch (E.H 75, 5) ruled according to the Rashbash that one can compel a spouse to move to the Land 'if possible without danger', however it seems clear from the Shulhan Aruch that if an individual wishes to move to the Land he may do so even in times of danger. What level of danger is referred to here?

According to the Mabit, the level of danger referred to is danger sufficient to prevent the common merchant (i.e. businessman) from travelling there on business. The reasoning for this is that the commitment to a sacred mitzvah (moving to the Land) should not be any lesser than mundane business. This said, it is still not clear why one is able, and according to some able to compel, to move to the Land even in time of real danger (when a businessman would not travel), as we see that many Sages risked their lives throughout the generations to come to the Land, a matter that is forbidden in regard to other mitzvoth.
One of the most essential sources in regard to this matter is the Yerushalmi Moed Katan (2, 4 - in addition to other sources)we have brought in the past which compares the settling of the Land to the commandment of war in conquering this Land. By definition, waging war is a matter that endangers life, and therefore settling the Land overrides even danger to one's life. With this token we should mention that it is accepted among all the poskim that in waging war in conquest of the Land etc. one is definitely commanded to fight even at risk to one's life.

Nevertheless, there are sources that danger to one's life overrides settling the Land, such as the permit, although not considered pious behavior (see Rambam Mlachim 5, 9), to leave the Land in time of famine. In settling these seemingly conflicting sources many poskim differentiate between the viewpoint of the individual versus that of the public. This means that if settling the Land has ramifications to the public then it holds the same status as war, defined as a public endeavor, and therefore overrides one's personal risk of danger (not suicide), which is not so in the case of the individual. If so, how do we find great Sages throughout the generations who risked their lives as individuals to come to the Land?

The answer to this lies in the viewpoint of the individual - if he sees himself as a messenger of the public in settling the Land his status is like the public, but if he sees himself as an individual his status is like the individual. All this said, it should be clear that today's present situation, when Israel have sovereignty in the Land, is far different, and far safer than the situation of our ancestors for thousands of years, making the fore-mentioned discussion irrelevant today. The first person mentioned  in the Torah who risked his life in battle was Avraham our father who reached his decision to wage war to save Lot in Hebron, 'Elonei Mamreh'.

It seems that not for naught the Torah tells us that he reached this decision in Hebron, saying that it is through Hebron, Israel's roots to the Holy Land, that Avraham received the inspiration to fight and save Lot, the ancestor of King David, one of the greatest warriors of Israel of all time, who fought all his life to secure this Holy Land in the hands of Israel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Stories from the Holy Land #82:

"It was erev Shabbos and we were trying to catch a bus from Beer Sheva to Kiryat Arba, but we missed the last bus. Therefore, we decided to travel to my in laws who live in Tel Aviv to which there still was transportation, but we could not alight the crowded buses. I called my inlaws, and 'it turns out' that they had gone for Shabbat to Netivot, so we traveled just a half hour there to stay for Shabbat." (Y.H)  

Sources: All the sources mentioned are taken from the book "Nahalat Yakov"  by R. Yakov Zisberg

Parshat Massei

Details

Category: Torah Portion

Published on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 19:43

Written by The Hebron Fund

Hits: 3049

Parshat Massei
By: Rabbi Moshe Goodman, Kollel Ohr Shlomo, Hebron

בס"ד

לשכנו תדרשו

Seeking the Holy Presence in Our Holy Land

"זאת הארץ אשר תיפול לכם בנחלה ארץ כנען לגבולותיה" 

"May it be Your Will before You, HaShem our God and the God of our Fathers that You raise us with joy to our Land and plant us in our boundaries..." (Mussaf Shabbat)

The boundaries of the Land of Israel are explicitly and elaborately detailed in this week's parsha, a matter that highlights the importance of every parcel of land in the Land of Israel before HaShem. Not only is the specification of the boundaries of the Holy Land important in the Written and Oral (halacha etc.) Torah in regard to the mizvot of the Land upon the People (Trumot, Maaser, , Shmita, etc.), but  also in regard to the responsibility upon the People to conquer and settle the Land, as is clear in the Written Torah in our title quote.

In the Oral Torah this principle can be ascertained from the halachic ruling (Biblically based) that only if Israel first conquers  the land specified in the Torah and only afterwards conquers territory outside these boundaries does that territory receive status as the Land of Israel Proper (Biblically liable for Truma etc.). This halachic principle is shown by our Sages when they describe HaShem's criticism on David's conquest of other lands before conquering the entirety of the Land of Israel specified in the Torah as he should have done.

We illustrated this concept in this way to fit even the viewpoint of the Rambam who does not enumerate the conquest and settlement of the Land of Israel to be a positive mitzvah, but according to the Ramban and the accepted halachic stance (as brought in the authoritative halachic summary 'Pithei Tshuva') that conquering and settling the Land is a positive mitvah even today, it is even clearer that the boundaries of this Land specified in the Torah are crucial in regard to the commandment of  conquering the entirety of the Land of Israel.  According to the Ramban's halachic stance we are not only commanded to settle the Land but also bidden to not leave this Land in the hands of another nation or desolate, as he ascertains from the verse 'you shall conquer the Land' (Num. 33, 53).

Spiritually speaking, as we have shown in the past, the Land of Israel is a spiritual entity, Abode of the Holy Presence, described by the prophet Isaiah (62, 5) as a 'wife' to Israel, her 'husband'. Therefore, the devotion of our People to the entirety of this Land, as specified by God, is crucial to our loyalty to God and His Holy Presence, for denying any parcel of this Land from Israel is tantamount to denying the word of God (in this week's parsha determining that it belongs to Israel), and His Holy Presence in this Land (for if God's word is not held holy, then what is holy about His Presence?).

By connecting to Hebron, we connect to the very roots of our People's connection to this Land, thereby strengthening our devotion and loyalty to the Holy Land and the Holy Presence therein. Our Sages teach us that our Forefathers foresaw the future, and therefore they travelled and lived in locations crucial for the future of their descendants many years later. It seems that is not for naught that specifically our holy Fathers of Hebron, the 'Roots of our People to the Land', lived an extended period of time, in addition to Hebron, in 'the land of the Philistines', identified as the area of the 'Gaza Strip' today, to strengthen our ancestors, as in the time of David and Goliath the Philistine, and us today, grappling with the identity of this location as part of our Holy Land, that indeed this whole Land is the Holy Land given by God to His People Israel.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Stories from the Holy Land #80:

"One day, I was too tired to go to work, so I told my boss that I hurt my hand in an accident (which was a lie). Three minutes later a cab came and bashed into my leg, injuring me in a real accident." (Y.S) 

Sources: Rambam Melachim 5, 6, Hashmatos lesefer haMitzvos LaRamban mitzvah 4, Ramban on Num. 33, 53, Pithei Tshuva Even Haezer 75, 13, Psikta Zutrta Lech Lecha 12, 8 

Parshat Devarim

Details

Category: Torah Portion

Published on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:22

Written by The Hebron Fund

Hits: 3214

Parshat Devarim
By: Rabbi Moshe Goodman, Kollel Ohr Shlomo, Hebron

בס"ד

לשכנו תדרשו

Seeking the Holy Presence in Our Holy Land 

אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה אל כל ישראל בעבר הירדן, במדבר, בערבה

"Make us return, HaShem, to You, and we shall return, renew our days as of old."

With these words we supplicate before HaShem at the culmination of the book of Eicha on Tisha Bav, and with these words we express our realization too that one of the primary purposes of our suffering is to make us return to HaShem in repentance. Thus, it is not for naught that we begin the book of Dvarim, opening with Moshe's rebuke and call to repentance, in concurrence with Tisha Bav, the day of HaShem's awakening blow in the past, which thereby (through this awakening) turns into a day of rejoice in the future. Both at the beginning and at the end of this book we find a common theme in the call to repentance, the centrality of returning to the Land of Israel in the return to God.

The first and foremost rebuke of Moshe upon Israel is on the 'sin of the spies', saying:  'and on this matter (Rashi - that HaShem promises to bring you to the Land), you do not have faith in HaShem Your God.'  Towards the end of this book we find the famous 'section of repentace' (parshat hatshuva) which ties the return to HaShem with the return to His Land and HaShem's 'return' to Israel. If so, what is the connection between rebuke and repentance to the Land of Israel?

In the past we have pointed to the fact apparent both in halachic and aggadic literature that the People of Israel are only considered 'one People in the (Holy) Land' (Chr. I, 17). The conception of our People as one organism ultimately leads to the conclusion that we are mutually responsible for each other. In halachic literature we find that the concept of 'mutual responsibility' in Israel is rooted to the commandment of rebuke, as the Torah says 'you shall surely rebuke your fellowman and not bare upon him guilt', thus implying that if one is obligated to rebuke and does not do so he carries a certain level of guilt  on behalf of his fellow Jew, that is 'mutual responsibility'.

Conversely, there are halachic sources that point to 'mutual responsibility' as being the source of the obligation to rebuke, this meaning that the more people are mutually connected (e.g. more susceptible to listen to each other) the greater is the obligation to help correct each other's paths. Therefore, we can conclude that when there is less 'oneness' or unity in the People, especially when the People are not in the Land, then there is less mutual responsibility, thereby lessening the obligation of rebuke, thereby further lessening the level of mutual responsibility (rooted to rebuke as above).

Translating this psychologically, this means that the more we feel like one being, the more effective is the rebuke of another, since the other is not viewed as an external attacker, but rather an aid in harmony with oneself, because we are ultimately one. Indeed, the Yerushalmi points to the fact that when the Sanhedrin moved to Yavneh, the beginning of Exile from the Land just after the 2nd Temple Destruction, mutual responsibility on sins unknown publicly, 'ceased'. According to what we just explained, it seems that this cessation of mutual responsibility is clearly rooted to the Exile of Israel from the Land. (Perhaps because of this, R. Elazar b. Azarya, living after the Destruction, was 'surprised if someone in his generation could rebuke'). Similarly, in the Holy Land we are also more united with HaShem and His Holy Presence.

Therefore, HaShem's 'rebuke' upon us in this Land is more readily seen by us as an aid to correction and repentance. In this way, the Hurban  (destruction) can communicate to us that we must work on Hebron (same letters), building unity (hibur) among our People through our common roots, our uniting Land, and through connection to our One God, Whose Presence rests therein.

Note: 'Mutual Responsibility' applies not only in regard to guilt, but also, primarily, in regard to (sharing) virtue, such as the halachic ability to exempt one's fellow Jew in a bracha etc. as brought by the poskim.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Stories from the Holy Land #81:

"One Shabbos I was telling the people sitting at the table about a spiritual lesson I learned from the dogs of Kiryat Arba. Just after that I planned to learn mishnayot Shabbat as is customary on Shabbat. However, I had then an unexplainable urge to learn specifically from Perek Shira. I opened Perek Shira randomly, and the first think my eyes struck was the song of the dogs..."

Sources:Sanhedrin 43b, see Rosh on Brachot ch. 3, Yerushalmi Sota 7, 5, Erchin 16b 

Parshat Matos

Details

Category: Torah Portion

Published on Thursday, 17 July 2014 07:26

Written by The Hebron Fund

Hits: 3264

Parshat Matos
By: Rabbi Moshe Goodman, Kollel Ohr Shlomo, Hebron

בס"ד

לשכנו תדרשו

Seeking the Holy Presence in Our Holy Land

ונכבשה הארץ לפני ה' ואחר תשובו... והיתה הארץ הזאת לכם לפני ה 

"...Therefore, have compassion upon us Master of all, and instill Your faith in our hearts always, and satisfy us with Your goodness... and hear our prayers always, and allow us to come to the Land of Israel the Land You have chosen from all other lands" (Likutei Tfilot 7).

In this week's parsha we learn about the request of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to stay on the eastern bank of the Jordon, a matter that is met, at the ouset, with fierce antagonism on the part of Moshe Rabeinu. Only after these tribes agree to cross the Jordon to fight with their brothers and conquer the western side of the Jordon does Moshe agree that these tribes settle on the eastern bank.

When learning this passage, one of the obvious questions to be asked is: what exactly is the sanctity of the Eastern side of the Jordan in comparison with the Western side, the Land of Israel Proper?

On the prohibition on Moshe to enter the Land of Israel Proper, while residing on the Eastern Bank, our Sages comment that this prohibition can be compared to the prohibition of a king on his son to not enter his palace. Although the king ultimately lets his son enter the courtyard of the palace and even the corridor, when the king reaches the entrance to his room he tells his son, 'my son, from here onwards you are forbidden.' In this way the Eastern Bank is compared to the 'corridor' of HaShem's Palace, while the Land of Israel Proper is likened to the internal abode of HaShem.

In a halachic sense, we also see an intricacy/(perhaps) controversy in regard to the Eastern Bank. On the one hand, the Hazon Ish learns that, except for numbers of specified laws, the Eastern Bank is considered the Land of Israel. He learns this principle from the law, in addition to other proof-texts,  that once the tribes on the Eastern Bank went into exile the Biblical condition for Shmita and Yovel that 'all its (the Land of Israel's) inhabitants live upon it' was no longer met. On the other hand, it is agreed in halachic conclusion that the Eastern Bank is liable for Bikurim and other laws of the Land only on a Rabbinic level, and not on a Biblical level as the Land of Israel Proper. Rambam even states in his commentary on the Mishna that 'it (the Eastern Bank) is not considered the Land of Israel,' although it is liable Rabbinically for many of its laws. Interestingly, based on this week's parsha, we find that the Eastern Bank itself may be also divided into two parts.

According to the Yerushalmi, the explanation given in the Mishna Bikurim for the Biblical exemption of the Eastern Bank from Bikurim, that the Eastern Bank is not rendered the Land of milk and honey' mentioned in context of Bikurim, is only one opinion. According to a different Tanaic teaching, the reason the Eastern Bank is excluded from Biblical obligation for Bikurim is because one must announce on the bikurim that the first fruits come from the Land 'You (HaShem) have given me'. The Yerushalmi continues to ascertain that the initiation of settling the Eastern Bank did not come from HaShem, but rather from the tribes of Reuven and Gad. Therefore, the Yerushalmi concludes, the Eastern Bank given to half of the tribe of Menashe (i.e. Northern Eastern Bank, around where the 'Golan Heights' are today) by HaShem's initiation, unlike Reuven and Gad, may be considered liable for Bikurim, according to the latter Tanaic teaching in contrast with the opinion posed in the Mishna, exempting the entire Eastern Bank from Biblical Bikurim.

From this concept we can learn how important is putting HaShem as the 'initiator' of what we do, as first studying the Torah and then deciding what to do (and not the other way around...) When we connect to the 'City of the Patriarchs', we connect to the very roots and 'initiation' of our People as the People of God through our holy Patriarchs and Matriarchs, thereby clarifying our minds to what is really important before HaShem.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Stories from the Holy Land #79:

"On the way to the tomb of the Arizal we were wished by someone that we not hear any rockets fired by Arabs on Israel... and so it was - we only saw rockets, but heard none at all..." (R.H.B.K) (It goes without saying, that the present situation of multitudes of rockets fired on Israel with so many Jews saved, is nothing but miraculous...)

Sources: Sifri on Num. 27, 12, Hazon Ish Zraim Likutim siman 10, Rambam Perush HaMishnayot Bikurim 3, 11