Sunday 19 July 2009

Olmert on Settlements and Negotiations

Ehud Olmert has published his thoughts on the settlements-negotiations issue in the Washington Post. Olmert is out of power, and though he'd love to come back, he probably won't; so publishing is about the only way still open to him to bolster his legacy. This doesn't make him the most impartial of pundits. At one point in his column he veers into comic farce when describing the agreements between the US and Israel reached by his predecessor Ariel Sharon, which he continued:
Sharon reached understandings with the U.S. administration regarding the growth and building of settlements, as part of the road map. The understandings included that:
-- No new settlements would be constructed.
-- No new land would be allocated or confiscated for settlement construction.
-- Any construction in the settlements would be within current building
lines.
-- There would be no provision of economic incentives promoting settlement growth.
-- The unauthorized outposts built after March 2001 would be dismantled (a commitment that Israel, regrettably, has not yet fulfilled).

My italics. Hey Ehud, weren't you the Israeli prime minister who regretably didn't fulfill the commitment?

Still, the column does record once again how uninformed, indeed, unintelligent, the Obama administration's position on settlements has been. Denying the existence of previous agreements, and haggling about things that won't be changed anyway does rather distract from the main issue, which is the Palestinian refusal to make peace:
To this day, I cannot understand why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred, instead, to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions. My proposal would have helped realize the "two-state solution" in accordance with the principles of the U.S. administration, the Israeli government I led and the criteria the Palestinian leadership has followed throughout the years.
I believe it is crucial to review the lessons from the Palestinians' rejection of such an offer.

taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Israel Matzav: Israel's Left slams Obama

Israel's Left slams Obama

The things that make this article noteworthy are where it appeared (Haaretz, Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily) and who wrote it (Yoel Marcus, one of their more Leftist writers).

With all of Obama's goodwill and all-embracing ambition, there is something naive, not to say infuriating, about his policy of rapprochement and about the whistle stops he has chosen on his travels dealing with our issue. He spoke in Turkey, he spoke in Egypt, he appeared before students in Saudi Arabia, in Paris, in England, in Ghana and in Australia. Even there the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was mentioned. His plan to begin rapprochement with Iran, which openly threatens to destroy Israel, and to reassure its fanatic leadership, which cruelly suppresses any attempt by the younger generation to get rid of the regime of the ayatollahs, is delusional.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Israel's Left slams Obama

DoubleTapper: IDF Women

DoubleTapper: IDF Women

Lands of the Unfree

Lands of the Unfree

Freedom House has published its report about freedom in the world, 2008. They find 42 countries and 9 territories to be Not Free, the report I've linked to focuses mostly on the 17 countries and 4 territories that are the worst of all.

The Middle East is represented by Lybia, Syria, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. (I expect Iran wil be in the report for 2009).

The Palestinians aren't on the list. Or rather, they are, higher up in the Not Free category, and while this is not only because of Israel it is partially so, and this is bad. Still, they're not in the 21 worst places to be described in the report. Which then raises the question, why do some people think the Palestinians have it worse than anyone else? And what are we to make of American, British, Argentinian or other bloggers activists and noise-makers, who willfully overlook the suffering of tens of millions of people in order to focus mainly or exclusively on Israel's crimes in denying freedom?
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Bookmark for Future Use

Bookmark for Future Use

The NYT has an upbeat article about the many things that are getting better in the West Bank. I recommend bookmarking it, because sooner or later the narrative will return to form, and we'll be told about the never-ending suffering of the Palestinains, always caused by the Israelis.

I also found the frankness of the reporter refreshing (Ethan Bronner, who's actually pretty good):

Asked to explain why the West Bank’s fortunes were shifting, a top Israeli general began his narrative with a chart showing 410 Israelis killed by Palestinians in 2002, and 4 in 2008.
“We destroyed the terrorist groups through three things — intelligence, the barrier and freedom of action by our men,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with military rules. “We sent our troops into every marketplace and every house, staying tightly focused on getting the bad guys.”
But he added that the 2006 legislative electoral victory by Hamas, followed by its violent takeover of Gaza in 2007, led Mr. Abbas to fight Hamas. Palestinian troops have been training in Jordan under American sponsorship.

taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Complicated Afghanistan and Just War

Complicated Afghanistan and Just War

The war in Afghanistan is important. At the moment it's one of the main arenas of conflict with those Islamists who are willing (or forced) to fight rather than merely murder; if they aren't defeated we'll all pay a heavy price, such is their hatred of mankind and their eagerness to kill people.

But it's not a simple tale. The Economist just offered what seems to me a reasonable analysis of how muddled and complicated the country is. It's worth reading.

Being who I am, I was glumly tickled by this section:

The biggest change under General McChrystal is the instruction to reduce
civilian casualties. A “tactical directive”, issued at the start of Thrust of
the Sword, says that winning the support of the Afghans overrides all else. “We
must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories—but suffering strategic
defeats—by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating
the people,” he says. This may increase the danger to troops; but the greater
risk is to push Afghans into the arms of the Taliban.


We're eight (8) years into the war, and the top American general has told his forces that they really ought to be more careful and kill fewer civilians. Civilians, I remind, who may well be citizens of an ally nation, who's crime is that some nasties happen to be in their neighborhood. And the mention of this is in the Economist, a British paper. If it's also in any American publications, I assure you it's not on their front pages.

Earlier this week President Obama met with some top Jewish folks, and apparently told them Israel must think more about its policies. The next day I met a group of very intelligent American news-junky types, the kind that follow every detail of the political scene. At one point I mentioned, as an aside, that Americans have been killing thousands of civilians in their wars these past few years. They were incredulous. Did I mean mercenaries with American companies, perhaps? No, I meant American pilots in Afghanistan, American drones in Paksitan, and American Marines in Iraqi towns, most notably Faluga. They were astonished, my audience.

On a scale of human forms of waging war, the Americans really are about as good as you'll find. But the idea of their president lecturing us about how we need to be more reflective, not to say more careful, leaves me scratching my head in puzzlement.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Hostages

Hostages

Interesting difference between Israel and America.

In Israel, when our enemies hold even a single one of our people hostage, it's a national issue of strategic importance, and eventually we pay for his release with many hundreds of jailed criminals, sometimes including convicted murderers.

When the same happens to an American serviceman, we aren't even informed of his name - assuming we hear about the case at all.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Security Barrier

Security Barrier

Amos Harel at Haaretz has tried to figure out whatever happened to the Security Barrier (aka. Land-grab, Apartheid Wall, etc). The original article, written of course in Hebrew, was accompanied in the printed version by a map. The English version doesn't have the map, and if you don't know the geography quite well it's rather confusing.

The bottom line, however, is pretty clear. The barrier or its downgraded alternative take in only 4.5% of the West Bank; even some of the larger settlement blocks are outside of it.

In response, the cabinet amended the route in February 2005 to include just nine percent of the West Bank. In April 2006 an additional one percent was shaved off
by the government of Ehud Olmert. In practice, however, the route encompasses
only 4.5 percent of West Bank land. The four "fingers" in the last map (and which Israel presented at Annapolis in November 2007) were never built, not at Ariel and Kedumim (where a "fingernail" was built, a short stretch of fence east of the homes of Ariel); not at Karnei Shomron and Immanuel; not at Beit Arieh, nor south of that, at Ma'aleh Adumim. Instead, with little publicity, fences were put up to close the gaps closer to the Green Line, at Alfei Menashe instead of at Kedumim, at Elkana instead of Ariel and in the Rantis area instead of at Beit Arieh.


Keep that in mind next time someone inevitably tells you about the horrible pain the fence has inflicted on the Palestinians as it stole their lands and carved up their future state. The reality is that the fence is almost entirely on, or very near, the Green Line; with the exception of the Jerusalem area it never cuts more than a mile or two into the West Bank. Maybe three, at Elkana.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Changing Names (or not)

Changing Names (or not)

I was in Chicago a few days ago, and just about where-ever I went I saw the Sears Tower, what it's being 110 floors high and all that.

Today its name was officially changed, in accordance with the wish of a company that has rented some of its office space. If Chicagoans are anything like Jerusalemites, this will never work. Decrees changing names gratify the bureaucrats that decree them, but the populace doesn't have to follow suit merely because someone decreed.

The Jerusalem bureaucrats on both sides of the city dictated new names to the neighborhoods the other side had left behind in 1948. On the Jordanian side this seems to have worked; no Arabs clung to the names Neve Yaakov, for example, or Rova Yehudi in the Old City. On the Israeli side, however, the locals couldn't be bothered, and kept the Arab names no matter what the bureaucrats wished. Talbiye remained Talbiye, not Kommemiyut; Katamon is still Katamon, not Gonen, and so on. If you think about it, this is even a bit funny, since places such as Talbiye and Katamon were mostly invented after World War 1, which means they were Arab neighborhoods for, say, 25 years, and have been Jewish for more than 60, but the Jews still insist on calling them by their Arabic names.

It's not only language, however. Ask people where Ganei Katamon is and no-one except the immediate locals will know; ask people where Migrash Hapoel is - the soccer stadium of Hapoel -and they'll tell you exactly where it was, even though it's been gone, by now, for almost as long as it ever existed.

I don't go to Chicago very often, but I'll be very surprised if next time I'm there anyone knows where the Willis Tower is.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Uninformed Comment

Uninformed Comment

Long-term readers will remember that for a while I followed Prof. Juan Cole's popular Informed Comment blog, until I got tired of his silliness and stopped. (I even had a label in his honor, see below this post).

Though I no longer record his antics here, I still stop by his blog from time to time to see what his audience likes to hear. Yesterday he had a post that contained this fine nugget of non-truth:

Israel's war last winter on little Gaza achieved virtually none of its real (as opposed to its announced) aims. There had not been any rocket fire from Hamas against Israel during the period of cease-fire in 2008. Israel violated the cease-fire and even thereafter, no Israelis were killed in the lead-up to the invasion.


Unless perhaps there's another Gaza somewhere, from which prior to the war there was no fire at another Israel? And perhaps in that alternative universe, Hamas now does shoot at Israel in spite of the thrashing it received? That might explain it, because nothing else can.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Iron Dome is On Its Way

Iron Dome is On Its Way

The anti-Katyusha (and kassam) system being developed in Israel is approaching completion. Not there yet, but advancing well.

Hopefully it will be in place before anyone attacks Iran's nuclear instalations, if that happens, because there's no doubt such an attack will provoke Hezbullah and and Hamas to fire whatever they have.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Free Speech

Free Speech

A month late, I've stumbled across a New York Times article about how different democracies deal with limitations on free speech. Apparently, only the United States really fully means it, protecting people's right to lie, offend, and be systematically nasty; Canada, at the other end of the spectrum, doesn't even allow merely insulting talk; the Canadians apparently feel one of the responsibilites of the State is to preserve harmony. Germany, Israel and others have specific limitations based on their particular historical pasts (you can't say Nazi things in Germany, you can't sell Nazi stuff in Israel).

Personally I lean in the direction of the American method. Speech that directly incites to violence is forbidden, but nothing else. Any other system will require the authorities to decide what's "nice" and what's "not nice"; that must by definition be a subjective evaluation, very much determined by the identity of the observer.

Or, to be more specific to my world: hatred of the Jews is embedded so deeply in much of Western culture, that many shades of antisemitism are totally unrecognizable by the antisemites, who sincerely believe they're merely saying things as they are. These sentiments are profoundly potent, and yet they're never detected by "guardians of free speech". Better to let the market of ideas combat the perniciousness than have some thought police do it; the thought police, after all, would soon be understood by the antisemites simply to be tools of the Jews.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Israel Matzav: Obama's Middle East crash and burn

Israel Matzav: Obama's Middle East crash and burn

Israel Matzav: Israeli soldiers speak out on what happened in Gaza

Israel Matzav: Israeli soldiers speak out on what happened in Gaza

Israel Matzav: Swine flu or not swine flu?

Israel Matzav: Swine flu or not swine flu?

Israel Matzav: Where have all the suicide bombers gone?

Israel Matzav: Where have all the suicide bombers gone?

Israel Matzav: Breaking the Silence funded by European governments, EU and private Americans

Israel Matzav: Breaking the Silence funded by European governments, EU and private Americans

Tzipiyah.com - Parshat Matot-Masei: Living Outside of Israel



map_of_israel


In this week’s Torah portion, of the many occurrences that take place, there is one episode in particular worthy of discussion. As the entire Jewish nation was journeying through the desert and was on its way to entering the land of Israel, two and a half tribes (Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe) of the twelve national tribes decided that they did not want a share in the land of Israel. They felt that they needed to settle in the land on the east bank of the Jordan. When they approached Moshe about their request he grew angry with them. Moshe believed that, instead of aiding the rest of the nation in the conquest of Israel, they wanted to abandon their brethren. He was also afraid that this decision of theirs might influence other tribes to back out of the war as well and forget about entering the land altogether. [Numbers: 32: 1-15]


Read All at :





Tzipiyah.com - Parshat Matot-Masei: Living Outside of Israel

Where did the Temple go?!


We are currently in the midst of a very solemn time in the Jewish calendar, the period known as the “3 weeks”, where various calamities have fallen upon our people and most notably the destruction of both of the holy Temples. The Temple wasn’t just a building; it was the tool by which G-dliness could be perceived in the world. We aren’t just mourning the loss of a spectacular building comprised of special materials and concise measurements, of the most architecturally-impressive construction ever to exist. But we are mourning the absence of peace and clarity, a world bereft of spirituality and meaning; a world in which we have even made ourselves comfortable living in, despite it being merely a place of refuge in exile.

Read All at :

Where did the Temple go?!

Posted using ShareThis

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: MATTOT MASSEI: PEACE IN THE HEART

MATTOT MASSEI: PEACE IN THE HEART

by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman

"Peace is the greatest blessing. Speech is what makes us human. Keeping our word makes us close to Divine."

This week's commentary is dedicated to the memory of my holy father, I.J. Melman, whose yahrzeit is on this coming Sunday, Tammuz 27. His life was dedicated to transforming the world and making it better and closer through kindness and the promise of technology.

When he was just seven he asked his Rebbe at Chaim Berlin Yeshiva, if it is forbidden to light a fire on Shabbos, then why did G*d command Aaron to light the menorah each day, even on Shabbos, and to bring not one, but two offerings on Shabbos in the Holy Temple, in the Beit HaMiqdash? What a holy, deep question! But he was beaten for asking it and so his father took him out of yeshiva, and sent him to public school, for no one should ever hit a child for asking good questions! That is not the way of Torah! But the Torah's loss was the world's gain!

He went on to develop the first color television, the first fax machine, the infrared detectors the first satellites in space used for navigation, and night vision technology, emergency lights and computer infomatics, and was a founding member of the IEEE and the National Color Standards Commission.

This week's reading speaks about peace. About peace in the home/heart/hearth and peace in the nation. The parsha opens with an admonition to the tribal heads to tell the people that they must keep their oaths and not break their word. The spoken word is sacred.

Immediately thereafter it deals with vows made by a woman, and their possible annulment by her husband and/or father. How do these ideas connect? The linkage is the concept we call Shalom Bayit- Peace in the Home. Peace on the macro level and peace on the micro level. Peace in the national home and peace in the domestic home. Peace in the individual home between husband and wife, and peace in the House of Israel between the tribes. And most importantly, peace in the heart!
Read All at :

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: MATTOT MASSEI: PEACE IN THE HEART

UNIVERSAL TORAH: MATOS

UNIVERSAL TORAH: MATOS


By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum

Torah Reading: MATOS: Numbers 30:2-32:42

MAS'EI: Numbers 33:1-36:13.

On this Shabbos we complete our annual study of the book of BAMIDBAR (Numbers) by reading its two lengthy closing parshiyos, MATOS and MAS'EY, together. In most years these two parshiyos are read on one Shabbos to ensure that we begin reading the book of DEVARIM (Deuteronomy), with its central theme of TESHUVAH -- coming home to G-d -- on the last Shabbos prior to the fast of 9th Av commemorating the destruction of the Holy Temple.

As discussed in earlier commentaries, Genesis is the "head" of the Torah, Exodus the "arms" (the "outstretched arm" of redemption), Leviticus the "heart", Numbers the "legs" (journeying through the wilderness to reach the Land) and Deuteronomy the "mouth", trumpeting forth: "Hear O Israel!" Coming at the end of the book of Numbers, these two parshiyos show us the Children of Israel at the end of their journeying in the wilderness, assembled in the plains of Moab, facing Jericho, poised to enter the Land. It was here that Moses delivered his final discourses, which make up the book of Deuteronomy. The various Messianic themes and allusions in this week's double parshah make them appropriate reading for the central Shabbos of the Three Week period of mourning for the lost Temples, which is a preparation for the Restoration quickly in our days. [KINOT, "lamentations" = TIKUN, "rectification.]

PARSHAS MATOS

The uniqueness of the prophecy of Moses is seen in the opening words of parshas MATOS introducing the laws of vows. "And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel saying, THIS is the word that G-d has commanded." (Numbers 30:2). There are various levels of prophecy, which may come through "a clear glass" or through a "dim glass". The latter is the case in countless verses in the prophetic literature where the prophet says "KO -- So said HaShem", indicating that the words of the prophecy are LIKE -- resemble -- the actual Truth, yet they are merely similar, an evocation of something that in itself is actually much higher. Moses himself also prophesied using the comparative expression KO, as in Exodus 11:4. However, as Rashi points out (in his comment on Numbers 30:2), unique among all the prophets, Moses also used the expression ZEH HADAVAR -- "THIS is the word", the actual word of G-d. For Moses revealed the very P'NIMIUT, the "inner essence" of G-d, like no other prophet.

* * *

WORDS AND COMMITMENTS

An important theme in Parshas MATOS is the care with which we must use words and language because of their very great power -- language is the "glass" that may either reflect or obscure the truth. "When a man wants to make a vow to HaShem or to swear an oath placing a prohibition upon himself, he must not profane his word. He must do according to all that comes forth from his mouth." (Numbers 30:3).

We live in an age when streams of verbiage flow forth at us in such quantities from all directions -- billboards, papers, magazines, TV, radio, Internet and on and on -- that we can easily become almost completely desensitized to words, their meaning and importance. We take it for granted that politicians make promises and undertakings which they have no intention of keeping; that "experts" shoot forth with torrents of instant comment which are as enduring as rotten fruit; that commercial advertising has turned the destruction of language into an art-form; that the media are filled with every kind of irreverence and unholiness.

As a medicine against this desensitization, the Torah asks us to think hard about the words we bring forth from our own mouths, and particularly the personal commitments we make. While we often focus on language as the means of communication with each other, with ourselves and with G-d, the concept of the vow is one where we use our G-d-given gift of speech to elevate ourselves spiritually. One might take a vow to dedicate something of worth to the Temple or charity, or to erect a personal boundary and abstain from some undesirable behavior that has proved a pitfall for oneself and others. The father of the vow was Jacob, when he came to Mount Moriah and had his dream of the ladder. In the morning, he set up a stone, the prototype Temple Altar, and vowed that if G-d would protect him and provide his needs, he would make this the House of G-d and tithe all he received (Genesis 28:20). [David the Messiah also swore and vowed he would not rest until he found a place and a dwelling-place for G-d, the Holy Temple -- Psalms 132:1-5.]

Because of the extreme seriousness of an oath or vow to G-d, the Torah Codes advise us not to take actual oaths or vows unless we are thoroughly conversant with the intricacies of their laws. Much of the discussion in the relevant Talmudic tractates of Nedarim, Nazir and Shavuos is bound up with careful analyses of the meanings and implications of different kinds of phraseology. The larger part of the section on vows in our parshah is taken up with special laws that apply to vows made by an unmarried, betrothed or married woman, which may be nullified by her father and/or husband. This is because vows she may make even with the best intentions could cause complications in her domestic life that might affect others (e.g. if she were to vow to abstain from certain foods or not to use cosmetics, etc.). Her freedom is circumscribed by her responsibilities to others, and the Torah gives her father and/or husband the last word on whether to uphold her vows. Indeed we should not make vows or commitments that can affect others detrimentally. The point is not to deter us from making commitments, but rather to impress upon us the care with which we should go about making them and the seriousness with which we must uphold them.

* * *

THE WAR AGAINST MIDIAN

It is significant that the final war fought by the Children of Israel prior to their entry into the land was the war for sexual morality -- to rectify the degradation of the sin of BAAL PE'OR as described at the end of parshas BALAK. The crafty Bilaam knew that sexual sin is the undoing of the holiness of Israel and the Midianites took his advice to entice the Israelites to take the short road from immorality to idolatry. The true holiness of the Land of Israel can be revealed only when the Land is cleansed of sexual immorality and degradation. [Similarly, Jacob went back to Beit El only after vengeance for the rape of Dinah and cleansing his house of idolatry, Genesis ch. 34-5.] It was to bring moral cleansing that 1000 warriors from each of the Twelve Tribes went out against the Midianites, together with Pinchas, who was weighed against all of them. Pinchas was the hero of moral cleansing ever since he killed the Prince of the Tribe of Shimon and his Midianite woman.

The warriors return from this war with war booty, which is documented in detail in our Parshah. When we overcome the war against immorality, we can reclaim the lost booty -- the energy that was degraded to the level of the animal, and which can now be elevated and used in pursuit of the holy. However, what Israel takes from the nations must be purified. It was necessary to kill the Midianite males -- the concept of the active MASHPIAH (source of influence) -- for the active immoral influence had to be destroyed. However, those women who had not "known" a male could be saved: that which is receptive to the Israelite influence can be reclaimed. The material wealth taken from the Midianites also had to be purified. A percentage had to be dedicated to the Temple, and even that which could be released for personal use had to be purified.

Our parshah is thus an important source for the laws of purification of vessels of metal, wood or other materials that had previously been in the possession of and used by non-Israelites (Numbers 31:21-4). "Every thing (literally, word) that can come into fire you must pass through the fire and it will be pure, but it must be purified with the waters of NIDAH, whileall that cannot come into fire you must pass through the water." From this are derived the laws of kashering utensils that have absorbed forbidden substances, and the laws of immersing vessels in a kosher mikveh. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (Likutey Moharan I:4) points to the esoteric meaning of these laws, which teach how to repent for our sins. If we sinfully took our holy powers and energies and burned them up in the fires of animal lust, we must take "what came into fire" and "pass it through the fire". We must repent by confessing our sins with words of fire, burning them up with holy intensity, the fire of our passion to now rectify and elevate our energies. And so too, the pure waters of the Torah, the mikveh, purify the vessel, the body.

* * *

THE SONS OF REUVEN AND GAD'S CONDITION

Following the war with Midian, the account of the request of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to take their share of the Land in the conquered territories EAST of the River Jordan and Moses' response is written Torah proof of the Children of Israel's possession of these territories in the true "final settlement".

Were the Sons of Reuven and Gad really more interested in pasture-lands for their cattle than having a share in the Promised Land? The Aramaic Targum of Onkelos reveals what is concealed beneath the Torah verse detailing the locations east of the Jordan upon which the Sons of Reuven and Gad had set their eyes. These include MOUNT NEVO, which the Targum informs us is the burial-place of Moses (Numbers 32:3). That was what the sons of Reuven and Gad had set their eyes on. They already knew what Breslovers know about the grave of Rabbi Nachman, what Lubavitchers have learned about the Ohel of the Rebbe, what those who frequent Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's gravesite in Meiron or the resting place of the Avot (Patriarchs) in the holy city of Hevron know. The greatest true wealth is our connection with the Tzaddikim who are the true Foundations of the Universe. The graves of the true Tzaddikim are points where the physical interconnects with the spiritual, and where we can make a connection with G-d's truth.

Even so, Moses scolded the Sons of Reuven and Gad for wanting to stay out of the Land, suggesting that they were like the Spies whose perverted use of language led the hearts of the Israelites astray. Coming after the laws of purified language -- vows and oaths -- at the beginning of our parshah, Moses' binding of the Sons of Reuven and Gad with a detailed set of conditions is another lesson in the precision with which we must use language. We have to make commitments, and we have to keep them. We must take care with the way we formulate our commitments, and care to carry them out.

The Sons of Reuven and Gad were committed to supporting their brother Israelites in conquering the Land. This should serve as a model for those who reside outside the Land, whose share in the Land is strengthened by giving support to those who live in it and fight the war there every day.

Parshas MATOS concludes with a detailed account of the territories given by Moses to the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half of Menasheh east of the River Jordan. These include all of the mountain and valley areas from north of the River Arnon, which flows into Yam HaMelach (the "Dead" Sea) up to Chavot Yair, which are the lands south east of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee).

* * *

UNIVERSAL TORAH: MAS'EI

By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum

Torah Reading: MAS'EI: Numbers 33:1-36:13.

Already in MATOS when Moses castigated the Sons of Reuven and Gad with being like the Ten Spies, the theme of Moses' reproof enters the Torah, and it continues in MAS'EY and in the book of Deuteronomy. After the events of the forty years wandering, which we have studied in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, the time has come to begin to review the lessons and reduce them to their essentials.

MAS'EY begins with a review of the forty years wandering. On the surface, the list of encampments and journeyings seems prosaic. However, the second Targum on the Torah, that of Rabbi Yonasan ben Uziel, disciple of Hillel, fills in much of the moral significance of the different staging posts in those difficult years, showing that the list itself is a form of reproof. It teaches us that there are times when we must look back, review and draw conclusions and lessons from the past. This is particularly necessary when we stand on the brink of new challenges, as in the case of the Children of Israel, who stood poised to conquer the Land.

Included in the account of the wanderings is a reference to the death of Aaron the High Priest, specifying the date of his ascent to the mountain to die -- the first day of the fifth month, which is the month of Av. This is a reminder to us that the present year is beginning to draw to a close, with only two months to go before the Day of Judgment, Rosh HaShanah, the New Year. As we proceed in the period of Repentance (the Three Weeks, followed by Elul and Tishri) we should take time to review our lives and reflect on where we are trying to go. This way we will be prepared for the challenges of the coming year -- the Conquest of the Land.

* * *

THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND AND ITS CONQUEST

Parshas MAS'EY provides the detailed topography of the boundaries of the Land of Israel, prefixed by G-d's commandment to the Children of Israel to destroy all the evil influences in the Land to make it a place fit for the exalted mission instituted by the Fathers of the World, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For Israel, with Jerusalem at its center and its eternal capital, is to be the source of Torah and Light for all the nations. "For the Torah will go forth from Zion and the Word of HaShem from Yerushalayim". The Torah warns clearly that unless all the evil influences are removed from the Land, they will be "like pins in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will persecute you over the land in which you are dwelling" (Numbers 33:55).

The Boundaries of the Land are given as a COMMANDMENT (Numbers 34:2). While nobody doubts that the true Land of Israel includes all the territories west of the River Jordan, few are aware of where the southern and northern borders of the biblical Promised Land actually are.

Of course the Land will only become Israel's without contest when Israel will fulfill its part of the Conditions of G-d's Covenant to give them the Land. (The section in MATOS about the Conditions with which Moses bound the Sons of Reuven and Gad is also a lesson about Conditions, to which Moses returns again and again in his discourses in Deuteronomy: "If you will do this. and if you will not.")

* * *

THE LEVITICAL CITIES AND THE CITIES OF REFUGE

Since the Levites did not have a share in the Land, they were given forty-two cities of their own up and down the Land together with all the necessary surrounding areas. The Levitical Cities indicate the distinctive nature of the Land of Israel in contrast to all other lands. It's social geography is centered upon a network of cities where people are free from the immediate requirement to make a living (the Levites received tithes) in order to devote themselves to the study and teaching of G-d's Law. Thus everyone in the Land is always near a center of study and near to someone they can ask for guidance.

The Torah's abhorrence for killing and murder iexpressed in the portion that gives the laws of unintentional manslaughter and deliberate murder (Numbers 35:9ff). Not only has our world become desensitized to language, as discussed above. It has also been desensitized to the evil of killing and murder, which are openly celebrated be terrorists as "religious acts", while the TV and movies provide an endless diet of violence to the population.

The spilling of blood is a crime against the Land, and the holiness of the Land of Israel will only shine again when we can cleanse ourselves of this terrible scourge and re-establish the Law of the Torah, which outshines and transcends all manmade laws. The Torah not only teaches the evil of killing and murder but has no compunction about imposing all necessary sanctions in order to eliminate them, including the death penalty. Even one who had committed an unintentional manslaughter had to hide himself away from the rest of society in a city of refuge, unlike today, where killers with blood on their hands are released from jail and celebrated as heroes.

"And you shall not pollute the Land in which you dwell that I dwell in its midst, for I am HaSheM dwelling among the Children of Israel" (Numbers 35:34). Speedily in our days. Amen.

Shabbat Shalom!!!

Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum

--
AZAMRA INSTITUTE
PO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 Israel
Website: www.azamra.org

_____________________________
Change email address / Leave mailing list:
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...